Construction Productivity Research

P. Takis Salpeas, BS, MSCE (Civ.
Eng), MSSC (Systems Eng), MASCE, CCM1

1
Senior Vice President/Division Manager Rail and Transit Systems,

Parsons Transportation Group
100 M Street SE, 12th Floor, Washington, DC 20003
PH : (202) 775-3390 / FAX (202) 775-6087
e-mail: takis.salpeas@parsons.com
Abstract
Modern rail rapid transit projects represent major capital investments, reflective of
their complex technical nature in a diverse and highly developed urban landscape.
They pose significant challenges in design, engineering, constructability, and
contracting that must be overcome for successful completion. However, as compared
to equivalently scoped projects built 25 to 30 years ago, todays projects, when
effectively managed, are more likely to:
Satisfy higher safety, quality, and level of customer service requirements;

Provide higher community acceptance;
Initiate passenger service 30-35% faster from contract award; and
Cost 25-30% less in comparable dollars.
The trends in this study are derived from an extensive and well-tested database of 30
years of transit construction projects on the Washington Metrorail System. Though
the trends draw largely from productivity gains in the overall U.S. construction
industry, they still deserve to be acknowledged in discussions about the increasing
value of rail rapid transit projects. These patterns can strengthen cases made on the
grounds of environmental or economic development benefits.
Many U.S. rail transit systems, notably many light rail transit (LRT) systems, have
pursued aggressive expansion in recent decades. This study should encourage transit
agencies or other researchers to conduct similar examinations of cost and productivity
trends. Additional cases similar to the one presented here would be useful for the
industry in demonstrating the increasing efficiency and value of rail transit projects.
This paper does not present a forecast of future conditions; it is intended to highlight
important advances being made in the U.S. engineering and construction industry for
public transit projects. Although construction cost trends appear to satisfy the goal of
better-faster-cheaper, much work remains in ensuring these advances continue over
the next 30 years as population grows and mobility challenges evolve.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi on 08/30/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Benefits of Productivity Growth in Rail Transit Construction:

The Washington Metro Experience

P. Takis Salpeas, BS, MSCE (Civ.Eng), MSSC (Systems Eng), MASCE, CCM1
1

PH : (202) 775-3390 / FAX (202) 775-6087
Abstract

148
148
Urban Public Transportation Systems 2013

79B_PB_4out_Same_55924_ASCE.job_Process Black_10/08/2013_10:00:39
Cyan_10/08/2013_10:00:39
Magenta_10/08/2013_10:00:39
Yellow_10/08/2013_10:00:39



PH : (202) 775-3390 / FAX (202) 775-6087

PH : (202) 775-3390 / FAX (202) 775-6087
Abstract
Abstract


148
148
URBAN PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS 2013
149
149
Introduction
Introduction
Modern rail rapid transit projects, like extending Metrorail in the U.S. capital region,
are advanced through a multi-year rigorous environmental process, political
consensus building, complex funding approvals, highly litigated private property
acquisitions, and extensive public outreach. These projects represent major capital
investments and are complex infrastructure undertakings constructed in diverse and
highly developed urban environments.
Rail rapid transit construction projects worldwide and in the U.S. especially, have
come under attack as being very costly. Clichs like Metrorail costs out of control,
appear frequently in anti-transit, auto/highway promotional media and/or in literature
provided by those pushing projects to lower capacity modes (i.e., bus rapid transit)
and/or High-Occupancy/Toll (HOT) Highway Lanes.
It is beyond the scope of this paper to defend Metrorail against myths and negative
clichs by detailing the significant benefits derived from these investments in terms of
speed and capacity and/or overall community value. Rather, this paper strongly
counters the notion that building Metrorail today would be prohibitively more
expensive as compared to equivalent projects built 25, 30 or 35 years ago.
Over the last quarter century, our society as a whole has increased Regulatory
requirements, demanded higher Performance-based services and continually asked for
improved Customer service. This RPC factor can add significantly to the total cost
and time frame of project implementation. Despite this, Metrorail construction trends
have appeared to satisfy the BFC goal: Better-Faster-Cheaper, as compared to
equivalent scope projects built 30+ years ago, based on this study of the Washington
Metrorail System.
Metrorail System.
Metrorail projects built today, compared to equivalently scoped projects built 30 years
ago, are more likely to satisfy higher safety, quality, and customer service levels;
provide higher community acceptance; utilize advanced technology, circuitry, and
material; initiate passenger service 30-35% faster; and cost 25-30% less in
comparable dollars. These trends have created an outstanding value. Every five years
approximately 1 billion passenger trips are safely and reliably accommodated by the
107-mile, 86-station Metrorail System in the Washington, DC region.
Metrorail construction projects have realized significant cost and time reduction gains
consistent with overall U.S. construction industry productivity gains. Factors
primarily affecting construction productivity are real wage trends, project
management, technology and analytical methods, contracting innovations and
competition, owner organization, design standardization, labor organization, skills
and training, project uniqueness, and funding and oversight.
Although general productivity gains significantly benefited rail transit construction,

these projects are still expensive because their general productivity rates are still
below what economists call the potential growth rate and are a drag on the

