FTA LRT Capital Cost Study Final Report 101003

Federal Transit Administration
LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT CAPITAL COST STUDY

UPDATE
Final
October 10, 2003
LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT CAPITAL COST STUDY UPDATE

Final
Submitted to the
Submitted by
Light Rail Capital Costs
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................... iii

Update Database Structure and Cost Baseline............................................................................... iii
Expand the Database Project Sample .............................................................................................. iv
Develop Unit Cost Functions............................................................................................................ vi
Cost Variance Analysis: What Drives Cost Differences Between Projects? ............................. viii
LRT Cost Inflation: Are Project Costs Changing Over Time?...................................................... ix
Develop a Capital Cost Calculator................................................................................................... xi
Key Findings of this Study Update Include ................................................................................. xiii
Future Study Uses ............................................................................................................................ xiii
1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................1-1
1. 1 Background on Capital Cost Estimation ............................................................................ 1-1
1.2 Study Purpose ........................................................................................................................ 1-2
1.3 Study Objectives .................................................................................................................... 1-7
1.4 Modal Definitions of Included Projects.............................................................................. 1-8
1.5 Candidate Projects................................................................................................................. 1-8
1.6 Pertinence and Limitations of the Results.......................................................................... 1-9
2.0 STUDY APPROACH ..................................................................................................................2-1
2.1 Definition of Cost Categories and Project Elements......................................................... 2-1
2.2 Data Collection Guide........................................................................................................... 2-7
2.3 Data Collection Process ........................................................................................................ 2-7
2.4 Data Verification.................................................................................................................... 2-8
2.5 Data Editing............................................................................................................................ 2-9
2.6 Final Capital Cost Data....................................................................................................... 2-11
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS ......................................................................................................3-1
3.1 RTD Light Rail System.......................................................................................................... 3-2
3.2 Los Angeles Light Rail .......................................................................................................... 3-3
3.3 New Jersey Light Rail Lines................................................................................................. 3-6
3.4 Pittsburgh Light Rail ............................................................................................................. 3-9
3.5 Portland Tri-Met Max Light Rail....................................................................................... 3-11
3.6 Sacramento Light Rail......................................................................................................... 3-14
3.7 St Louis Metrolink Light Rail............................................................................................. 3-16
3.8 Salt Lake City Light Rail ..................................................................................................... 3-17
3.9 San Diego Light Rail............................................................................................................ 3-18
3.10 San Jose Light Rail ............................................................................................................... 3-20
Office of Program Management
Table of Contents
4.0 LIGHT RAIL CAPITAL COST DATABASE .........................................................................4-1

4.1 Database Design .................................................................................................................... 4-1
4.2 Unit Cost Functions............................................................................................................... 4-4
4.3 Project Select Worksheet....................................................................................................... 4-6
4.4 Adding New Projects to the Database................................................................................ 4-7
5.0 COST VARIANCE ANALYSIS ................................................................................................5-1
5.1 Cost Variance Analysis Tool ................................................................................................ 5-1
5.2 Cost Variance Analysis: Database Projects ...................................................................... 5-16
5.3 How to Conduct Cost Variance Summary Analysis for New Projects........................ 5-67
5.4 Cost Variance Summary Analysis: High Cost Projects .................................................. 5-68
5.5 Cost Variance Summary Analysis: What Drives Cost Differences Between Projects 5-70
5.6 Time Based Analysis of LRT Project Costs ...................................................................... 5-71
5.7 Unexplained Unit Cost Variances ..................................................................................... 5-90
6.0 LIGHT RAIL CAPITAL COST CALCULATOR ...................................................................6-1
6.1 Calculator Design .................................................................................................................. 6-1
6.2 Project Cost Estimation......................................................................................................... 6-3
APPENDIX A: Light Rail Capital Cost Database
APPENDIX B: Cost Adjustment Worksheet
APPENDIX C: Cost Normalization and Adjustment Worksheet
APPENDIX D: Cost Function Worksheet
APPENDIX E: Cost Functions Worksheet
APPENDIX F: Select Projects Worksheet
APPENDIX G: Standard Model LRT Parameters
APPENDIX H: Cost Variance Worksheet
APPENDIX I: Capital Cost Calculator Worksheet
APPENDIX J: LRT Comments

ii
Executive Summary
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 1991, FTA published the Light Rail Transit Capital Cost Study. This report documented the
as-built construction costs for five light rail transit projects completed in the US over the
period 1984 through 1990. Rather than merely documenting project costs on a per-mile basis
or other gross metric, this analysis provided transit planners and engineers with a detailed
breakout and analysis of unit capital costs for newly completed fixed guideway projects at the
asset component and element level of detail. Specifically, the analysis documented the final
project costs for eight major cost categories and more than sixty related cost elements for each of
the five light rail projects. The resulting cost database provided a valuable data source to
support a broad range capital cost analyses, including the ability to conduct reasonableness
tests of cost estimates for proposed New Starts investments.
Over the 12-year period since this report was completed, the US transit industry has witnessed
a rapid expansion in the total investment in light rail infrastructure at a broad variety of urban
locations across the nation. For example, total track miles invested in light rail roughly doubled
over the period 1991-2003 while the number of agencies operating light rail systems has
increased by more than a third. Light rail continues to be the mode of choice for proposed
investments seeking Section 5309 New Starts funds. This update expanded the list of projects
found in the original study to include 19 projects that have been undertaken since the 1991
report was completed. The update process also involved inflating all unit costs to common 2003
base year and adjusting these costs to a national average metropolitan area value to provide a
consistent comparative basis to the costs, thus providing a more relevant capital cost basis for
FTA and oversight analysts. This study then took the analysis several steps further into variance
analysis to analyze project cost estimates and a project capital cost calculator to provide a test of
reasonableness for the project cost estimates.
The study encompassed five main objectives:
Documenting the as-built costs for a wide range of LRT investments;

Developing unit-cost relationships for all LRT project components;
Improve the understanding of what drives the cost differences between projects;
Determining if / whether / how LRT investment costs are changing over time; and
Developing an LRT Capital Cost Calculator.
Each of these issues and the related key findings are discussed briefly in the discussion that
follows and the details are presented in the following report.
Update Database Structure and Cost Baseline

A summary or component level of detail for the capital cost database is presented. This
illustrates the minimum level of cost detail requested to conduct the study and complete the
analysis of future projects. Additional detail one step further to the element level is included in
iii
Executive Summary
the database as available from the projects. The analysis and modeling effort was conducted at
this component level of detail.
In 1994, FTA completed the Heavy Rail
Exhibit 1
Capital Cost Study as a sister report to the
Component Level of Detail Capital Cost Database
1991 Light Rail Capital Cost Study.
Units
FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
Similar to the Light Rail Study, the Heavy
of
CAPITAL COSTING SYSTEM
Measure
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS
Rail study documented the as-built capital
L.F. Guideway
1.00 GUIDEWAY ELEMENTS
costs for completed US heavy rail projects.
1.01 AT GRADE GUIDEWAY
L.F. Guideway
1.03 ELEVATED STRUCTURE GUIDEWAY
L.F. Guideway
Note, however, the Heavy Rail Study
1.05 UNDERGROUND GUIDEWAY
L.F. Guideway
benefited from many of the lessons learned
1.07 DIRECT FIXATION TRACK
Track Feet
1.08 BALLASTED TRACK
Track Feet
from the earlier Light Rail Project leading to
Rev. Vehicle
2.00 YARDS & SHOPS
several useful improvements, particularly in
2.01 LIGHT MAINTENANCE FACILITY / DEPOT
Rev. Vehicle
2.04 STORAGE BUILDING AND YARD
Rev. Vehicle
regards to database structure. Hence, a key
2.07 HEAVY MAINTENANCE FACILITY
Rev. Vehicle
goal of the 2003 Light Rail Update was to
2.10 MAINTENANCE OF WAY BUILDING & YARD
L.F. Guideway
adopt many of the structural improvements
3.00 SYSTEMS
Track Feet
3.01 SIGNAL SYSTEM
Track Feet
from the 1994 Heavy Rail Study. These
3.02 ELECTRIFICATION
Track Feet
improvements include segmentation of
3.03 COMMUNICATIONS
Track Feet
3.04 REVENUE COLLECTION
Station
trackwork costs from the cost of the
Station
4.00 STATIONS
underlying guideway structure, consolidation
4.01 AT-GRADE
Station
4.03 SUBWAY
Station
of several maintenance shop types and
4.05 ELEVATED
Station
segmentation of station platform types (into
4.07 PARKING
Spaces
Rev. Vehicle
5.00 VEHICLES
side and center). The updated database was
5.01 REVENUE VEHICLES
Rev. Vehicle
also expanded to record additional data
5.06 NON-REVENUE VEHICLES
Rev. Vehicle
L.F. Guideway
6.00 SPECIAL CONDITIONS
elements including procurement type (e.g.,
6.01 UTILITY RELOCATION / BETTERMENT
L.F. Guideway
traditional design-bid-build versus design6.05 ROADWAY CHANGES
L.F. Guideway
6.06 ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION
L.F. Guideway
build), peak-period ridership design and
L.F. Guideway
7.00
RIGHT-OF-WAY
service capacity.
7.01 LAND ACQUISITION
7.04 RELOCATION
In addition to these structural changes, the

