National Academy of Sciences | 150 Year Anniversary

Questions? Call 800-624-6242

| Items in cart [0]

The National Academies Press

Rights & Permissions

topleft topright

TCRP Report 138: Estimating Soft Costs for Major Public Transportation Fixed Guideway Projects (2010)
Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP)

Citation Manager

Transportation Research Board. "Later Phases." TCRP Report 138: Estimating Soft Costs for Major Public Transportation Fixed Guideway Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2010.

Please select a format:

BibTeX EndNote RefMan


Page
14
bottomleft bottomright
Page
14
Front Matter (R1-R9)
Part 1: Guidebook (1-2)
Introduction (3-3)
Chapter 1 - What Are Soft Costs and Why Do They Matter? (4-4)
Chapter 2 - How and Who This Guidebook Helps: Audience and Circumstances (5-5)
Definition of Soft Costs (6-6)
What Are the Components of Soft Costs? (7-7)
Typical versus Less Typical Soft Costs (8-8)
What Soft Costs Are Not: It Depends on Perspective (9-10)
When Does FTA Ask for Soft Cost Estimates? (11-11)
Characteristics of the Federal Process That Affect Soft Costs (12-12)
Federal versus Non-Federal Projects (13-13)
Later Phases (14-15)
How Does This Practice Compare with Actual Costs? (16-17)
Art versus Science (18-18)
Quantifying Soft Costs (19-19)
Four-Step Process (20-24)
Applying These Steps: Two Example Projects (25-29)
Appendix A - FTA Capital Cost Database (30-31)
Appendix B - Soft Cost Estimation Worksheet (32-33)
Appendix C - Glossary (34-36)
Part 2: Final Report (37-39)
S.1. Definition of Soft Costs (40-40)
S.2. Soft Cost Estimation: State of the Practice (41-42)
S.4. A New Approach to Estimate Soft Costs (43-43)
S.5. Future Research Direction (44-44)
1.2. Background (45-45)
1.3. Definition of Soft Costs (46-47)
1.4. Organization of This Report (48-48)
2.1. Papers and Websites (49-49)
2.3. Textbooks and Technical Books (50-50)
2.5. European Sources (51-51)
2.6. Summary and Conclusion (52-52)
3.1. In-Depth Interviews with Professional Cost Estimators (53-54)
3.3. Questionnaire Results: Magnitude of Estimated Soft Costs (55-59)
3.4. Questionnaire Results: Drivers Identified (60-61)
3.5. Questionnaire Results: Impact of Drivers (62-65)
4.2. Data Source: FTA Capital Cost Database (66-67)
4.3. Potential Issues in Soft Cost Categorization (68-69)
4.4. Historical Soft Costs (70-76)
4.5. Relationships between Cost Drivers and Historical Soft Costs (77-87)
5.2. Soft Cost Estimation: State of the Practice (88-88)
5.3. As-Built Cost Analysis (89-89)
5.4. Future Research Directions (90-90)
Bibliography (91-92)
Appendix A - Cost Estimators Interviewed (93-93)
B.1. Data Sources for Project Descriptions (94-94)
B.2. Project Descriptions (95-107)
C.2. Adjustments Addressing Different Cost Categorization (108-108)
C.5. Vehicle Soft Costs (109-109)
C.6. Soft Costs by Mode and Year (110-112)
C.7. Soft Costs by Complexity: Overall Project Size (113-116)
C.8. Soft Costs by Complexity: New versus Extension (117-118)
C.9. Soft Costs by Complexity: Percentage of Guideway Not at Grade (119-120)
C.10. Soft Costs by Complexity: Percentage of Guideway Below Grade (121-122)
C.11. Relationships Among Other Category Unit Costs (123-124)
C.13. Soft Costs and Project Development Budget (125-126)
C.14. Soft Costs and Project Development Schedule (127-129)
C.15. Vertical Profile and Soft Cost Measurement (130-130)
C.16. Isolating Agency-Specific Effects (131-134)
Abbreviations used without definitions in TRB publications (135-135)

Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 14
CHAPTER 5 How Does the Construction Industry Estimate Soft Costs? Sponsors of major new transit projects approach estimating soft costs differently, depending on how far along the project is in the planning process. Early Phases During the early phases of planning (alternatives analysis or preliminary engineering), a transit project is only conceptually defined, as are the soft costs. At these early stages, transportation planners usually identify a single corridor for construction but develop a range of options for more specific details such as mode, alignment, station locations, and, as a result, construction costs. Therefore, soft costs are usually treated as percentage add-ons to estimates of hard construction costs, as shown in Exhibit 6. Cost estimators apply default unit costs to approximate construction quantities, remediation, and other hard costs, and then simply add a percentage of hard costs for an initial soft cost estimate. How do cost estimators choose these percentages? They typically apply values for each soft cost component from a range based on historical experience and project characteristics, or soft cost "drivers." For example, most estimators will choose higher multipliers for heavy rail than for bus rapid transit and lower multipliers if the sponsor plans to contract the project with an alternative delivery mechanism such as design­build. Exhibit 7 provides a more complete list, and Chapter 6 demonstrates a technique to tailor a soft cost estimate to a project. How large are the soft cost percentages? Based on a survey of cost estimators at transit agen- cies and consultants across the country, most cost estimators start with a midpoint for these add-ons representing around 25­35% of construction costs, as Exhibit 8 indicates. However, cost estimators almost always adjust up or down from these midpoints, so the ranges from which estimators choose the percentages extend higher or lower than these midpoints. Later Phases During the final design phase and as construction begins, estimates of soft costs based on a percentage of construction cost are replaced with more closely tailored, bottom-up estimates that are based on a more detailed understanding of the project than was available in earlier stages. Rather than simply multiplying a construction cost estimate by a percentage, project managers usually develop their own soft cost estimates based on project characteristics that are known with better certainty at this stage, such as the project's work breakdown structure, staffing plans, design contract(s), and even the number and complexity of design drawings. For instance, administra- tion costs may be estimated based on an estimated headcount and project duration, which are in turn based on the construction schedule and number of contracts. 16

OCR for page 15
How Does the Construction Industry Estimate Soft Costs? 17 Construction Cost Guideway $ Stations $ Maintenance Yard $ Etc. $ TOTAL $ Soft Costs x Percentage = $ Vehicle Cost Vehicles $ Vehicle Soft Costs $ TOTAL $ Real Estate Cost Acquisitions $ RE Soft Costs $ TOTAL $ TOTAL PROJECT COST $ Exhibit 6. Cost estimation in early project phases. Since the project's specific characteristics are more well-defined in these later stages, sponsors also have a better idea of soft costs that are highly dependent on the specific project sponsor, such as: · Whether a third party will be managing construction; · How the sponsor will account for agency staff salaries and wages; · Who will bear insurance costs (sponsor agency or contractors); and · If the project will require significant effort for environmental work, permits, or public involvement. LOWER % MIXED/MID-RANGE HIGHER % SOFT COSTS % SOFT COSTS SOFT COSTS MODE Bus Rapid Transit Commuter Rail Heavy Rail Light Rail PROJECT DELIVERY Design­Build Design­Bid­Build Design­Build­Operate­Maintain Full Turnkey ALIGNMENT Elevated Alignment Tunnel Alignment OTHER CONDITIONS New Right-of-Way Differing Subsurface Conditions Exhibit 7. Project characteristics guiding soft cost percentage estimates within a range.