Estimating Soft Costs for Major Public Transportation Fixed Guideway Projects (2010) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 37-134
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 37... ...
Final Report P A R T 2
|
From page 38... ...
A New Approach to Estimate Soft Costs 9 S.5. Future Research Direction 10 Chapter 1 Introduction 10 1.1.
|
From page 39... ...
Soft Costs and Project Development Schedule 95 C.15. Vertical Profile and Soft Cost Measurement 96 C.16.
|
From page 40... ...
Please refer to the Guidebook for a summary of how the results of the research presented here can be applied to practice, including an introduction to "soft costs" and a new methodology to estimate these soft costs based on historical projects. To support the development of a guidebook for agencies on soft costs, this report: • Identifies a working definition of soft costs, • Describes the current industry practice of estimating soft costs through a questionnaire of the transit industry and interviews with industry professionals, • Statistically analyzes the as-built costs of 59 past transit projects to determine how project characteristics have driven soft costs historically, and • Introduces a new methodology for estimating soft costs based on actual past expenditures, presented in the Guidebook.
|
From page 41... ...
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. Most attention is on construction costs at this phase since soft costs are difficult to predict given the conceptual nature of the project.
|
From page 42... ...
Midpoint soft cost estimates for all components during project planning phases. LOWER % SOFT COSTS MODE PROJECT DELIVERY Bus Rapid Transit Design–Build MIXED/MID-RANGE % SOFT COSTS Commuter Rail Light Rail Design–Bid–Build Elevated Alignment New Right-of-Way HIGHER % SOFT COSTS Heavy Rail Tunnel Alignment Differing Subsurface Conditions Design–Build–Operate–Maintain Full Turnkey ALIGNMENT OTHER CONDITIONS Table 2.
|
From page 43... ...
Light Rail Heavy Rail Figure 3. Historical soft costs by project and mode (outliers excluded)
|
From page 44... ...
Finally, the methodology to estimate soft costs for public transportation infrastructure projects developed here is based on past heavy and light rail construction projects and is therefore not entirely applicable to other prevalent public transportation capital infrastructure projects such as bus rapid transit (BRT) , commuter rail, streetcar, or state-of-goodrepair projects to repair or replace aging infrastructure.
|
From page 45... ...
While research on the transit industry has focused primarily on hard construction costs and estimation techniques, relatively little literature exists on the composition and estimation of soft costs for transit projects. Historically, soft costs have accounted for a significant portion of a capital project's total expenditures, yet many agencies know little about soft costs.
|
From page 46... ...
For example, the SCC 50 Systems cost category includes separate components for Train Control, Traction Power, Communications, and Fare Collection. Standard Cost Category 80, Professional Services, consists of eight separate components that together encompass all services and activities commonly associated with project soft costs (although some exceptions are discussed below)
|
From page 47... ...
The construction contractor, in turn, may view some portion of their total construction contract as indirect or soft costs for their organization, such as the cost of contract administration, home office overhead, and related expenses that are built into the contract amount. These indirect costs represent real costs of doing business to the construction contractor, but since they cannot be clearly attributable to a specific project, the construction contractor is likely to charge various projects in some proportional manner.
|
From page 48... ...
1.4. Organization of This Report This report consists of five broad sections: • A literature review on the definition and components of soft costs; • Results from an industry questionnaire and interviews about how soft costs are estimated; • Analysis of the relationship between project characteristics and actual as-built soft costs from 59 past rail projects, including univariate and multivariate analyses; • A summary of the analysis underlying the Guidebook's new soft-cost estimation technique; and • Concluding remarks and directions for future research.
|
From page 49... ...
. In a typical accounting summary of construction costs on a new project it is normal for soft costs to comprise up to 30% of total expenses.
|
From page 50... ...
Since the purpose of this guide is to help project sponsors estimate project soft costs with greater accuracy, this analysis takes the perspective of the project sponsor and treats the general conditions and home office overhead as construction costs.
|
From page 51... ...
Sources were reviewed in places including Germany, the United Kingdom, and Switzerland. It appears that the term "soft costs" is not used to identify non-construction costs.
|
From page 52... ...