cost baseline for the database was also
updated from $1991 to $2003. Related
changes to the database functionality now
allow the user to easily change this cost
baseline to any desired year.
8.00 SOFT-COSTS
8.01
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
8.08
PLANNING/FEASIBILITY STUDIES
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
PROJECT MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT
PROJECT INITIATION
TRAINING/START-UP/TESTING
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Expand the Database Project Sample

The original 1991 study documented project costs for five light rail investments completed
between 1984 and 1987. A primary goal of this update was to expand the database to include a
significantly larger sample of projects completed in more recent years. To do so, the project
team submitted capital cost data requests to the Project Management Oversight (PMO)
contractors for projects completed since 1995. The team received complete responses for
fourteen projects. These projects were entered into the revised database (along with the original
five) bringing the total database sample to nineteen projects. These projects are outlined below.

iv
Executive Summary
Table 1
Projects Documented in Updated Light Rail Capital Cost Database
Portland Westside/Hillsboro MAX
Sacramento Folsom Corridor
Sacramento South Corridor
Sacramento Stage 1 (1991)
Salt Lake North South Corridor
San Diego Mission Valley East
San Jose North Corridor (1991)
Southern New Jersey Light Rail Transit
System
St. Louis St. Clair County Extension
Denver Southwest Corridor

Los Angeles Long Beach Blue Line (1991)
Minneapolis Hiawatha Corridor
New Jersey Hudson-Bergen MOS-I
New Jersey Hudson-Bergen MOS-II
Pasadena Gold Line
Pittsburgh Light Rail (1991) Stage I
Pittsburgh Light Rail Stage II
Portland Interstate MAX
Portland MAX Segment 1 (1991)
Exhibit 2
Database Projects: Mix of Alignment Grades
Guideway Alignment Mix

160,000
RETAINED CUT GUIDEWAY

UNDERGROUND GUIDEWAY
120,000
ELEVATED FILL GUIDEWAY

ELEVATED STRUCTURE GUIDEWAY
100,000
AT GRADE-IN-STREET GUIDEWAY
AT GRADE GUIDEWAY
80,000
60,000
40,000
Southern New Jersey

Light Rail Transit System
Los Angeles Long

Beach Blue Line (1991)
Sacramento Stage 1
(1991)
Portland
Westside/Hillsboro MAX
St. Louis St. Clair Cnty

Extension
San Jose North Corridor

(1991)
Pittsburgh Light Rail

(1991) Stage I
Portland MAX Segment 1

(1991)
Salt Lake North South

Corridor
Pasadena Gold Line
Sacramento Folsom
Corridor
Hiawatha Corridor
Hudson-Bergen MOS-I
Denver Southwest
Corridor
Sacramento South
Corridor
Hudson-Bergen MOS-II
San Diego Mission

Valley East
20,000

Stage II
Alignment Length (Lineal Feet)
140,000
The final database sample represents a diverse group of LRT investments ranging in cost from
$200 million to over $1.2 billion ($2003), in length from five to twenty-five miles and completed
over twenty year period. The final project sample also includes a broad range of alignment
types, ranging from those that are entirely at-grade to those with no at-grade and only elevated
and underground segments.

Executive Summary
Develop Unit Cost Functions

In addition to documenting the cost detail for each individual project, the original 1991 Light
Rail Study also provided summary cost data across all projects including the minimum, mean
and maximum cost values for each cost element. While these unit cost statistics provided
valuable reference points for related cost analyses, they failed to control for those factors that
drive the unit costs for each element type. Most notably, the unit cost analysis did consider the
relationship between unit cost and quantity purchased.
Exhibit 3
Unit Cost Function for At-Grade Stations
At-Grade Stations
$5.0
$Millions per Sation
For the 2003 Study Update, the

project team sought to correct this
limitation through the development
of mathematical unit cost
functions. At a minimum, these
statistically estimated unit cost
functions capture the relationship
between the unit cost for each
project cost element and the
number of units purchased. For
many cost elements, these
functions also control for other
unit cost drivers including peakperiod ridership capacity,
technology option and physical
size.
$4.0
$3.0
$2.0
$1.0
$0.0
0
10
15
20
25
30
Stations
Prior to developing the unit cost functions, the project team hypothesized that capital costs for
most project elements include both fixed and variable cost components. Within this context,
variable costs are driven by the number of units purchased (e.g., stations, vehicles, track miles)
while fixed costs represent a required minimum level of expenditures on purchase related
activities that are independent of the number of units acquired. Examples of such fixed costs
include non-recurring engineering costs for vehicles, systems and common facilities that are
incurred somewhat regardless of quantities of each component category and construction
mobilization costs for civil works. Both of the nonrecurring costs are incurred before any
vehicles systems or structures can be built. The presence of fixed costs manifests itself in the
form of economies of scale. In other words, a decline in unit costs as the number of units
purchased increases (as fixed costs are spread over a larger base). The study analysis supported
these related hypotheses of fixed and variables capital cost components and the related
economies of scale for nearly all LRT project elements. The supporting analyses ranged from
simple scatter plots of unit cost data to statistical comparisons of alternate unit cost models, all
of which clearly pointed in the direction of a declining unit cost function.
In all, the study team estimated over sixty different unit cost functions, including one for each
cost element types identified in the capital cost database (over sixty in all). These unit cost
functions provided the basis for all subsequent study analysis including:
Cost comparisons among projects

vi
Executive Summary
Development of the Standard Model LRT concept (see below)

Development of an LRT Capital Cost Calculator
$ Per Lineal Foot
A key goal of the study was to analyze and contrast the cost experiences of the nineteen LRT
projects documented in the updated Capital Cost Database. To facilitate these comparisons, the
study team developed the Standard LRT Model concept. The objective of the Standard LRT
Model was to create a logical cost and project definition baseline to provide a consistent
reference point among the projects. Specifically, the Standard LRT Model is intended to
represent a typical US LRT investment in terms of the mix of alignment grades (at-grade,
below-grade and above-grade), trackwork types, station grades and spacing, fleet purchase size,
and related characteristics. In practice, this typical system represents the average of the
actual mix of grades, trackwork types, etc. across all nineteen projects documented in the
Capital Cost database. Note here that while a typical LRT project is frequently thought of in
terms of an all at-grade alignment, only four of the nineteen documented projects (less than 25
percent) were
Exhibit 4
entirely at-grade
Standard
LRT
Model
Example
per Foot of Guideway
from end-to-end.
The average LRT
Standard LRT: Total Project Cost per Foot of Guideway
project is roughly
Full Cost and Quantity Baseline
80 percent at$35,000
grade. The
Standard LRT Model
Actuals
$30,000
Standard LRT
Quantity Adjusted
Model reflects this
$25,000
alignment mix.
$20,000
Finally, the
Standard LRT
$15,000
Model was
$10,000
designed to be
scaleable to
$5,000
alternative project
quantities and can
$0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
therefore be used
Lineal Feet of Guideway (Thousands)
to analyze costs for
projects of any size.
Using this Standard LRT Model as a quantity and cost baseline, an analyst can easily identify
where (i.e., for which cost elements) quantities and costs for a specific LRT investment differ
from typical investment costs as represented by the Standard Model, providing a starting
point to determine the origin of these cost differences. This Standard Model offers comparative
insight into the quantities of proposed projects and the unit costs estimated for each cost
element.
It is important to emphasize that the Standard Model LRT is only intended to provide a baseline
for quantity and cost comparisons among the nineteen database projects. It does not provide
estimates of what costs should have been for a given project, only what they might have been
for a more typical project within a particular region and implementation schedule.
Alternatively, cost actuals that differ significantly from the Standard Model LRT should not be
considered as somehow wrong or the product of bad (or good) project cost management. In
vii
Executive Summary
practice, there can be many numbers of valid reasons why the cost actuals for a specific
investment either exceed or are less than that predicted by the Standard Model. The model is
only intended to provide a consistent point of comparison in the test of reasonableness for
project cost estimates and as a guide that ask the right right sizing type questions.
Cost Variance Analysis: What Drives Cost Differences