80A_PB_4out_Same_55924_ASCE.job_Process Black_10/08/2013_10:00:39
Cyan_10/08/2013_10:00:39
Magenta_10/08/2013_10:00:39
Yellow_10/08/2013_10:00:39
149
149
Introduction
Introduction
Metrorail System.
Metrorail System.


overall project budget. The cause for this lack of overall improved productivity gain
is complex and varied. Rail transit construction is not immune from the main issues
slowing productivity gains down, the so called gra ndma syndrome a reluctance to
abandon tried and tested processes.
Background
In 2011, approximately 750,000 passengers daily u sed the 86-station, 5-line, 170 km
Metrorail System in the U.S. Capital Region (Washington, DC/MD/VA). In
November 2002, Civil Engineering Magazine liste d WMATAs Metrorail system as
one of the 40 projects of the century, see Figure 1 b elow.
Figure 1-One of 40 Projects of the Century
WMATAs Metrorail System is a landmark in civil
engineering history, one off the 40 projects of the
century recognized in Novem ber 2002 by the
American Society of Civil E ngineering. Among its
peer projects are the Hoover Dam, the Panama Canal,
the Empire State Building, t he Brooklyn Bridge, the
Golden Gate Bridge and the Erie Canal.
The replacement value of the WMATA Metro rail System exceeds $25 billion
today. Metrorail engineering and construction is c onsidered the largest single project
of its type in the U.S.
The infrastructure of the 2-track network includes 85 km of underground (35 km of
cut and cover box and 45 km of bored tunnel), 73 km of surface and 12 km of aerial
structures, including several bridges and fo ur underwater structtures. The
infrastructure includes almost 60,000 parking spac es at stations; 21,000 or which are
located in 15 multi-level parking structures. The M etrorail System also includes 100
traction power substations supplying 700 million kWh of power. In addition, the
system is operated via 100 fully automatic train co ntrol based interlockings, 8 railcar
storage and maintenance yards, almost 600 esc alators, 220 elevators, and 1,000
railcars. It features hundreds of communication s facilitiess, scores off ventilation
shafts, extensive station air conditioning (chiller p lants) and hhundreds of appliances
required for underground water disposal from the tu nnels.
150
150
Background

Cyan_10/08/2013_10:00:39
Magenta_10/08/2013_10:00:39
Yellow_10/08/2013_10:00:39
150
150
Background
Background




151
Figure 2: Washington Metropolitan Area T ransit Authority System Map
151
ure 3: Metrorail Network Development

Figu
135 Million Labor Hours of Construc tion; 3 Phases Completed.
4th Underway to the Washington Dulles Internaational Airport
Phase I: 1972 - 1982

Figu
Phase II: 1983 - 1992
39 Miles; 43 Stations; $ 8 Billion;

90 Million Construction Labor-Hours Worked
Phase I: 1972 - 1982

24 Millioon Construction Labor-Hours Worked
Phase III: 1993 - 2004
Phase II: 1983 - 1992


Phase III: 1993 - 2004
Phase IV: On going
Phase IV: On going
23 Miles; 11 Stations;
26 Miles; 16 Stations; $3.6 Billion;

$21 Million Construction Labor-Hours Worked
Silver Line Exxtension to Du

ulles Airport aand
Loudoun Coounty, 23-milees, 11-stationss,;
(Phaase 1; 12 Miless; 5 Stations; too be Completedd 2013;
Phase III to be Compleeted 2016)
*NOTE
E: The Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority
(MWAA ) is the manager for the Silver Line Extension, under special ggovernmental aagreement.


ulles Airport aand
*NOTE
Cyan_10/08/2013_10:00:39
Magenta_10/08/2013_10:00:39
Yellow_10/08/2013_10:00:39
151
151