2.6. Summary and Conclusion In general, despite minor differences, the various definitions of soft costs in the professional publications are generally consistent.
|
From page 53... ...
As a result, most attention focuses on hard costs, not soft costs, at this stage. Because of the conceptual nature of the project and the emphasis on hard costs at this stage, soft costs are usually treated as percentage add-ons to estimates of hard construction costs.
|
From page 54... ...
Some redesign may be necessary for differing or unexpected site conditions. Once construction is underway, the management interface between agency and contractor is the most important determinant of soft cost expenditures; other potential factors have relatively little influence on soft costs at this point.
|
From page 55... ...
Several respondents noted other soft costs that are estimated on some basis other than a fixed percentage of construction costs. For example: • Respondent 7 usually reserves around $1 million for a before-and-after study, regardless of relative project magnitude; • Respondent 9 estimates resource needs for agency force account and flagging work on a projectspecific basis, without using a percentage; and • Similarly, respondent 10 estimates startup costs not as a percentage of construction costs but on a project-specific basis.
|
From page 56... ...
Table 6. Summary of soft cost percentages reported in questionnaire.
|
From page 57... ...
Note that the percentages for respondents 1 and 2 include an estimate of preliminary engineering soft costs as well. Responses were more varied as to the percentage of construction costs estimated for project management, construction management, and administration, as Figure 7 shows.
|
From page 58... ...
The division of management labor between agency staff, management contractor, and construction contractor can differ depending on the sponsor agency. Figure 8 and Figure 9 show that sponsors typically estimate around 2–4% of construction costs for insurance and legal soft costs, and another 1–2% for the cost of surveys, testing, and other costs.
|
From page 59... ...
24 Estimating Soft Costs for Major Public Transportation Fixed Guideway Projects 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Questionnaire Respondent In su ra nc e + Le ga l C os t E st im at e (% of C on str uc tio n) Upper Bound Midpoint Lower Bound Figure 8.
|
From page 60... ...
, estimators were requested to identify "cost drivers" that would have high, moderate, or minimal/no impact on soft costs in percentage terms. The results of this part of the questionnaire are presented in Table 8.
|
From page 61... ...
Soft cost drivers identified by questionnaire respondents.
|
From page 62... ...
However, the table shows that, relative to light rail, estimators generally estimate higher soft costs for heavy rail projects, and only moderately higher for commuter rail projects. The results for BRT are mixed; one respondent predicted higher costs in some areas but lower in others, while another respondent predicted lower costs generally.
|
From page 63... ...
Table 9. Impact of mode on soft cost estimate.
|
From page 64... ...
Impact of project complexity on soft cost estimate.
|
From page 65... ...
Table 11. Impact of project delivery method on soft cost estimate.
|
From page 66... ...
Over the period of 1984 through 2008, 29 light rail projects were constructed, and 30 heavy rail projects date from 1974 through 2005. This project cost database includes the costs of 59 projects of various sizes, ranging from $100 million to over $2 billion, and represents new rail line segments, extensions of existing networks, and several rehabilitation and replacement projects.
|
From page 67... ...
8.00 Soft Costs 90 Unallocated Contingency 100 Finance Charges Table 12. Light and heavy rail capital cost categories correspondence table.
|
From page 68... ...
Construction midpoint (year) Revenue service begins (year)
|
From page 69... ...
• Agency capital program policies – The financial and administrative policies of the sponsoring agency can affect how soft costs are reported for a capital project, which could affect the amount and proportion of soft costs Term Used Here Light Rail Cost Categories Applied from Table 12 Heavy Rail Cost Categories Applied from Table 12 Soft costs as % of total costs [80]
|
From page 70... ...
Total project costs are described using the following categories: Soft, Vehicle, and Construction costs. Soft costs are then examined as a proportion of the Construction Costs category and then further examined by individual soft cost components.
|
From page 71... ...
Note that in Figures 14 through 18, 20, and 22, the historical projects are ordered in terms of increasing soft costs as a percentage of construction costs, with separate ordering for light rail and heavy rail projects. To explore the wide range in this soft cost measure, the individual cost components that compose total soft costs were analyzed.
|
From page 72... ...