Between Projects?
The Study team used standard cost accounting techniques to analyze the cost differences across
all nineteen projects documented in the database. Specifically, this analysis compared the cost
actuals for each project with that predicted by the Standard LRT Model. The observed cost
differences were then segmented into those resulting from differences in unit quantities (unit
quantity variance) and those arising from differences in unit price (unit price variance).
Analysis of these cost variances across all nineteen projects provided the basis to identify the
primary drivers of cost differences among projects.
The completed variance analysis identified three primary drivers of cost differences across the
nineteen projects documented in the updated cost database. These drivers include the
following:
Project Size As expected, the largest determinant of differences in total project cost
among projects was project size (e.g., total alignment length). Less obvious was the fact
that smaller projects experienced higher costs on a per unit basis. The latter is a direct
outcome of the economies of scale associated with most project components (i.e., unit cost
decreases as the number of units purchased/constructed increases).
Asset Mix (Unit Quantity Variances) After project size, the greatest variation in cost
among projects resulted from differences in asset mix and, in particular, differences in
alignment mix. Whereas a typical LRT investment includes only a small proportion of
above- and below-grade alignment, the projects documented in the database ranged from
those that are entirely at-grade to those with no at-grade alignment. These wide differences
in alignment mix (and related station grades) yielded equally wide variances in project cost.
Variations in station spacing and vehicle procurement size were also primary contributors
to quantity driven differences in costs among projects (though much less significant than
alignment mix). Together, these differences in alignment and station grades, station spacing
and vehicle procurement size explained more than 50 percent of the variation in cost
between projects of the same alignment length.
Unit Costs (Unit Cost Variances) The remaining variation in project costs (close to 50
percent of total cost variation for projects of similar length) was driven by differences in unit
costs. For the most part unit cost differences reflect qualitative differences between cost
elements across projects (e.g., station design) but can also reflect quantitative differences not
documented in the database (e.g. station size). The following cost elements represented the
largest contributors to unit cost variances among projects (both positive and negative):
-
Below-Grade Guideway
Station Size, Grade and Design Standards
Utility Relocation

viii
Executive Summary
Right-of-Way acquisition costs

Soft-Costs
The significant cost variation for below-grade guideway investments is well recognized and
results from wide-ranging geotechnical conditions and engineering approaches. Cost
variations in utility relocation and right-of-way acquisition costs appear closely correlated
with the level of existing urban development prior to project construction, with construction
in well-developed urban areas yielding significant increases in total cost for these elements.
Finally, wide soft-cost variances appear to be driven primarily by wide variances in the
preceding items on this list. It is useful to note here that this list of primary contributors to
unit cost variances corresponds closely with the primary sources of project risk on a cost
element basis.
Exhibit 5
Example Cost Variance Analysis By Cost Driver
Variance Analysis: By Driver

Pittsburgh Light Rail Stage I
TOTAL COST VARIANCE
TOTAL: Grade Related
At-Grade
Elevated
Subway
Retained Cut
Trackwork
Rev. Vehicles
Stations
Total Cost Variance

Unit Quantity Variance
Special Conditions
Unit Cost Variance
Right-Of-Way
Soft-Costs
($50)
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
Millions of $2003
LRT Cost Inflation: Are Project Costs Changing Over Time?

The completed project database provides detailed as-built cost data for projects completed
over the period 1984 through 2003 and the most recent cost to complete estimates for a limited
number of projects in the final stages of completion that were included in the database. Given
this data, the study objective was to consider How have LRT project costs changed over time?
The study team pursued two different lines of inquiry to answer this question. The first was to
consider how total project costs have changed over time on a per route mile basis. This analysis
was conducted after all costs had been adjusted for inflation to a consistent 2003 base year and
normalized for geographical differences and captures the cost impacts of changes in project

ix
Executive Summary
size, composition and technological improvements. The second approach focuses strictly on
cost inflation for individual project components.
Total Project Cost Per Route Mile The study identified a significant increase in total cost
per route mile among projects completed during the period 19841987 versus those
completed over the period 19962003. After adjustment for inflation, this increase was
estimated to be almost 60 percent. The primary sources of this increase included decreasing
project length and increasing project complexity. The remaining cost increases were
hypothesized in the following capital cost measures and characteristics.
Technology improvements and betterments not accounted in the element definition and
quantity measures
Incomplete accounting for project characteristics in the quantity values
Higher light rail cost inflation than that measured in the Means Construction Index
Of this 60 percent cost increase above inflation, about half was from the decreasing project
size and the increases in unit costs associated with shorter project lengths, a slight smaller
portion was from unit cost increases above inflation and a small portion was due to
increases in the complexity of the projects.
Exhibit 6
Sources of Unit Cost Increases

Changes in Asset
Mix / Grade Mix
5%
Cost Increases
Above Inflation
45%
Decreasing Project
Size
50%
Smaller Project Sizes As discussed above, LRT capital project costs are subject to
economies of scale (decreasing unit costs as project size increases). At the same time,
average project size has decreased by roughly one third for projects completed in the
nineteen eighties relative to those completed since 1995. This decline in project sizes
yielded roughly, 30 percent of the increase in project costs on a per route mile basis.
Changes in Asset Mix Projects completed since 1995 have tended to include a more
expensive mix of alignment grades and trackwork types than those completed prior to 1987.
The more recent projects have also tended to include more stations per route mile. This
change in asset mix yielded about a 5 percent increase in project unit costs on a per route
mile basis over this time period.

Executive Summary
Cost Increases Over Inflation The remaining increase in project costs per route mile (a
roughly 25 percent increase) originated from other factors that could not be controlled for
using the current database. Likely reasons for this increase include:
Technology Improvements and Betterments: Projects completed in more recent years

utilize more sophisticated and hence more expensive technologies. They also embody
additional betterments relating to safety, security and other objectives. These costs are
included in the general price inflation, but not captured in the element definition or
quantity measures.
Incomplete Accounting of Changes in Unit Quantities: The inflation analysis was based
on gross metrics for several asset types such as per station or per vehicle and hence
did not account for potential increases in the sizes of the individual units (e.g., square
feet, passenger capacity or number of seats).
Higher Cost Inflation for LRT versus a Typical Construction Project: The project costs
for this analysis were adjusted to a common $2003 basis using the Means Construction
Cost Index. This index may not provide a reliable measure of inflation for some LRT
project components. A study of project cost inflation conducted for the FTA found LRT
capital costs increasing at rates greater than the Means Construction Cost Index.
Unit Cost Inflation The preceding unit cost analysis focused on increases in the total
project costs on a per route miles basis after adjustment for inflation. A related analysis
focused solely on increases in the unit cost of individual project elements (e.g., guideway,
vehicles, track feet, etc.) prior to any inflation adjustment. After correcting for differences in
the number of units purchased by each project (to control for economies of scale) it was
observed that the rate of cost increase for most project elements exceeded that of the Means
Construction Cost Index. Specifically, the observed project cost inflation has averaged
around 3.2 percent annually since the mid-nineteen eighties while Means Construction
Index averaged roughly 2.5 percent over this same period. This result supports the related
finding of increased cost per route mile identified above. Moreover, it also suggests that the
higher rate of inflation relative to general construction cost inflation results in part from the
increasing sophistication of LRT systems.
These findings suggest that analysts should use above average rates of inflation when
predicting fixed guideway project costs over the long-term (i.e., over periods when technology
improvements are likely to occur or if a preferred technology option has not been selected). In
contrast, analysts should use a lower, more standard cost inflation measure (such as Means) in
the short term, in particular when technology options are well specified.
Develop a Capital Cost Calculator