Figu
Phase I: 1972 - 1982
Phase II: 1983 - 1992


Phase III: 1993 - 2004
Phase IV: On going

Figu
Phase I: 1972 - 1982
Phase II: 1983 - 1992


Phase III: 1993 - 2004
Phase IV: On going


ulles Airport aand
*NOTE


ulles Airport aand
*NOTE
Productivity Analysis
America is more productive today than at any oth er point in
history because it is more efficient at producing goods and
services. In 1870, the typical U.S. household requ ired 1,800
hours of labor just to acquire its annual food supp ly; today it
takes about 260 hours of work. Despite falling employment,
American factories output is up because produ ctivity has
climbed steadily though workers wages and ben efits have
not increased much; productivity is up 40.4% since 2001.
Productivity reflects the joint efforts of many influ ences such
as, changes in technology; capital investment; th e level of
output; utilization of capacity, energ
gy and mat erials; the
organization of production; managerial skills; and the
Source: U
US Labor
characteristics and efforts of the work force .
Rising
Deparrtment
productivity indicates less time involved per unit o f output, a
favorable sign of efficient use of resources in the economy.
Gains in productivity reduce costs and can lead to bboth lower prices, as well as higher
real wages.
Overall U.S. productivity has grown at an annual rate of more than 2% per year on
average over the last 40 years. Strong productivit y growth is another reason for low
inflation. Construction, in general, is a major bene ficiary of low and stable inflation.
When productivity grows at 2.7% a year, the sta ndard of living doubles every 27
years; at 1.4% it doubles every 51 years; at 5% it dooubles every 14 years.
The factors that influence productivity gains in th e rail transit construction industry
include market size, structure, competition and cusstomization. Although not the only
indicator, construction project duration is an important measure of overall
productivity. The results of an analysis of Metrora il System construction duration by
major element is in the final table in this section. T hese data indicate that most project
elements have experienced considerable productivity gains. Related cost savings are
analyzed in the following section.
r Factors in Rail Transit Construction Productivity

Figure 4: Primary
Wages
20%
Design
Standardization
10%
Labor Or ganization,
Skills an d Training
8%
Proj ect Uniqueness
5%
C ontracting
Inn ovation and
Co mpetition
12%
Owner
Organization
10%
Fundi ng and
Overrsight
5%
Technology and
Analytical Methods
15%
152
152
Source: U
US Labor
Rising
Deparrtment
real wages.

Figure 4: Primary
Wages
20%
Design
Standardization
10%
Proj ect Uniqueness

5%
C ontracting
Inn ovation and
Co mpetition
12%
Owner
Organization
10%
Fundi ng and
Overrsight
5%
Technology and
Analytical Methods
15%
Project
Management
15%
8%
Project
Management
15%

Cyan_10/08/2013_10:00:39
Magenta_10/08/2013_10:00:39
Yellow_10/08/2013_10:00:39
152
152



Source: U
US Labor
Rising
Deparrtment
real wages.

Source: U
US Labor
Rising
Deparrtment
real wages.

Figure 4: Primary
Wages
20%
Design
Standardization
10%
8%
Proj ect Uniqueness
5%
C ontracting
Inn ovation and
Co mpetition
12%
Owner
Organization
10%
Fundi ng and
Overrsight
5%
Technology and
Analytical Methods
15%
Project
Management
15%

Figure 4: Primary
Wages
20%
Design
Standardization
10%
8%
Proj ect Uniqueness
5%
C ontracting
Inn ovation and
Co mpetition
12%
Owner
Organization
10%
Fundi ng and
Overrsight
5%
Technology and
Analytical Methods
15%
Project
Management
15%
153
Figure 5: Construction Project Duration by Major Element

Elem
ent
Num
ber
Basic Project Element*
1.
Real Estate
2.
Cut and Cover Station
3.
At-Grade Station (excl. of line/trackwork/systems)
4.
Aerial Station (excl. of line/trackwork/systems)
5.
6.
7.
At-Grade Lines (excl. of Trackwork/Systems)
8.
Aerial Lines (excl of Trackwork/Systems)
9.
Built in 1970s
Duration in
days
Built in late
1990s/2000s
Duration in days
153