Soft cost components as percentage of total soft costs.
|
From page 73... ...
However, the range of total soft costs has been as low as 11.4% for one project and as high as 53.6% for another project, after excluding outliers. To test the hypothesis that soft-cost component costs may have been inadvertently assigned and reported to a related soft cost component, the analysis grouped some related soft cost components and subtotaled them into the following three soft-cost component categories: • Pre-construction costs (design and engineering)
|
From page 74... ...
Subtotaled soft cost components as a percentage of total soft costs.
|
From page 75... ...
Therefore this analysis focuses on measuring soft costs as a percentage of all other costs, as a percentage of construction costs, and in dollars per linear foot of guideway. Figure 21 compares measuring soft costs as a percentage of all other total costs (i.e., all other costs besides soft costs themselves)
|
From page 76... ...
Soft costs per linear foot of constructed guideway by project and mode. Soft Costs per Linear Foot Average $ 2,572 5,726$ 4,044$ Minimum $ 335 1,191$ 335$ Maximum $ 6,201 9,728$ 9,728$ $$2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000 $12,000 Light Rail Heavy Rail Light & Heavy Rail So ft Co st s pe r L in ea r F oo t Figure 23.
|
From page 77... ...
Second, this research tested a multitude of combinations of soft cost drivers and their effect on soft costs in a multivariate regression. Project characteristics were the independent variables, and soft costs as percent of construction costs acted as the dependent variable.
|
From page 78... ...
The amount spent on soft costs appears to vary little depending on mode, as indicated in the left pane. Light rail projects averaged 33.8%, heavy rail projects averaged 28.0%, and the combined database projects averaged 30.9% of soft cost percentage of construction.
|
From page 79... ...
on soft costs in dollar terms. Total soft costs are presented in the left pane, and engineer44 Estimating Soft Costs for Major Public Transportation Fixed Guideway Projects LIGHT RAIL HEAVY RAIL LIGHT + HEAVY RAIL Sample Size: 27.3%29.9% 25.6% 36.3% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% DBB DB CM/GC DBB DB CM/GC So ft Co st s (% of C on str uc tio n)
|
From page 80... ...
Figure 29 expresses soft costs in dollars per linear foot and shows that soft costs indeed rise as greater portions of the alignment are not at grade. As-Built Soft Cost Analysis 45 LIGHT RAIL HEAVY RAIL LIGHT + HEAVY RAIL R2 = 0.04 t-Stat = 0.94 R2 = 0.04 t-Stat = 0.941 R2 = 0.01 t-Stat: -0.51 R2 = 0.04 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 0% 25% 75% 100% 100%100% % of Guideway Not At-Grade So ft Co st s (% of C on str uc tio n)
|
From page 81... ...
In general, Figure 30 tends to confirm this hypothesis: in dollar terms, soft costs increase proportionately to construction costs. The correlations shown are strong and statistically signif46 Estimating Soft Costs for Major Public Transportation Fixed Guideway Projects LIGHT RAIL HEAVY RAIL LIGHT + HEAVY RAIL R2 = 0.35 t-Stat = 3.45 R2 = 0.01 t-Stat = 0.52 R2 = 0.36 t-Stat: 4.88 R2 = 0.35 $$2 $4 $6 $8 $10 $12 0% 25% 75% % Guideway Not At-Grade So ft Co st s (00 0)
|
From page 82... ...
Figure 32 summarizes the relationship between soft costs and three other project characteristics: whether the project required a direct interface with existing service, whether political or public influence was unusually high, and whether public involvement or opposition was significant. As Figure 32 shows, a project that requires a direct connection or interface with existing revenue service, such as a line extension, a new branch intersecting an existing line, or the rehabilitation of an existing line, tends to show somewhat higher soft costs.
|
From page 83... ...
Soft costs versus use of contractors, redesign required, and lengthy project development phase.
|
From page 84... ...
, and an indicator of an unusually lengthy project development phase were the best predictors of soft cost percentages. Heavy rail projects tend to incur somewhat higher soft costs than light rail, other things being equal, perhaps due to their relative complexity.
|
From page 85... ...