A final objective of the Light Rail Capital Cost Study Update was to develop an LRT Capital
Cost Calculator. The Capital Cost Calculator allows an analyst to develop a capital cost
estimate for a proposed new light rail project based on the projects dimensions (e.g., number of
track feet, vehicles, stations, etc.) and midpoint of construction. In return, the Calculator
provides detailed estimates of project costs at the cost element, cost category and full project
levels of detail. The Calculator also provides the analyst with considerable control in defining

xi
Executive Summary
Exhibit 7
Unit Cost Inflation Example: Elevated Guideway
Unit Cost Inflation: Elevated Guideway
($YOE)
$8,000
Actuals
Quantity Adjusted Actuals
Trend
Quantity Adjusted Trend
$7,000
$YOE Per Lineal Foot
$6,000
Inflation Averages:
Elevated Guideway (trend) = 4.7%
Elevated Guideway (Adj trend) = 4.2%
Mean's Construction = 2.5%
$5,000
$4,000
$3,000
$2,000
$1,000
$0
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
Year Built
the cost basis used to develop these cost estimates, including the ability to adjust the underlying
unit costs to reflect the cost experience of a specific sub-set of projects documented in the
Capital Cost Database.
The Calculator is intended to provide FTA with a reliable tool for validating capital cost
estimates for light rail projects seeking federal funding approval through FTAs New Starts
process. The Calculator works from the unit cost relationships established for each of the sixty
elements. At the same time, industry analysts and project sponsors can use the Calculator to
develop preliminary cost estimates for new light rail projects currently under consideration.
Exhibit 8
Capital Cost Calculator: Sample View
Move cursor over comments (red triangles) for data entry assistance
PROJECT COST CALCULATOR

Select
Estimate
Basis
Baseline Model (original data set)

Adjusted Model 1: Full Database
Adjusted Model 2: User Selected Projects
FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY

LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS
0.00 TOTAL PROJECT COST
Print
FALSE
Units
of
Measure
L.F. Guideway
Select City:
Quantity
100,000
Enter Project Name Here

Phoenix, AZ
Year
Unit Cost
Total Cost
2009
$6,908
$690,759,386
WEEKDAY RIDERSHIP
Unlinked Trips
39,768
L.F. Guideway
100,000
2010
$1,162
$116,158,480
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Each
100,000
0
0
0
0
0
50,000
150,000
0
200,000
100,000
2010
$750
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$248
$125
$0
$30
$39
$75,047,648
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$12,379,769
$18,796,132
$0
$6,071,360
$3,863,571
1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.11
AT GRADE GUIDEWAY
DIRECT FIXATION TRACK
BALLASTED TRACK
EMBEDDED TRACK
SPECIAL TRACKWORK
GUIDEWAY-SPECIAL STRUCTURES

xii
2010
2010
2010
2010
Executive Summary
Key Findings of this Study Update Include

The results from this study update include the fulfillment of the study objectives and the
development and application of the capital cost model. This model includes each of the capital
cost functions of project database, normalization, standard LRT model, cost variance and the
cost calculator.
Unit Cost Functions The study team tested the hypothesis that New Starts capital costs
include both fixed and variable components. Data examined under this study supported
the hypothesis implying economies of scale in the sample projects that were evaluated.
Standard LRT Model The study team developed the Standard LRT Model (SLM)
concept in order to facilitate cost comparisons among projects. The SLM represented a
typical LRT investment that included an average mix of alignment grades, station spacing
and vehicle procurements. The SLM was also based on the average of all projects
documented by the study, providing a reasonable basis for assessing why project costs are
higher for some projects/lower for others.
Cost Variance Analysis The study team assessed the reasons for differences in costs
among projects. Variations in cost primarily reflected differences in quantities and
alignment mix. Moreover, smaller projects typically exhibited the higher unit costs than
their larger counterparts due to economies of scale. In addition, costs for higher cost
projects were frequently driven by high-risk elements including: above grade/below grade
investments (alignment and stations); utility and traffic relocations; Right-of-Way
Acquisition; and Soft Costs.
Project Cost Inflation The study identified a significant increase in unit costs between
projects completed in the prior to 1990 versus those completed in recent years. After
adjustment for inflation, the total increase was roughly 50 percent.
Future Study Uses

The preceding sections outlined both the process used to update and expand the 1991 Light Rail
Database as well as a range of analyses performed using this improved data source. Going
forward, the study team envisions three primary uses of the updated light rail database and
related model functionalities both by FTA and by industry analysts. These include applications
of the raw unit cost data, cost variance analysis of proposed light rail investments and
utilization of the LRT Capital Cost Calculator.
Unit Cost Data The updated light rail database contains detailed total cost, quantity and unit
cost data for all of the cost categories and related category sub-elements. These cost data were
specifically intended to furnish FTA and by industry analysts with the raw materials needed to
conduct a wide array of capital cost analyses. Examples of such analyses include:
Cost trend analyses
Reasonability tests of project cost estimates
Establishing cost baselines for long-term capital needs assessments

xiii
Executive Summary
Development of project capital cost build-up models (Note: unit costs can be selected from
desired peer projects on a component-by-component basis)
Independent confirmation of published study results
Analysis of cost relationships between cost categories

Exhibit 9
Sample Unit Cost Averages Example
Sample Unit Cost Averages

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

1.01
1.02
1.03
1.05
1.07
1.08
AT GRADE GUIDEWAY
BALLASTED TRACK
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
Track Feet
Track Feet
$1,358
$1,838
$4,878
$16,511
$403
$149
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Station
L.F. Guideway
4.00 STATIONS
4.01
4.03
4.05
4.07
$10,189
$2,941
Rev. Vehicle
SIGNAL SYSTEM
ELECTRIFICATION
COMMUNICATIONS
REVENUE COLLECTION
CENTRAL CONTROL
AT-GRADE
SUBWAY
ELEVATED
PARKING LOTS
Average
Unit
Cost
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
2.00 YARDS & SHOPS

3.00 SYSTEMS
3.01
3.02
3.03
3.04
3.05
Units
of
Measure
$685,245
$509
$176
$224
$74
$271,502
$217
Station
$7,318,267
Station
Station
Station
Spaces
$2,206,162
$24,873,714
$3,593,105
$4,752
Rev. Vehicle
$2,462,686
5.01 REVENUE VEHICLES

5.06 NON-REVENUE VEHICLES
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
$2,462,686
$20,026

7.00 RIGHT-OF-WAY
8.00 SOFT-COSTS
L.F. Guideway
5.00 VEHICLES
L.F. Guideway
% of Hard Costs
$791
$615
31.6%
Project Cost Variance Analysis This report describes the results of cost variance analyses for
all nineteen projects documented in the LRT Capital Cost Database. Since completion of the
database, FTA has already used the projects Cost Variance Analysis Tool to complete similar
cost analyses of several New Starts projects currently seeking Full Funding Grant Agreements
(FFGA). Once again, it is important to stress here that these analyses are not intended to
provide estimates of what the costs for these projects should be. Rather, they are used to
point to areas of possible concern for existing project cost estimates. FTA or grantee analysis
can then pursue these issues further to determine the reasons for any significant cost variances
and whether or not they are appropriate given the needs and goals of the project under
consideration.
Going forward, FTA and other industry analysts can use the Cost Variance Analysis Tool to
analyze the cost estimates of other proposed projects and/or the cost experience of completed
projects not included in the current database.

xiv
Executive Summary
Cost Calculator As described above, the LRT Capital Cost Calculator represents a convenient
tool for generating quick cost estimates for proposed LRT capital investments. For example,
FTA and local agency planning staff can use this tool to generate a preliminary cost estimate for
projects still in the conceptual phase (i.e., for which no detailed cost estimates are available).
Generating such estimates merely requires approximate values of the quantity of assets
required to complete the project (e.g., alignment length by grade type, number and type
stations, fleet size, etc.).
Alternatively, FTA can use the Cost Calculator to conduct reasonability tests of the detailed cost
estimates for projects in more advanced planning stages. Similar to the cost variance analysis,
this analysis would highlight significant unit cost differences between a projects detailed cost
estimates and the unit cost experience of the nineteen projects documented in the LRT Capital
Cost Database. In contrast to the cost variance analysis, this approach eliminates any unit
quantity variances (as the user would input the same unit quantities as used by the proposed
project and not the typical unit quantities used by the Standard LRT Model).