Percentag
e Change
in
Duration
Elem
ent
Num
ber
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.
Real Estate
1,530
1,124
-27%
2.
790
780
-1%
3.
1,374
1,050
-24%
4.
Parking Structures
820
609
-26%
5.
Cut & Cover Lines (excl. of Trackwork/Systems)
780
860
10%
6.
1,095
930
-15%
7.
1,095
1,050
-4%
8.
Tunnel Line (excl. of Trackwork/Systems)
1,715
1,140
-34%
9.
10.
Automatic Train Control
1,953
1,075
-45%
11.
Communications
818
827
1%
12.
Running Track
760
820
13.
Trackwork: Double-crossover
760
14.
Trackwork: Equilateral Turnout
760
15.
Traction Power
16.
17.
Built in 1970s
Duration in
days
Built in late
1990s/2000s
Duration in days
Percentag
e Change
in
Duration
N/A
N/A
N/A
1,530
1,124
-27%
790
780
-1%
1,374
1,050
-24%
Parking Structures
820
609
-26%
780
860
10%
1,095
930
-15%
1,095
1,050
-4%
1,715
1,140
-34%
10.
1,953
1,075
-45%
11.
Communications
818
827
1%
8%
12.
Running Track
760
820
8%
820
8%
13.
760
820
8%
820
8%
14.
760
820
8%
850
840
-1%
15.
Traction Power
850
840
-1%
Elevators
792
492
-38%
16.
Elevators
792
492
-38%
Escalators
792
492
-38%
17.
Escalators
792
492
-38%
18
Fare Collection
577
547
-5%
18
Fare Collection
577
547
-5%
19.
Railcars
2,809
1,296
-54%
19.
Railcars
2,809
1,296
-54%
20.
Rail Yards
947
960
1%
20.
Rail Yards
947
960
1%
Cost Analysis
Cost Analysis
Rail transit customers today are far more demanding and discriminating consumers
than at any other time in American history. Though U.S. median household income
fell over the last decade when adjusted for inflation due to the troubled economy,
median household income has grown substantially since construction began on the
Metrorail System. As reported by the U.S. Census Bureau, median household income
in 2010 dollars increased from $43,479 in 1975, $44,616 in 1980, and $48,423 in
1990 to $49,445 in 2010. In a related trend, the U.S. now has more vehicles than
licensed drivers. In 2009, there were 1.19 vehicles per licensed driver, compared to
1.07 in 1990 and 0.96 in 1980. These rises in standard of living require rail transit
projects to offer substantial mobility advantages if they are to attract users and
Cyan_10/08/2013_10:00:39
Magenta_10/08/2013_10:00:39
Yellow_10/08/2013_10:00:39
153

Elem
ent
Num
ber
1.
Real Estate
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Built in 1970s
Duration in
days
Built in late
1990s/2000s
Duration in days
153

Percentag
e Change
in
Duration
Elem
ent
Num
ber
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.
Real Estate
1,530
1,124
-27%
2.
790
780
-1%
3.
1,374
1,050
-24%
4.
Parking Structures
820
609
-26%
5.
780
860
10%
6.
1,095
930
-15%
7.
1,095
1,050
-4%
8.
1,715
1,140
-34%
9.
10.
1,953
1,075
-45%
11.
Communications
818
827
1%
12.
Running Track
760
820
13.
760
14.
760
15.
Traction Power
16.
17.
Built in 1970s
Duration in
days
Built in late
1990s/2000s
Duration in days
Percentag
e Change
in
Duration
N/A
N/A
N/A
1,530
1,124
-27%
790
780
-1%
1,374
1,050
-24%
Parking Structures
820
609
-26%
780
860
10%
1,095
930
-15%
1,095
1,050
-4%
1,715
1,140
-34%
10.
1,953
1,075
-45%
11.
Communications
818
827
1%
8%
12.
Running Track
760
820
8%
820
8%
13.
760
820
8%
820
8%
14.
760
820
8%
850
840
-1%
15.
Traction Power
850
840
-1%
Elevators
792
492
-38%
16.
Elevators
792
492
-38%
Escalators
792
492
-38%
17.
Escalators
792
492
-38%
18
Fare Collection
577
547
-5%
18
Fare Collection
577
547
-5%
19.
Railcars
2,809
1,296
-54%
19.
Railcars
2,809
1,296
-54%
20.
Rail Yards
947
960
1%
20.
Rail Yards
947
960
1%
Cost Analysis
Cost Analysis
achieve societal benefits. However, higher levels o f speed, comfort and convenience
all come with higher levels of project cost.
Rail transit projects that are advanced to constructtion fully satisfy all environmental
regulations and reach a local consensus during thee lengthy environmental process for
the final selection of the project. This public dial ogue often leads to cost increases,
changes in scope, and expansion or enhancement s to satisfy system users and nonusers. Adding amenities into project designs incr eases project costs, but ultimately
this process leads to a better project with higher community acceptance.
Along with the cost demands made on rail constru ction projects, the overall value of
construction continues to increase significantly eac h year. The U.S. market represents
about one-quarter of the worlds total $3.4 trillion construction market. Total
construction employment is more than 6.7 millioon workers (about 6 percent of the
nations total non-farm, private sector employmen t). The U.S. annual construction
rate is now in excess of $807 billion (U.S. Cen sus Bureau, U.S. Department of
Commerce, November 2011; U.S. Census Bureau News, January 3, 2012).
Yet despite these increasing expenditures and cost demands, Metrorail construction
has become systematically more efficient and less e xpensive due to increases in
productivity. Nearly 80 of each dollar invested to build the Metrorail System went to
construction contracting, real estate acquisition, pro curement of railcars to run
passenger service and payment for insurance coverrage; this spending is supplemented
by investment in project design services and projec t management cost by the agency.
Twenty major elements account for more than 95% of the total cost for a typical
Metrorail construction project. These elements can be grouped into five basic
categories; real estate; stations and parking; lines; s ystems; railcars and yards.
Figure 6: Metrorail Construction Cost Tr ends; 1970-2003 by Element
154
154