, and • Direct interface with existing revenue service required. Delivery Method A dummy variable indicating whether the project sponsor chose an alternative project delivery method (i.e., a method that is not the traditional design–bid–build)
|
From page 86... ...
As-Built Soft Cost Analysis 51 Variable Name Unit Coefficient t-Stat Guideway alignment length 10,000 linear feet 1.4% 2.69 Construction costs Billions, 2008$ -5.9% -2.49 Mode Dummy, heavy rail = 1 6.0% 1.64 Installation conditions Dummy, no active service = 1 -3.8% -1.25 Delivery method Dummy, non-DBB = 1 -7.2% -2.10 Economic conditions GDP % annual growth -1.4% -2.34 Unusually long project development phase Dummy, yes = 1 7.1% 2.08 Unusual political influence Dummy, yes = 1 6.6% 2.22 Agency tendency to minimize capital charges Dummy, yes = 1 -6.0% -1.65 Years from 2008 Years -0.4% 2.22 Table 15. Multivariate regression results on soft costs as a percentage of construction costs.
|
From page 87... ...
4.5.8. Preparing Multivariate Results for Use in Guidebook Alternative multivariate regressions were examined using different actual soft cost components (rather than total soft costs)
|
From page 88... ...
During alternative analysis through preliminary engineering, soft costs are estimated for each cost component as a percentage of hard construction costs. Estimators begin with a range of percentages for each soft cost component and apply a value within that range to a specific project based on knowledge about the project and its sponsor.
|
From page 89... ...
• More expensive construction projects tend to display somewhat smaller soft cost percentages, other things being equal. • Heavy rail projects tend to incur somewhat higher soft costs than light rail, perhaps due to their relative complexity and higher engineering standards.
|
From page 90... ...
Moreover, a comprehensive industry outreach will provide further insight on context-specific soft cost estimation practices. Finally, the methodology to estimate soft costs for public transportation infrastructure projects developed here is based on past heavy and light rail construction projects and is therefore not entirely applicable to other prevalent public transportation capital infrastructure projects such as BRT, commuter rail, streetcar, or other state-of-good-repair projects to repair or replace aging infrastructure.
|
From page 91... ...
Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_w31.pdf (As of November 9, 2009)
|
From page 92... ...
. What Are Hard Costs & Soft Costs, Build Max Learning Center, http://www.buildmax.com/help/budgeting_ what_are_hard_costs_and_soft_costs.asp (As of October 5, 2007)
|
From page 93... ...
Mr. DeRose has worked on many large projects, including the Lincoln Center Development Corporation, preliminary and final design of the Second Avenue Subway, the New York City Water Tunnel project, the Queensboro Bridge, the Charles River Bridge crossing in Boston, the Amawalk and Titicus dams, rehabilitation of the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel, the Tappan Zee fender replacement, and the Hillview Reservoir wall extension and sediment removal.
|
From page 94... ...
Fol Sacramento Folsom Corridor 11.4 2002 Light DBB LA Gold Pasa Pasadena Gold Line 13.7 2002 Light DB Denver SW Denver Southwest Corridor 8.5 1999 Light DBB Pittsburgh II Pittsburgh Light Rail Stage II 5.5 2002 Light DBB LA Gold East Los Angeles Eastside Gold Line 5.9 2006 Light DB Phoenix Phoenix Central/East Valley Light Rail Line 19.6 2008 Light DB Portland So Portland South Corridor 6.5 2005 Light CM/GC Seattle Cen Seattle Central Link Light Rail Project 13.9 2006 Light DBB Pittsburgh N Pittsburgh Northshore Light Rail Connector 1.2 2008 Light DBB Table 16. Data on projects included in as-built cost analysis.
|
From page 95... ...