xv
1.0 Introduction
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report provides a detailed documentation of the component-level or project element-level

capital costs typically experienced in the development of major capital light rail transit projects.
The capital costs are based on the actual experience of recently completed U.S. transit projects.
Capital costs are presented in a consistent database structure that describes the cost categories
and project elements typically encountered in the development of major transit projects. All unit
costs are adjusted to a common base year, 2003, and also to a national average cost basis to
account for cost variation over time and across geographic regional impacts. All project cost
data and variances are analyzed to identify the cost drivers. Quantities of each component type
or project element are included to facilitate the development of project-wide capital cost
estimates. Finally, the resulting normalized cost category estimates and unit cost ranges were
used to develop a capital cost estimation model to help project developers estimate the capital
costs of other future light rail projects at every stage of the major capital investment planning
process.
1.1 Background on Capital Cost Estimation

The generation of reliable capital cost estimates represents an important element in the
investment decision process. The information generated at this time is crucial to the proper
evaluation of a project's cost effectiveness, the sponsoring agency's capacity to carry the project,
and the project's overall engineering feasibility. Furthermore, capital cost estimates developed
during a project's initial stages of development can significantly impact the nature and quality
of decisions reached during subsequent phases, including system planning, alternatives
analysis, preliminary engineering, and final design. Finally, fixed guideway projects requiring
Federal funding must be developed in accordance with the Major Capital Investment Policy.
This policy requires the careful estimation of the anticipated costs, benefits and impacts of
proposed systems. In general, this analysis is required at a fine level of project detail.
1.1.1 Capital Cost Estimation in the Project Development Process
Each of these conditions underlines the importance of good estimation methods and reliable
cost information when generating capital cost estimates for large transit projects. Specifically,
effective investment decisions require cost information that is compatible among alternative
investments, sufficiently detailed to meet Federal requirements, and reasonably in line with the
actual construction and procurement costs of each project alternative. In general, increased
certainty of cost estimates and less variation to actual costs help ensure selection of the optimal
investment alternative and lessen the likelihood that selected projects will suffer financial
difficulties.
Unfortunately, preliminary capital cost estimates have often underestimated actual costs,
possibly blurring the alternative cost effectiveness decision. Similarly, underestimated capital
costs have sometimes stretched project-financing plans, with required contributions from each
1-1
1.0 Introduction
funding source increased upon implementation, sometimes beyond the capacity of available
funding mechanisms. On the Federal side, funding priority decisions are sometimes necessary
to accommodate individual project cost increases, often leading to decreased or delayed
funding elsewhere for other projects. Similarly, state and local funding sources that are often
less able to directly absorb capital cost increases, are often more hard pressed by project cost
increases. Unexpected capital cost increases can lead to difficult funding decisions that can
result in reduced project scope and/or project cancellations.
1.1.2 Underlying Issues in the Capital Cost Estimation Process
Differences between planning estimates and actual construction cost results often include other
impacts of ongoing project development, such as:
Changes in the scope of the project

Changes in design standards
Unforeseen complexities in field conditions
Expanded environmental & community measures
Extended implementation periods
Underestimation of unit costs
Exclusion of certain asset requirements
Omission of several aspects of project soft costs.
The sum of these cost impacts, coupled with the underestimation of unit costs and omission of
some asset requirements, identifies most of the causes behind the underestimation of capital
costs. A database of actual project experiences on quantities and unit costs for major capital
investments should help improve the degree of confidence in capital cost estimates.
1.2 Study Purpose

The purpose of this study is to help transit planners and engineers improve the accuracy of
capital cost estimates for proposed fixed guideway projects by documenting as-built unit costs
for light rail systems completed in recent years. The benefit to the industry is the opportunity to
check the reasonableness of the capital cost estimates against actual costs for similar systems
developed in the U.S. This study will also develop cost models that will allow projects to be
compared using a variety of metrics such as cost per mile and passenger trips.
1.2.1 Major Transit Capital Project Development
The estimation of capital costs represents an important ingredient in the planning process both
for new transit systems as well as for those systems undergoing renewal and modernization of
their asset base. The information provided by this process will have a significant impact on the
project planning process including analysis of the cost effectiveness of project alternatives, the
sponsoring agencies ability to finance the alternative selected, and the overall engineering
feasibility of the proposed project.
The project development process for fixed guideway transit projects involves a formalized
structure of staged decision-making. It takes a regional travel need and develops a transit or
1-2
1.0 Introduction
highway project over several stages of increasing project definition and several years of study.
To make the process less onerous on the metropolitan regions proposing these projects, the
Federal Transit Administration, Office of Program Management established a research initiative
to refine the analytical process and prepare improved background information to better support
the process. One aspect of the project development process is the estimation of non-recurring or
capital costs for the transportation improvement plans under consideration at each stage in the
process. An FTA research initiative was established to improve the capital cost results of this
process. This report represents the initial portion of the results from this research initiative.
1.2.2 Prior Research Efforts
In recent years, the FTA has undertaken several research efforts aimed at improving the
accuracy of capital cost estimates for large transit projects. This capital asset definition and
structure may also provide an appropriate capital asset and cost definition for the National
Transit Database, the Transit Economic Requirements Model and the Project Management
Oversight Program. These FTA efforts in funding major transit capital projects benefit from a
consistent project definition and cost framework to support these integrated project funding
and development efforts. These current and future applications of this capital cost database and
information structure may also lead to a more systematic approach to asset management in the
U.S. transit industry.
Agencies face a number of challenges in developing capital cost estimates for proposed projects.
For example, agency proposals for new transit systems or extensions to existing systems must
follow a formalized project development structure to be eligible for Federal funding. This
formalized process demands the estimation of project costs at the component or project element
level of detail including both systems and subsystems. Obtaining effective cost estimates at this
fine level of detail represents a well-directed commitment of agency resources in time and
effort. Similarly, while modernizing transit systems have access to their original project
development records as a guide in estimating the cost of system renewal, agency cost data will
not likely reflect either changes in component prices overtime or the availability of improved
component developed in recent years. Within this environment, transit planners and engineers
analyzing the costs of developing either type of system can benefit from:
A standardized definition of the constituent components or "elements" which together make

up a typical fixed guideway transit system
The availability of recent, "as-built" capital cost data and the trend for each of these elements
The expression of these capital costs on a constant dollar, national average, unit basis
A breakdown/distribution of capital costs for individual project elements into their

constituent labor materials and equipment inputs
These defined needs were used to guide the development of the initial research efforts and then
used to establish the expectations and the orientation of the detailed task order work plan.