Cyan_10/08/2013_10:00:39
Magenta_10/08/2013_10:00:39
Yellow_10/08/2013_10:00:39
154
154
155
155
These trends are derived from an extensive and well-tested database, unparalleled
in the U.S. rail transit industry. This chart represents an initial assessment, a work
in progress, of a check-the-trends study, and may result in more refined and
further validated future studies. Any attempt to draw strict numerical conclusions
at this phase of the study may result in errors. These trends, although
approximations, give a sense of direction, general patterns, and overall
performance insight.
These costs are only construction contracting costs except element #1, which
represents an average real estate acquisition price. These costs are based on
completed construction contract values. It should be emphasized again that the
purpose of this tabulation is not to establish numerical conclusions; it is only to
check-the-trends of Metrorail construction costs, based on true, apple-to-apple
comparisons.
comparisons.
Figure 7: Cost Comparison by Major Element (In thousands of 2002 dollars)

Description
Element
#
Unit of
Measurement
Median Home
Price
Cost
*YESTERDAY*
MD: $162; VA:
$198; DC: $188
Cost
**TODAY**
YESTERDAYTO-TODAY
Cost Trend
1.
Real Estate
MD: $195; VA:

$319; DC: $250
MD: 20%; VA:

61%; DC: 33%
2.
Cut and Cover Station *
Station
86,310
64,640
3.
At-Grade Station *
Station
24,840
17,220
4.
Aerial Station*
Station
37,860
5.
Parking Structures*
Space
6.
Cut & Cover Line *
7.

Description
Element
#
Unit of
Measurement
Median Home
Price
Cost
*YESTERDAY*
MD: $162; VA:
$198; DC: $188
Cost
**TODAY**
YESTERDAYTO-TODAY
Cost Trend
1.
Real Estate
MD: $195; VA:

$319; DC: $250
MD: 20%; VA:

61%; DC: 33%
-25%
2.
Station
86,310
64,640
-25%
-31%
3.
At-Grade Station *
Station
24,840
17,220
-31%
30,250
-20%
4.
Aerial Station*
Station
37,860
30,250
-20%
13
-28%
5.
Parking Structures*
Space
13
-28%
1,000 Route foot
18,430
13,153
-29%
6.
Cut & Cover Line *
1,000 Route foot
18,430
13,153
-29%
At-Grade Line *
1,000 Route foot
2,340
1,750
-25%
7.
At-Grade Line *
1,000 Route foot
2,340
1,750
-25%
8.
Aerial Line *
1,000 Route foot
12,500
8,700
-30%
8.
Aerial Line *
1,000 Route foot
12,500
8,700
-30%
9.
Tunnel Line *
1,000 Route foot
19,373
11,006
-43%
9.
Tunnel Line *
1,000 Route foot
19,373
11,006
-43%
Route-mile
3,640
2,500
-31%
10.
Route-mile
3,640
2,500
-31%
Station
1,270
930
-27%
11.
Communications
Station
1,270
930
-27%
Route-mile
2,390
1,925
-19%
12.
Running Track
Route-mile
2,390
1,925
-19%
10.
11.
Communications
12.
Running Track
13.
Unit
680
620
-9%
13.
Unit
680
620
-9%
14.
Unit
180
120
-33%
14.
Unit
180
120
-33%
15.
Traction Power
Substation
5,250
2,660
-49%
15.
Traction Power
Substation
5,250
2,660
-49%
16.
Elevators
Unit
290
260
-10%
16.
Elevators
Unit
290
260
-10%
17.
Escalators
Unit
550
475
-14%
17.
Escalators
Unit
550
475
-14%
18.
Fare Collection
Station
1,020
870
-15%
18.
Fare Collection
Station
1,020
870
-15%
19.
Rail Cars
Car
2,030
1,900
-6%
19.
Rail Cars
Car
2,030
1,900
-6%
20.
Rail Yards
Car Stored
568
405
26%
20.
Rail Yards
Car Stored
568
405
*(Excl. of line/trackwork/systems)
26%
Cyan_10/08/2013_10:00:39
Magenta_10/08/2013_10:00:39
Yellow_10/08/2013_10:00:39
155
155
comparisons.
comparisons.