Midyear of Expend. Mode Delivery Method Charlotte Charlotte South Corridor 9.6 2005 Light DBB VTA Tas W VTA Tasman West 7.6 1999 Light DBB VTA Tas E VTA Tasman East 4.9 2004 Light DBB VTA Capitol VTA Capitol Segment – Connected to Tasman East 3.3 2004 Light DBB VTA Vasona VTA Vasona Segment 5.3 2005 Light DBB MARTA N-S Atlanta MARTA North-South Line 22.2 1984 Heavy DBB MARTA Dun Atlanta MARTA North Line Dunwoody Extension 7.0 1998 Heavy DBB MBTA Orang Boston MBTA Orange Line 4.7 1983 Heavy DBB Baltimore Baltimore MDMTA Metro Sections A and B 15.0 1982 Heavy DBB CTA Orange Chicago CTA – Southwest Orange Line 9.0 1990 Heavy DBB CTA O'Hare Chicago CTA – O'Hare Extension Blue Line 7.1 1981 Heavy DBB CTA Brown Chicago CTA Brown Line (Ravenswood)
|
From page 96... ...
This project encountered some complications in planning and design due to unexpected environmental review, state environmental laws, and an active political and stakeholder environment. San Jose North Corridor San Jose, CA Label: San Jose N Revenue service commenced in December 1987 in a small segment of the San Jose North Corridor that would become the first section built of a longer San Jose Guadalupe Corridor that would require two phases to reach completion.
|
From page 97... ...
San Diego Mission Valley East San Diego, CA Label: San Diego The Mission Valley East (MVE) project included in a new double-track light rail line that runs from the Mission San Diego Trolley station east of I-15 to the Grossmont Center Trolley station.
|
From page 98... ...
Construction began in May 2000, and revenue operations began in 2004. Portland Westside/Hillsboro MAX Portland, OR Label: Portland W The Westside/Hillsboro extension is an 18-mile light rail extension to the TriMet MAX Blue line from downtown Portland to Beaverton and Hillsboro.
|
From page 99... ...
Revenue service on the extension began in 2000. Pittsburgh Light Rail Stage II Pittsburgh, PA Label: Pittsburgh II The Stage II LRT Priority Project included the reconstruction of the Overbrook line, a 5.5-mile existing rail line, which had closed in 1993 because of the deterioration of old bridges.
|
From page 100... ...
It will originate at Union Station in downtown Los Angeles, where it connects to the Pasadena extension of the line and the heavy rail lines. The project alignment runs eastward along Alameda Street, 1st Street, and 3rd Street before terminating just before the intersection of Pomona and Atlantic Boulevards.
|
From page 101... ...
This project had an extensive public outreach and involvement process. VTA Tasman East San Jose, CA Label: VTA Tas E The Tasman East Project was a 4.9-mile light rail extension from the existing San Jose Guadalupe corridor Baypointe station to the Hostetter station.
|
From page 102... ...
This project had an extensive public outreach and involvement process. VTA Vasona Segment San Jose, CA Label: VTA Vasona The Vasona Light Rail Project is a 5.3-mile light rail extension from downtown San Jose to the Winchester Transit Center.
|
From page 103... ...
It connects the neighborhoods of Burbank, Bedford Park, Bridgeview, Hometown, Justice, Merrionette Park, Oak Lawn, and Summit to the downtown Chicago loop and connections with the other five heavy rail lines. The line opened for revenue service in 1993.
|
From page 104... ...
Los Angeles Red Line Los Angeles, CA Labels: LA Red 1, LA Red 2, LA Red 3 The Red Line is a heavy rail line in Los Angeles between Union Station and North Hollywood. This line opened for revenue service in three phases between 1993 and 2000.
|
From page 105... ...
Revenue service on the Shady Grove extension began in January 1977 with the opening of the Dupont Circle station. Revenue operations to the Van Ness-UDC station began in December 1981 and the full extension opened in December 1984.
|
From page 106... ...
The Springfield project extended Blue Line service 3.5 miles from the King Street station to the present terminus at the Franconia-Springfield station. Service with the Yellow Line south of Project Names and Descriptions in As-Built Analysis 71
|
From page 107... ...
In addition to rehabilitating 90-year-old platforms, the project included a new triple-vaulted glass and steel structure with solar panels on the roof. This project had an extensive public outreach process, including the existing ridership on NYCT service as a significant stakeholder.
|
From page 108... ...