1-3
1.0 Introduction
1.2.3 1991 Light Rail Transit Capital Cost Study

In 1991, FTA published the Light Rail Transit Capital Cost Study. This report documented the asbuilt construction costs for five light rail transit projects completed in the US over the period
1986 through 1990. In addition to documenting project costs on a per-mile basis or other gross
metric, this analysis provided transit planners and engineers with a detailed breakout and
analysis of unit capital costs for newly completed light rail projects at the asset component and
element level of detail. The analysis then used a mix of construction cost indices to convert these
unit cost estimates first from their year-of-expenditure values to a common base year ($1990)
and second from their city averages to a standardized national basis (to account for variations in
construction costs by city or metropolitan region). The completed product Light Rail Capital
Cost Calculator provided FTA as well as industry planners and engineers with a valuable tool
for estimating the total cost of new light rail projects with much improved accuracy. The use of
this information is best applied as a test of reasonableness for the detailed cost estimates
prepared in the project development process by the project team preparing the cost estimates
and the oversight staff reviewing the estimates.
1.2.4 1994 Heavy Rail and Busway/HOV Lane Capital Cost Study
Subsequently, the FTA conducted a similar study for heavy rail and busway/HOV lane projects
entitled Fixed Guideway Capital Costs, Heavy Rail and Busway/HOV Lane projects in September
1994. In general, this work has focused on providing transit planners and engineers with
documentation of actual, as-built costs for heavy rail and busway/high occupancy vehicle lane
(HOV) fixed guideway projects developed in the U.S. in recent years. Specifically, this fixed
guideway capital cost study represented the second in a series of studies examining actual, as
built project development costs for major transit capital investments. The results of this study
included enhancements to the database guide and improved element descriptions. These
improvements were utilized as the basis to the development of the database for this study.
1.2.5 1995 Transit Capital Cost Price Index Study
A parallel and coordinated effort had been the development a transit cost index to better project
future year capital costs for proposed projects. The results were published in July 1995 in the
report entitled The Transit Capital Cost Price Index Study. This project utilized cost information
from the light rail, heavy rail and busway/HOV lane transit projects to assist in the estimation
of future capital costs of major transit capital projects. Specifically, this research produced a set
of cost indices, including those for each of the capital project components used here to support
the inflation of future year capital costs. This research work has been maintained within this
capital cost model for future applications, but the more direct method using Means
Construction Cost Index has been applied to the inflation process in this study. The Means Cost
Index-based methodology used the construction cost indices to convert these unit cost estimates
first from their year-of-expenditure values to a common base year ($2003) and second from their
city averages to a standardized national basis to account for variations in construction costs by
city or metropolitan region.
The results of this research into constructing a set of transit component cost indices focused on
relating transit capital cost change to generally available price and cost index data, such as the
1-4
1.0 Introduction
Consumer Price Index (CPI) and Producer Price Index (PPI). Specifically, the research evaluated
the ability of such readily available cost indices, constructed using data not directly related to
transit system development costs, to replicate actual changes in the construction and
procurement costs of civil and system elements for light and heavy rail projects. The result was
that these general price indices were not able to forecast major transit capital projects costs
within established forecasting parameters. The research then considered how these transit
element unit costs could be used in the preparation of capital cost projections for both new and
mature fixed guideway transit projects and the potential benefits of doing so.
The analysis was designed to consider variations in fixed guideway procurement costs at
various levels of aggregation; beginning at the element level of detail (e.g. examining variations
in the cost of ballasted trackwork, center platform stations, control systems and electrification),
combining these element costs into capital cost component categories, and concluding with an
examination of variations in cost of entire fixed guideway projects. These cost measures were
found capable of capturing historical changes in light and heavy rail procurement costs with
sufficient accuracy, that they could facilitate the generation of project cost projections featuring
greater accuracy than has been typically achieved in the past. This cost desegregation was
included in the development of this database, but not applied to the inflation of future year
costs in the interest of the schedule and resource constraints of this project.
1.2.6 2003 Light Rail Transit Capital Cost Study
FTA is now publishing this latest capital cost research effort to update and improve the 1991
Light Rail Transit Capital Cost Study. Over the 12-year period since that report was completed,
the US transit industry has witnessed a rapid expansion in the total investment in light rail
infrastructure at a broad variety of urban locations across the nation. For example, total track
miles invested in light rail roughly doubled over the period 1991-2003 while the number of
agencies operating light rail systems has increased by more than a third. Light rail continues to
be the mode of choice for proposed investments seeking Section 5309 New Starts funds.
This extended light rail capital cost effort has updated the original five projects and expanded
the list of projects found in the original study to include many more projects that have been
undertaken since the 1991 report was completed. This proposed update process also inflated all
unit costs to a more recent base year (e.g., 2003), thus providing a more relevant capital cost
basis for project planners and engineers, FTA staff and oversight analysts. Both the projects
included in the prior study and the more recent projects have their unit and total cost estimates
inflated to a common national norm and consistent base year 2003 values.
In addition, the results of this study have benefited from valuable lessons learned since
completion of the initial report. Such improvements include:
Better documentation of the pertinent project cost standards, passenger throughput,

operating parameters, geotechnical issues and other factors which contribute to variations in
unit costs among projects (as included in the 1994 Heavy Rail Cost Report)
More detailed breakout of guideway element costs segmenting trackwork from guideway
structural elements (also found in the Heavy Rail Report)

1-5
1.0 Introduction
Increased definition and related cost impact on project procurement methods (e.g., designbuild) and their impact on project unit costs, soft costs in particular; technological changes,
safety standards and environmental requirements now prevalent in newer light rail projects
but not inherent in the designs of those projects found in the 1991 study.
The critical issue here is to bring the unit costs as close to a consistent basis as possible and then
use a qualitative discussion to explain the remaining differences among the remaining cost
variances.
Finally for this update, FTA desired to develop a capital cost estimation model that can be used
to forecast capital costs of future projects and allows projects to be compared using a variety of
metrics such as cost per mile and passenger trips. Moreover, the Light Rail Capital Cost Model
permits development of more accurate cost estimates than per mile metrics allow by
providing the user with the tools to build a potential system from the ground-up using the
cost detail provided by the study. Specifically, this approach focused on developing project cost
estimates based on not just the total track miles but also the number and type of stations,
vehicles, vertical alignment, facilities, passenger throughput design capacity, and operating
design capacity (vehicle consist and train frequency or headway). This cost calculator or model
has fixed and variable cost elements, similar to the structure of operating cost models to best
estimate project capital costs or provide the tests of reasonableness of existing capital cost
estimates.
1.2.7 Study Audience
The intended audience of the study and its products are those project development planners
and engineers, FTA review staff and contracted oversight staff requiring improved information
on light rail capital costs (e.g., New Starts and Rail Modernization oversight, Transit Economic
Requirements Model). As with the initial reports, the updated analysis should also prove useful
to industry planners and engineers developing the capital cost estimates for these New Starts
and Rail Modernization projects.
1.2.8 Study Products
This revised study provided several updates of the original information, expansions to the
projects included in the database, enhancements to the definition process, and the development
of the Light Rail Capital Cost Model. A detailed breakout of project unit capital costs and
quantities for new projects identified with FTA and FTA PMO contractor assistance, as well as
for those projects included in the original study, all converted to a common base year (e.g.,
$2003) and national average using publicly available price indices (e.g., Means Construction
Index). Unit costs and quantities are presented in an MS Excel workbook and included in this
report. The methods used to obtain the unit cost and quantity data provided in the database are
described to assist the users to better understand the unique characteristics of each project and
its unit costs. Text descriptions of the projects are included such as information on design
standards, procurement methods, geotechnical issues and other factors that contribute to and
help to better explain variations in unit costs across projects. A Light Rail Capital Cost Model
was developed and described here, provides users the ability to develop cost estimates or
complete tests of reasonableness for potential light rail investments using either gross
1-6
1.0 Introduction
investment measures (e.g., cost per mile) or using a more detailed and accurate ground-up or
best fit approach based on more detailed fixed and variable cost drivers.
1.3 Study Objectives

The project was sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), of the U. S.
Department of Transportation as part of its ongoing efforts to improve the major capital
investment planning process. The size and complexity of the issues involved in the estimation
of capital cost estimates required a careful review of the many causal factors behind the
estimation process to ensure the completed unit cost database would resolve as many of these
issues as is reasonable. Technical analysis focused on those aspects of actual project
development experience likely to provide the greatest benefit. Hence, the objectives of the study
were then defined to include both the intent of the study and the expectations of the resulting
database. These objectives are:
To reduce some of the original data collection effort needed to generate unit capital cost
data for each study
To provide local and state transportation planning agencies and consultants with
experience-based, or as-built cost information that could be used in generating more
accurate and consistent capital cost estimates
To provide FTA and other state and local agencies with the unit cost information to develop
and check the reasonableness of the capital cost estimates for major capital projects at the
various stages of development.
These study objectives were used to guide the development of the research process, while the
following objectives were used to define the expectations of the technical analysis process and
the database and cost model resulting from those efforts.
Documentation of "as-built" construction and procurement costs for all aspects of project
development
Development of a consistent database structure that can account for the major characteristics
of each cost category typically included within the development of a major capital transit
project
Examination of unit cost characteristics that could be pertinent to the planning of similar
major transit projects, such as the distribution of costs by component categories, consistent
unit cost ranges, and commonalities of component types and capacity requirements for light
rail projects.
These objectives were used to guide the study in the documentation and analysis of
actual capital costs of eleven recent rapid transit projects. It is anticipated that through
the distribution of this "as-built" capital cost information, the reliability of capital cost
estimates for projects in the planning process may be improved.