Description
Element
#
Unit of
Measurement
Median Home
Price
Cost
*YESTERDAY*
MD: $162; VA:
$198; DC: $188
Cost
**TODAY**
YESTERDAYTO-TODAY
Cost Trend
1.
Real Estate
MD: $195; VA:

$319; DC: $250
MD: 20%; VA:

61%; DC: 33%
2.
Station
86,310
64,640
3.
At-Grade Station *
Station
24,840
17,220
4.
Aerial Station*
Station
37,860
5.
Parking Structures*
Space
6.
Cut & Cover Line *
7.

Description
Element
#
Unit of
Measurement
Median Home
Price
Cost
*YESTERDAY*
MD: $162; VA:
$198; DC: $188
Cost
**TODAY**
YESTERDAYTO-TODAY
Cost Trend
1.
Real Estate
MD: $195; VA:

$319; DC: $250
MD: 20%; VA:

61%; DC: 33%
-25%
2.
Station
86,310
64,640
-25%
-31%
3.
At-Grade Station *
Station
24,840
17,220
-31%
30,250
-20%
4.
Aerial Station*
Station
37,860
30,250
-20%
13
-28%
5.
Parking Structures*
Space
13
-28%
1,000 Route foot
18,430
13,153
-29%
6.
Cut & Cover Line *
1,000 Route foot
18,430
13,153
-29%
At-Grade Line *
1,000 Route foot
2,340
1,750
-25%
7.
At-Grade Line *
1,000 Route foot
2,340
1,750
-25%
8.
Aerial Line *
1,000 Route foot
12,500
8,700
-30%
8.
Aerial Line *
1,000 Route foot
12,500
8,700
-30%
9.
Tunnel Line *
1,000 Route foot
19,373
11,006
-43%
9.
Tunnel Line *
1,000 Route foot
19,373
11,006
-43%
Route-mile
3,640
2,500
-31%
10.
Route-mile
3,640
2,500
-31%
Station
1,270
930
-27%
11.
Communications
Station
1,270
930
-27%
Route-mile
2,390
1,925
-19%
12.
Running Track
Route-mile
2,390
1,925
-19%
10.
11.
Communications
12.
Running Track
13.
Unit
680
620
-9%
13.
Unit
680
620
-9%
14.
Unit
180
120
-33%
14.
Unit
180
120
-33%
15.
Traction Power
Substation
5,250
2,660
-49%
15.
Traction Power
Substation
5,250
2,660
-49%
16.
Elevators
Unit
290
260
-10%
16.
Elevators
Unit
290
260
-10%
17.
Escalators
Unit
550
475
-14%
17.
Escalators
Unit
550
475
-14%
18.
Fare Collection
Station
1,020
870
-15%
18.
Fare Collection
Station
1,020
870
-15%
19.
Rail Cars
Car
2,030
1,900
-6%
19.
Rail Cars
Car
2,030
1,900
-6%
20.
Rail Yards
Car Stored
568
405
26%
20.
Rail Yards
Car Stored
568
405
26%
Conclusions
The tabulation shown on this page compares the actual budgets of two Metrorail
extension projects with a what-if budget that was developed by applying the full
range of cost trends discussed previously. The what-if budget reflects the total cost
for the project if the cost trends were not realized. Hence, the analysis is intended to
represent a pre-trend budget, not a future year analysis. To develop the what-if
budget, the actual cost of each element was increased against the value of its
downward trend. For elements exhibiting upward cost trends, (i.e., real estate) a
decrease was applied. A composite trend was computed for each element by
incorporating systems and trackwork trends where applicable. A mid-point of linear
extrapolation of these trends was then estimated. The trends derived as follows:
Line-Trackwork & Systems

Stations
Parking Structures
Railcars
Real Estate
Rail Yards
-30%
-25%
-28%
- 6%
35%
-16%
Figure 8: Metrorail Construction Total Costs Comparison

For Two of the Most Recent Extensions (in Year of Expenditure Dollars)
-ActualProject Budget costs at
completion
Green Line
Blue Line
Extension to
Extension
Branch Ave. to Largo (b)
$ mil
$ mil
(1)
(2)
-What-ifCost Trends Not Realized
156
What-if-to-Actual
Cost Differences
Major Budget
Line-Items
Green Line
Extension to
Branch Ave.
$ mil
(3)
Blue Line
Extension
to Largo
$ mil
(4)
Green Line
Extension to
Branch Ave.
$ mil
(3-1)
Blue Line
Extension
to Largo
$ mil
(4-2)
410
265
Line,
Trackwork &
Systems
530
345
120
80
260
115
Stations
325
145
65
30
40
29
Parking
Structures
51
37
11
30
32
Railcars
32
34
50
19
Real Estate
33
12
(18)
(7)
125
Rail Yard
145
20
$915M
$460M
Total Costs
$1,116M
$573M
$201M
*22%*
$113M
*25%*
Notes:
Green Line Extension: (6.4-mile, 5-station, 31% underground, 23% aerial and 40% at-grade) opened to passenger
service 1/13/01; the rail yard opened to revenue service 3/1/03
Blue Line Extension: (3.2-mile, 2-station, 85% underground, 5% aerial and 10% at-grade) opened for passenger
on 12/18/04.
156
Conclusions