To correct for small variations in reporting protocols, the following modifications were made. • Project Initiation: Cost category 8.07 in the heavy rail database, Project Initiation, contains two sub-items for Mobilization and Maintenance of Traffic which are reported under 8.00 Soft Costs.
|
From page 109... ...
However, these costs are largely a function of the financial structure and policies of the sponsor agency, and do not affect the relationship between project characteristics and construction-related soft costs. To ensure comparability, finance charges (8.08 for heavy rail and 100.00 for light rail)
|
From page 110... ...
The pattern shown in Figure 25 of increasing soft costs over time may in part be the result of no light rail projects from the 1970s being included in the dataset. Data Analysis Type Sample Size All projects in dataset 59 All projects used for analysis 51 Soft costs per linear foot 45 Soft cost subcomponents (engineering, management, etc.)
|
From page 111... ...
This analysis confirms that the overall correlation for all modes combined is statistically significant, but that heavy rail projects are primarily responsible for the pattern of rising soft costs over time. Although light rail projects show a limited correlation in the increasing relationship, heavy rail projects exhibit a stronger relationship in increasing soft costs over time.
|
From page 112... ...
LIGHT RAIL HEAVY RAIL LIGHT + HEAVY RAIL R2 = 0.04 t-Stat = 0.94 R2 = 0.32 t-Stat = 3.31 R2 = 0.20 t-Stat: 3.38 R2 = 0.04 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 1980 1990 2000 2010 Midyear of Expenditure M an ag em en t (% of C on str uc tio n) R2 = 0.32 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Midyear of Expenditure M an ag em en t (% of C on str uc tio n)
|
From page 113... ...
Soft costs of all kinds have risen since the 1970s, but the pattern is strongest in heavy rail projects. Causes of this trend may include increasingly stringent environmental or mitigation requirements, the trend from new construction toward extending existing rail lines, or changing institutional roles or construction management techniques.
|
From page 114... ...
Soft costs as a percentage of construction versus construction cost. LIGHT RAIL HEAVY RAIL LIGHT + HEAVY RAIL R2 = 0.00 t-Stat =- 0.16 R2 = 0.02 t-Stat =0 .65 R2 = 0.01 t-Stat: = -0.78 R2 = 0.00 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% $0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 Millions Construction Cost (2008$)
|
From page 115... ...
statistically significant decline in soft cost percentage with the increasing project construction cost. The heavy rail mode results are flat for the full range of construction costs, indicating that the increasing complexity of more expensive heavy rail projects requires greater soft cost resources through a consistent percentage of construction costs.
|
From page 116... ...
Locating and designing stations can present challenges to the project development process and could be factors influencing soft costs LIGHT RAIL HEAVY RAIL LIGHT + HEAVY RAIL R2 = 0.08 t-Stat = 1.33 R2 = 0.03 t-Stat =0 .88 R2 = 0.06 t-Stat: = 1.73 R2 = 0.08 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% $0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 Millions Construction Cost (2008$)
|
From page 117... ...
Soft costs as a percentage of construction versus constructed alignment length. LIGHT RAIL HEAVY RAIL LIGHT + HEAVY RAIL R2 = 0.01 t-Stat = -0.38 R2 = 0.13 t-Stat = 1.86 R2 = 0.03 t-Stat: = 1.18 R2 = 0.13 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% - 10 20 30 Stations PE + F D So ft Co st s (% of Co ns tru ct io n)
|
From page 118... ...
For both modes, and for both measures, average soft costs do not seem to change whether the project is a new line or an extension. Unexpectedly, extensions, not new rail lines, incurred slightly higher average soft cost percentages.
|
From page 119... ...
Heavy rail projects are about 10% to 15%, and the combined database is about 13%. Figure 54 examines the effect of alignment complexity on the construction management and project administration soft costs of a project.
|
From page 120... ...
Light rail projects are nearly flat at about 39% soft costs as a percentage of construction costs. Heavy rail projects range from about 28% to about 33%.
|
From page 121... ...