1-7
1.0 Introduction
1.4 Modal Definitions of Included Projects

The term light rail refers to a mode of transportation that is defined more by its complexity and
operational rigidity rather than by actual vehicle weight or cost. Light rail typically consists of
steel-wheeled, electric-powered vehicles capable of operation in trains of two or more cars, on
either mixed traffic or entirely grade-separated rights-of-way. Trains are usually powered by a
high-level catenary electrical power source or, diesel or diesel/electric fuel powered light rail
vehicles. Loading and unloading of passengers generally takes place from stations with high
level platforms permitting rapid entry and exit, but can be from low-level boarding to low level
vehicles. This report documents as-built unit costs for fifteen individual light rail segments of
larger light rail systems.
1.5 Candidate Projects

The light rail projects examined in this study are listed below in Table 1-1. Together, these fixed
guideway projects represent a significant investment of public funds in public transit. The
documentation of the actual component capital costs for these projects provides transit planners
and engineers with a valuable source of actual unit cost information which should prove
helpful in the preparation of capital cost estimates that are closer to the final project
development costs covering the planning, engineering, and construction of similar rapid transit
systems. All of the underlying capital cost data was supplied by those transit authorities or city
agencies responsible for development and/or operation of these systems or the project
management oversight consultants assigned by the FTA to review project implementation.
Table 1-1
List of Projects
Light Rail Capital Cost Study
Recently Completed Light Rail Projects
Baltimore Central Light Rail
Baltimore Central Light Rail Extensions
Dallas Light Rail Initial Line and Extensions
Dallas Southwest Segment
Hudson-Bergen Light Rail MOS I
Los Angeles Pasadena Blue Line
Los Angeles Green Line
Memphis Light Rail
New Orleans Desire Line
New Orleans Extensions
Portland MAX Extensions
Sacramento Extensions
St Louis Initial Line and Extensions
Salt Lake City North-South Corridor
San Diego South Corridor
San Diego Extensions
San Francisco Muni Embarcadero and Third Street Proj.
San Jose South Corridor
San Jose Extensions

1-8
1991 Light Rail Capital Cost Report Projects

Pittsburgh Light Rail Stage 1
Sacramento Stage 1
Los Angeles Long Beach Blue Line
Nearing Completion Light Rail Projects
Los Angeles East Side Light Rail
St Louis St Clair County Extension Phase IIA
Hudson-Bergen Light Rail MOS II
Dallas North Central Corridor
Pittsburgh Stage II Light Rail
San Francisco Muni Chinatown Extension
Seattle Sound Transit Segment 1
1.0 Introduction
The project team developed a comprehensive list of projects to guide the process and then
focused on those with the readily available capital costs. The limiting factor was the availability
of the capital cost information at the desired format and within the project schedule and
resource limitations. Future efforts will be conducted to collect this same information for the
remaining projects not included in this effort.
1.6 Pertinence and Limitations of the Results

The transit agencies operating these recently completed light rail projects supplied the basic
element cost data and then examined the translation of their cost data into the reporting
structure to ensure interpretational consistency. The FTA PMO contractors and FTA Regional
Office and Office of Engineering staff provided the capital cost data to the project in the desired
format. The resulting element cost information is intended to assist agencies in the planning
and engineering stages to better prepare capital cost estimates for proposed new systems, line
extensions and renewal of the more mature transit systems.
The information presented here should be used in line with the objectives posed for the study.
In particular, there exists a broad range of unit costs across the guideway projects from which
data were obtained. This variation in project costs should be interpreted as a means of
developing a range of unit costs based on the relative complexity of the individual projects and
the unique local conditions encountered in the development of each project. There are
numerous individual factors that directly and indirectly influence the cost of completing each
project. For example, the basic design philosophy of each system will directly affect unit and
total costs. Other procurement decisions can be based on additional upcoming extensions to the
existing lines that may be more cost effective to procure in one consistent effort rather than as
individual contracts; these decisions may not appear as effective without this overall view. Such
differences reflect variations in development objectives and their impacts on unit and total
component costs do not easily conform to the quantitative focus of this study. This report does
attempt to account for each of these differences.
The component cost ranges produced in this report should provide a test of the reasonableness
of capital cost estimates for proposed light rail projects as well as some guidance as to the
number and type of assets required to complete development of similar projects. The cost
ranges could also be used as a measure of project complexity and overall service levels and
passenger carrying capacity. The more complex and/or greater ridership demand, the more
likely the project costs would tend toward the higher end of each component cost range. In
addition, local environmental conditions, unique geological site conditions and interpretational
provisions will have some direct effect upon the unit cost results. These effects should all be
considered with the use of the information presented in this report. The Capital Cost Model
developed from these as built unit costs accounts for the general scope provisions of forecasting
future capital costs, but accommodations need to be included to reflect some of these more
unique local project level conditions.

1-9
2.0 Study Approach
2.0
STUDY APPROACH
The study approach concentrated on the developmental process of a database of actual unit
capital costs that could be drawn from transit system development experience. The two key
requirements of the database were the consistent definition of capital asset components and the
identification of actual construction and procurement costs at the same level of detail. Overall,
complete development of the capital cost databases for light rail systems required the
completion of eight individual steps. These steps included:
1. Definition of a comprehensive list of cost categories and project elements
2. Development of a data collection database form
3. Distribution of the data collection database form to selected light rail projects for completion
4. Review of returned forms for completeness and/or misunderstandings
5. Conduct calls and site visits to fill in missing data and obtain clarifications
6. Entry of data into the light rail capital cost databases
7. Submission of database to the selected transit systems or PMO's for checking and
verification
8. Editing and finalizing of capital cost databases
9. Escalation of database to year 2003
10. Development of the Capital Cost Model.
2.1 Definition of Cost Categories and Project Elements

The capital cost categories and project elements included within each category were initially
defined in the first of these efforts to develop the original light rail capital cost database. The
development of the initial structure was based on the major functional requirements of a major
transit capital project and the methods employed to estimate the capital costs. Background
research was conducted into the definitions, methods and level of detail applied in the
development of capital costs as documented in methodology and results reports submitted as
part of the alternatives analysis planning, preliminary engineering and final design process.
This background research was combined with the results of the research task into development
of a price index for the future projection of these capital costs in the transit industry. These
results and this task effort contributed slight modifications to the definition of the original
database structure, as outlined in Table 2-1. It also introduced finer detail depicting the labor,
materials and equipment costs required to develop each project element. This information is
maintained in the detailed database for future use, but not applied in this project.

2-1
2.0 Study Approach
Table 2-1
Fixed Guideway Project Elements By Cost Category
FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS
L.F. Guideway
DB / DBB
PE/FD/CON/OPS
0.01 PROCUREMENT TYPE

0.02 DEVELOPMENT PHASE
0.03 SERVICE
Directional Route Miles
Track Miles
Stations
Vehicles in Service
Route Miles
Track Miles
Each
Revenue Vehicles
Revenue Vehicles
Revenue Vehicles
Minutes
Minutes
Minutes
Unlinked Trips
Unlinked Trips
Unlinked Trips
Unlinked Trips
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
Peak
Midday
Headway
Peak
Midday
Ridership
Peak Period - Peak Direction
Weekday
Annual
0.04 STAFFING
Administrative
Operators
Maintenance
Vehicle
Non-Vehicle
Other (e.g., Fare Inspection)

1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.11
L.F. Guideway
AT GRADE GUIDEWAY
BALLASTED TRACK
EMBEDDED TRACK
SPECIAL TRACKWORK
2.00 YARDS & SHOPS

2.01
2.02
2.03
2.04
2.05
2.06
2.07
2.08
2.09
2.10
2.11

Units
of
Measure
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
L.F. Guideway
Rev. Vehicle
LIGHT MAINTENANCE FACILITY / DEPOT #1

STORAGE BUILDING AND YARD #1
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
HEAVY MAINTENANCE FACILITY #1
MAINTENANCE OF WAY BUILDING & YARD
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
ADMINISTRATIVE FACILITY
2-2
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
2.0 Study Approach

Table 2-1 (Cont)
3.00 SYSTEMS
Track Feet
3.01 SIGNAL SYSTEM
Track Feet
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Intersections
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Station
Each
Station
Rev. Vehicle
L.F. Guideway
Each
Each
Each
Train Control - Wayside

Train Control - On Board Systems
Train Control - Centralized Systems
Crossing Protection
Substations
Power Distribution / Connections
Catenary
Third Rail
3.03 COMMUNICATIONS
Central Revenue Counting
Revenue Collection - In Station
Revenue Collection - On Vehicle
3.05 CENTRAL CONTROL
3.06 ELEVATORS / ESCALATORS
Elevators
Escalators
4.00 STATIONS
4.01
4.02
4.03
4.04
4.05
4.06
4.07
4.08
4.09
4.10
Station
AT-GRADE CENTER PLATFORM

AT-GRADE SIDE PLATFORM
SUBWAY CENTER PLATFORM
SUBWAY SIDE PLATFORM
ELEVATED CENTER PLATFORM
ELEVATED SIDE PLATFORM
PARKING LOTS
PARKING GARAGES
PEDESTRIAN OVERPASSES
SIGNAGE & GRAPHICS
5.00 VEHICLES
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06
Rev. Vehicle
REVENUE VEHICLES -- ORDER A