Stations
Parking Structures
Railcars
Real Estate
Rail Yards
-30%
-25%
-28%
- 6%
35%
-16%

completion
Green Line
Blue Line
Extension to
Extension
$ mil
$ mil
(1)
(2)
What-if-to-Actual
Cost Differences
Major Budget
Line-Items
Green Line
Extension to
Branch Ave.
$ mil
(3)
Blue Line
Extension
to Largo
$ mil
(4)
Green Line
Extension to
Branch Ave.
$ mil
(3-1)
Blue Line
Extension
to Largo
$ mil
(4-2)
410
265
Line,
Trackwork &
Systems
530
345
120
80
260
115
Stations
325
145
65
30
40
29
Parking
Structures
51
37
11
30
32
Railcars
32
34
50
19
Real Estate
33
12
(18)
(7)
125
Rail Yard
145
20
$915M
$460M
Total Costs
$1,116M
$573M
$201M
*22%*
$113M
*25%*
Notes:
on 12/18/04.

Cyan_10/08/2013_10:00:39
Magenta_10/08/2013_10:00:39
Yellow_10/08/2013_10:00:39
156
156
Conclusions
Conclusions

Stations
Parking Structures
Railcars
Real Estate
Rail Yards
-30%
-25%
-28%
- 6%
35%
-16%

completion
Green Line
Blue Line
Extension to
Extension
$ mil
$ mil
(1)
(2)
What-if-to-Actual
Cost Differences
Major Budget
Line-Items
Green Line
Extension to
Branch Ave.
$ mil
(3)
Blue Line
Extension
to Largo
$ mil
(4)
Green Line
Extension to
Branch Ave.
$ mil
(3-1)
Blue Line
Extension
to Largo
$ mil
(4-2)

Stations
Parking Structures
Railcars
Real Estate
Rail Yards
-30%
-25%
-28%
- 6%
35%
-16%

completion
Green Line
Blue Line
Extension to
Extension
$ mil
$ mil
(1)
(2)
What-if-to-Actual
Cost Differences
Major Budget
Line-Items
Green Line
Extension to
Branch Ave.
$ mil
(3)
Blue Line
Extension
to Largo
$ mil
(4)
Green Line
Extension to
Branch Ave.
$ mil
(3-1)
Blue Line
Extension
to Largo
$ mil
(4-2)
410
265
Line,
Trackwork &
Systems
530
345
120
80
410
265
Line,
Trackwork &
Systems
530
345
120
80
260
115
Stations
325
145
65
30
260
115
Stations
325
145
65
30
40
29
Parking
Structures
51
37
11
40
29
Parking
Structures
51
37
11
30
32
Railcars
32
34
30
32
Railcars
32
34
50
19
Real Estate
33
12
(18)
(7)
50
19
Real Estate
33
12
(18)
(7)
125
Rail Yard
145
20
125
Rail Yard
145
20
$915M
$460M
Total Costs
$1,116M
$573M
$201M
*22%*
$113M
*25%*
$915M
$460M
Total Costs
$1,116M
$573M
$201M
*22%*
$113M
*25%*
Notes:
on 12/18/04.
Notes:
on 12/18/04.
157
157
The construction phase for the Green Line extension began with the award of the first
major construction contract in September 1995 and was completed 65 months later in
January 2001. Similarly for the Blue Line extension, construction began in March
2001 was completed in 45 months on December 18, 2004. As shown in the table
below, if the cost trends had not been realized, the Green Line extension would have
cost $202 million (22%) more than the actual cost. Similarly, the Blue Line
Extension to Largo would have cost 25% more, or about $113 million. It should be
noted these are based on year of expenditure dollars. Normalization of these costs to a
common year could provide for a significant increase in the savings calculated. The
difference in savings between the two projects may reflect among other factors the
limited number of construction contracts, the Design-Build delivery method utilized
for the Blue Line Extension to Largo and the continued productivity gains between
the mid-90s and the early-00s of the mid-point of construction for these two
projects. The 6.5-mile, 5-station Green Line extension was completed via 25 major
prime contracts low-bid awarded while the 3.1-mile, 2-station Blue Line extension
was completed via only two major design-build/best-value awarded construction
contracts.
contracts.
It should be emphasized again that the purpose of

this analysis is not to establish numerical
conclusions; it is only to check-the-trends of
Metrorail construction costs. Although Metrorail
construction trends appear to satisfy the BFC goal:
Better-Faster-Cheaper, there is still a lot of work
remaining for all stakeholders to make sure costs
continue to trend in the right direction, with even
steeper slopes, over the next 25 to 30 years. This
Source: American Public Transportation
Association via the New York Times
will be necessary for the taxpayers who pay for
these projects to be assured they are getting the
most bang for their buck. This may support the goal to add another 60 to 70 miles
of Metrorail extensions by 2025, as adopted by the WMATA Board of Directors in
March 1999, to be realized.