This report so far has used percentage of guideway not at grade as a proxy for complexity; however, the portion of guideway below grade may be a useful indicator of complexity as well. Tunneling and excavating may pro86 Estimating Soft Costs for Major Public Transportation Fixed Guideway Projects LIGHT RAIL HEAVY RAIL LIGHT + HEAVY RAIL R2 = 0.01 t-Stat = -0.35 R2 = 0.12 t-Stat = -1.74 R2 = 0.16 t-Stat: = -2.96 R2 = 0.12 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 0% % of Guideway Not At-Grade PE + F D (% of C on str uc tio n)
|
From page 122... ...
has a mixed effect on soft costs as a percentage of construction. Light rail projects showed a slight increase in soft cost percentages as percentage below grade increased, whereas heavy rail projects showed a slight decrease from 30% to 24% with higher proportions of below-grade guideway.
|
From page 123... ...
Measuring soft costs in per-linear-foot 88 Estimating Soft Costs for Major Public Transportation Fixed Guideway Projects LIGHT RAIL HEAVY RAIL LIGHT + HEAVY RAIL R2 = 0.02 t-Stat = -0.72 R2 = 0.06 t-Stat = -1.23 R2 = 0.07 t-Stat: -1.87 R2 = 0.06 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 0% 25% 75%75% % of Guideway Below Grade Ad m in .
|
From page 124... ...
Figure 62 shows that right-of-way costs grow along with sitework and special conditions costs. The relationship is weak, but this finding mildly supports the hypothesis that all categories of capital costs may be growing together, which may help explain the previous results showing that soft costs grow in dollar value, but not percentage terms in relation to complexity (i.e., in terms of percent of alignment not at grade or below grade)
|
From page 125... ...
Similarly, a project can face cost overruns during construction phases due to a variety of factors such as unforeseen subsurface conditions, inaccurate 90 Estimating Soft Costs for Major Public Transportation Fixed Guideway Projects LIGHT RAIL HEAVY RAIL LIGHT + HEAVY RAIL R2 = 0.12 t-Stat = -1.72 R2 = 0.37 t-Stat = -3.32 R2 = 0.30 t-Stat: = -4.27 R2 = 0.12 10% 100% $1,000 $10,000 $100,000 Construction Cost (2008$) per Linear Foot So ft Co st s (% of C on str uc tio n)
|
From page 126... ...
Soft costs as a percentage of construction with right of way costs as a percentage of total cost. LIGHT RAIL HEAVY RAIL LIGHT + HEAVY RAIL R2 = 0.00 t-Stat = -0.18 R2 = 0.00 t-Stat = 0.25 R2 = 0.00 t-Stat: -0.45 R2 = 0.00 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% $- $1 $2 $3 $4 Thousands ROW Cost (2008$)
|
From page 127... ...
92 Estimating Soft Costs for Major Public Transportation Fixed Guideway Projects Project Cost Estimated at PE As-Built Cost Actual Cost as % of PE Estimate Portland MAX Segment 1 $214.0 $246.8 115% Hudson-Bergen MOS-I $775.0 $1,113.0 144% Hiawatha Corridor $548.6 $715.3 130% Portland MAX Interstate $301.8 $349.4 116% St. Louis Clair County Extension $359.1 $336.5 94% Salt Lake North-South $261.3 $311.8 119% Portland MAX Westside/Hillsboro $913.0 $963.5 106% Pasadena Gold Line $803.8 $677.6 84% Denver Southwest Corridor $142.5 $175.0 123% Portland South Corridor $125.0 $127.0 102% VTA Tasman West $327.8 $280.6 86% VTA Tasman East $275.9 $276.2 100% VTA Capitol Segment $147.1 $162.5 110% VTA Vasona Segment $269.1 $316.8 118% MARTA Dunwoody Extension $438.9 $472.7 108% CTA Orange Line $496.0 $474.6 96% LA Red Line Segment 1 $914.4 $1,417.8 155% LA Red Line Segment 2 $1,446.4 $1,921.7 133% LA Red Line Segment 3 $1,310.8 $1,313.2 100% San Juan Tren Urbano $950.6 $2,250.0 237% BART SFO Extension $1,070.0 $1,550.2 145% NYCT 63rd Street Tunnel $537.9 $632.3 118% Note: all dollar amounts in year-of-expenditure dollars.
|
From page 128... ...