These productivity and cost trends are not the only reasons to be optimistic about the
future of the transit industry. Since 1995, growth in transit ridership (31%) has
outpaced growth in both U.S. population (16%) and vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
(24%). Though the number of transit trips dipped during the recession, it is again on
the rise. The analysis in this paper lends support to the conclusion that the rail transit
construction industry is substantially increasing productivity and lowering costs,
building the case for continued expansion of such facilities to meet growing demand.
Disclaimer:
This is a summary complied for this conference from similar papers previously presented by the author
at several professional gatherings. This presentation is an abstract of a 2-year in-depth study, based on
the 30-year development of the Washington Metro Rail System (WMATA) where the author was the
Executive Manager for nine years, in charge of engineering and construction. Concepts,
methodologies, data, figures, findings and conclusions included in this presentation are not by any
means and forms the responsibility of my previous (WMATA) and present (Parsons) employers.
Responsibility for errors and omissions lies solely with the author.
Disclaimer:
Cyan_10/08/2013_10:00:39
Magenta_10/08/2013_10:00:39
Yellow_10/08/2013_10:00:39
157
157
contracts.
contracts.


Disclaimer:
Disclaimer:

Construction Productivity Research

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Construction Productivity Research

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

P. Takis Salpeas, BS, MSCE (Civ.

Eng), MSSC (Systems Eng), MASCE, CCM1

Senior Vice President/Division Manager Rail and Transit Systems,

Satisfy higher safety, quality, and level of customer service requirements;

Benefits of Productivity Growth in Rail Transit Construction:

Benefits of Productivity Growth in Rail Transit Construction:

Senior Vice President/Division Manager Rail and Transit Systems,

Satisfy higher safety, quality, and level of customer service requirements;

Urban Public Transportation Systems 2013

Benefits of Productivity Growth in Rail Transit Construction:

Benefits of Productivity Growth in Rail Transit Construction:

Senior Vice President/Division Manager Rail and Transit Systems,

Senior Vice President/Division Manager Rail and Transit Systems,

Satisfy higher safety, quality, and level of customer service requirements;

Satisfy higher safety, quality, and level of customer service requirements;

URBAN PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS 2013

URBAN PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS 2013

Although general productivity gains significantly benefited rail transit construction,

Although general productivity gains significantly benefited rail transit construction,

URBAN PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS 2013

URBAN PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS 2013

Although general productivity gains significantly benefited rail transit construction,

Although general productivity gains significantly benefited rail transit construction,

Urban Public Transportation Systems 2013

URBAN PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS 2013

URBAN PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS 2013

Urban Public Transportation Systems 2013

URBAN PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS 2013

URBAN PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS 2013

Figure 1-One of 40 Projects of the Century

Figure 1-One of 40 Projects of the Century

WMATAs Metrorail System is a landmark in civil

WMATAs Metrorail System is a landmark in civil

The infrastructure of the 2-track network includes 85 km of underground (35 km of

The infrastructure of the 2-track network includes 85 km of underground (35 km of

URBAN PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS 2013

Figure 2: Washington Metropolitan Area T ransit Authority System Map

URBAN PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS 2013

Figure 2: Washington Metropolitan Area T ransit Authority System Map

ure 3: Metrorail Network Development

Phase I: 1972 - 1982

ure 3: Metrorail Network Development

Phase II: 1983 - 1992

39 Miles; 43 Stations; $ 8 Billion;

Phase I: 1972 - 1982

42 Miles; 27 Stations; $ 7 Billion;

Phase III: 1993 - 2004

Phase II: 1983 - 1992

39 Miles; 43 Stations; $ 8 Billion;

42 Miles; 27 Stations; $ 7 Billion;

Phase III: 1993 - 2004

Phase IV: On going

Phase IV: On going

26 Miles; 16 Stations; $3.6 Billion;

Silver Line Exxtension to Du

26 Miles; 16 Stations; $3.6 Billion;

Silver Line Exxtension to Du

URBAN PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS 2013

Figure 2: Washington Metropolitan Area T ransit Authority System Map

URBAN PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS 2013

Figure 2: Washington Metropolitan Area T ransit Authority System Map

ure 3: Metrorail Network Development

Phase I: 1972 - 1982

Phase II: 1983 - 1992