Louis Clair County Extension 1995 1998 1999 2001 2001 Salt Lake North-South 1994 1995 1998 1998 1999 Portland MAX Westside/Hillsboro 1990 1991 1994 1996 1998 Pasadena Gold Line 1993 1996 2000 2003 Denver Southwest Corridor 1992 1996 1997 1999 2000 Portland South Corridor 1995 1997 2001 VTA Tasman West 1992 1993 1996 1999 VTA Tasman East 1992 1995 1999 2001 VTA Capitol Segment 1999 2000 2004 VTA Vasona Segment 1999 2000 2005 MARTA Dunwoody Extension 1990 1991 1994 1998 2000 CTA Orange Line 1982 1984 1986 1990 1993 LA Red Line Segment 1 1983 1988 1989 LA Red Line Segment 2 1983 1990 1994 LA Red Line Segment 3 1983 1993 1998 San Juan Tren Urbano 1992 1995 1996 2002 2004 BART SFO Extension 1992 1996 1997 1998 2002 NYCT 63rd Street Tunnel 1989 1992 1994 1998 2001 Table 19. Project development schedule data used.
|
From page 129... ...
Measuring soft costs on a per-linear-foot basis, however, produces a stronger relationship, as shown in Figure 69. Total soft costs are presented in the left pane, and engineering costs (preliminary engineering and final design)
|
From page 130... ...
LIGHT + HEAVY RAIL: ALL SOFT COSTS LIGHT + HEAVY RAIL: ADMIN COSTS ONLY Sample Size: 13 R2 = 0.00 t-Stat = -0.06 Sample Size: 13 R2 = 0.01 t-Stat = -0.39 R2 = 0.00 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% - 4 8 10 Years Elapsed between PE and Operations So ft Co st s (% of C on str uc tio n) R2 = 0.01 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% - 4 82 6 2 6 10 Years Elapsed between PE and Operations M an ag em en t ( % of C on str uc tio n)
|
From page 131... ...
LIGHT RAIL HEAVY RAIL LIGHT + HEAVY RAIL Soft Costs trend: R2 = 0.41 t-Stat = 3.87 R2 = 0.03 t-Stat = 0.76 R2 = 0.27 t-Stat: = 3.94 R2 = 0.41 R2 = 0.18 $$5 $10 $15 $20 $25 $30 $35 $40 0% 25% 50% 100% 50% 100% 50% 100% % Guideway Below Grade Co st s pe r L F (00 0) R2 = 0.03 R2 = 0.19 $$10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 0% 25% 75%75% % Guideway Below Grade Co st s pe r L F (00 0)
|
From page 132... ...
The results of this WMATA analysis are similar to those Supplementary As-Built Cost Analysis 97 LIGHT RAIL HEAVY RAIL LIGHT + HEAVY RAIL Soft Costs trend: R2 = 0.35 t-Stat = 3.45 R2 = 0.01 t-Stat = 0.52 R2 = 0.36 t-Stat: = 4.88 R2 = 0.35 R2 = 0.12 $$5 $10 $15 $20 $25 $30 $35 $40 $45 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% % Guideway Not At-Grade Co st s pe r L F (00 0) R2 = 0.01 R2 = 0.02 $$10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 0% 25% 50% 50%75% % Guideway Not At-Grade Co st s pe r L F (00 0)
|
From page 133... ...
Soft costs as a percentage of construction versus midyear of expenditure, WMATA only. HEAVY RAIL R2 = 0.05 t-Stat = -0.79 R2 = 0.05 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent of Guideway not At Grade So ft Co st s (% of C on str uc tio n)
|
From page 134... ...
These WMATA Metrorail results do not support the full heavy rail database, nor do they demonstrate consistent relationships that may be expected for projects from the same agency. The results from the preceding WMATA-only data demonstrate the difficulty in identifying project characteristics that can be used to help estimate construction soft costs of major public transportation capital projects.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.