REVENUE VEHICLES -- ORDER B
REVENUE VEHICLES -- ORDER C
REVENUE VEHICLES -- ORDER D
ROTABLE VEHICLE COMPONENTS
NON-REVENUE VEHICLES
Maintenance Of Way Vehicles
Automobiles / Trucks

6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
ROADWAY CHANGES
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION
LANDSCAPING
THIRD-PARTY AGREEMENTS

Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
L.F. Guideway
UTILITY RELOCATION - AS IS
UTILITY RELOCATION - BETTERMENTS
UTILITY RELOCATION - OTHER
DEMOLITIONS
Buildings
Other Removals
Asbestos Abatement
Railroads
6.05
6.06
6.07
6.08
Station
Station
Station
Station
Station
Station
Spaces
Spaces
Each
Station
2-3
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
2.0 Study Approach

Table 2-1 (Cont)
7.00 RIGHT-OF-WAY
L.F. Guideway
7.01 LAND ACQUISITION - PURCHASED

7.02 LAND ACQUISITION - DONATED
7.03 ACQUISITION-RELATED COST
Property Management
Agency
Contractor
7.04 RELOCATION
7.05 OTHER
8.00 SOFT-COSTS
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
Total
8.01
8.02
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING & DESIGN
FINAL DESIGN
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
PROJECT INITIATION
Insurance
Mobilization
Maintenance of Traffic
8.07 FINANCE CHARGES
8.08 TRAINING/START-UP/TESTING
Safety Certification
Off-Site LRV Testing
8.09 OTHER SOFT COSTS
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
2.1.1 Capital Component-Level Cost Descriptions

The 1991 Light Rail Capital Cost Study and subsequent Heavy Rail Busway/HOV study
subdivided project capital costs into eight individual cost components and further into a range
of elements and sub-elements for each individual category. The project team reviewed and
updated this cost hierarchy and prepared changes as needed to support this effort in
consultation with the FTA project staff. The following descriptions form the basis to this effort.
These are included in the model to provide an understanding of the cost category definitions
and a firm consistent basis to the cost breakdowns for the database.
Guideway This category includes the costs and quantities of those components of each
guideway type including at-grade, above-grade (elevated fill, elevated structure, bridges)
and below-grade (including running tunnels, crossovers and station caverns and cut-andcover). For the purposes of this analysis, guideway is defined as all civil components
supporting both ballast and trackwork, with or w/o direct fixation, but not including them.
Accurate guideway costs are critical due to the high cost variances, uncertainty and risk
associated guideway construction, particularly for above or below-grade investments.
Trackwork The trackwork costs include the costs and quantities of the basic
trackwork components such as running rail, ties, ballast, direct fixation components,
rail fastening systems and welding techniques. Special trackwork components such
as single, double and diamond crossovers and turnouts were also included under
this category.
Systems The systems review included the costs and quantities for traction power,
train control or signalization, communications, and fare collection systems. Traction

2-4
2.0 Study Approach
power systems include costs for structures, transformers, switchgear, ancillary

equipment, substations, and catenary structures/wire. Signalization systems include
cab, wayside and control center components, testing and special requirements at
important locations such as junctions and crossovers. Communications systems
include components at stations and on-board trains for connections between
passengers, operators and the central control facility. Fare collection costs include
fare collection equipment at rail stations such as turnstiles, ticket vending machines,
ticket selling offices, and the apparatus and software required to control and operate
this equipment.
Stations For this analysis, stations were classified as either at-, above, or below
grade and, further more, as either center or side platform. Other descriptive data
was collected to account for the broad variations in station design standards
commonly associated with light rail. The per station cost includes the costs and
quantities for the stations' structures, the station platforms, vertical access means
(stairs, escalators, and elevators), and station finish work. Station costs do not
include the guideway elements through the station areas. Station access facilities
such as roadways, parking and pedestrian needs were identified in separate cost
components. Also included were the station systems such as power facilities,
lighting, ventilating equipment, and the various communicating equipment needed
to fully comply with the ADA requirements. Further considerations include the
need for all aspects of the stations to be compliant with the requirements of NFPA
130.
Facilities The review of this category included the cost of new or expanded
maintenance facilities, administrative facilities and operation/dispatch control
centers. Components included vehicle storage yards, vehicle repair and maintenance
shops, office support areas, control centers and surveillance centers.
Vehicles The vehicle component included the costs and quantities for revenue
vehicles (LRT vehicles) and non-revenue vehicles (maintenance-of-way (MOW) and
support vehicles). Here again, descriptive data was collected to account for
differences in design standards across vehicles, including gross weight, power,
seating and standing capacity and related factors, such as low floor, propulsion and
whether they are FRA compliant, all of which have measurable cost impacts.
Special Conditions Special conditions are typically not included in any other
capital cost category and not covered by contingency factors and yet represent a
significant contributor to total project cost. Utility Relocation, Noise/Environmental
Abatement/Mitigation, Maintenance of Traffic, and Urban Design and Landscape
costs are examples of special condition costs not covered under other specific
categories. Our review identified the general assumptions behind the quantities and
costs of these components to determine their cost relationships for future cost
estimating.

2-5
2.0 Study Approach
Right-of-Way The right-of-way cost category included the purchase of property to

accommodate placement of the alignments guideway structures, facilities and
stations. Quantities for right-of-way resources are based on the length and width of
the completed alignment, number of passenger stations and the number of
properties affected by the placement of the alignment and stations. Costs are
typically based on the fair market value for property takings plus a specific right-ofway acquisition cost that can range from 3 percent to 10 percent of property costs.
Soft Costs: Engineering/Design/Project & Construction Management and

Insurance The costs for these categories vary significantly across projects. These
variances are crucial to understanding differences in total project costs and why they
differ. We have collected these costs in detail for each project and assigned them to
the proper element or sub-category. The project team then reviewed the inclusion or
exclusion of these costs based on a consistent interpretation of the project starting
point and the separate phases of project development, including the third party
contracting, consultant and agency administrative and force account costs. Ensuring
consistency here and segmentation by project development phase is essential for
understanding the amount and driver relationships of these soft costs and then
projecting future project capital costs. Soft costs have been an increasing proportion
of project capital costs.
Contingency Contingency costs are typically included in capital cost estimating

for major transportation investments in an effort to plan for unknown circumstances
that are not evident at the AA/DEIS/DEIR/PE/FD level of engineering. However,
contingency factors are typically reduced as projects move through their
development phase from planning to preliminary engineering to final design and
construction. Contingency factors are typically developed for each component cost
category and range from 10 to 30 percent on the individual costs of guideway,
trackwork, facilities, systems, stations, special conditions and right-of-way. While asbuilt costs do not include contingencies, the project team identified potential
contingency values for each cost component based on the variance levels of the unit
cost database for the projects in the final stages of development.
2.1.2 Types of Capital Cost Data

In addition to reviewing the hierarchy of cost categories, this review considered the types of
data required to accurately assess, populate and utilize the costs data for each cost category.
Specifically, this review considered the following:
Costs The ultimate product for this assignment are accurate unit costs and their associated
cost driver for each cost component and element identified in the finalized database
structure. Based on this database, the light rail capital cost model was constructed.
Unit Quantities The 1991 analysis required collection of detailed unit quantities for all
project cost categories and cost elements based from the engineering documentation for
each project (e.g., track miles, number of vehicles, number of stations by type, etc.). This
update required confirmation of the desired units for analysis (e.g., track feet, number of

2-6
2.0 Study Approach
vehicles, etc.) of the prior projects and coordination and communication with the FTA, PMO
contractors and grantee agencies of the more recent projects to determine the availability of
this data and the final project definitions for all projects included in the study.
Other Factors Effective analysis of project costs also required documentation of the design,
geotechnical issues, procurement methods and related factors which contribute to variations
in capital costs across projects but which are unrelated to differences in regional price levels,
inflation or project size. A key example here is the design standards for light rail stations. In
practice, a light rail stop may consist of a wide a variety of designs ranging from a simple
bus shelter to full interchange stations (at, below or above grade) complete with full
passenger amenities (e.g., elevators/escalators, ticket vending, restrooms, shops) and
revenue collection systems. It is critical that analysts using the unit cost data are aware of
these design differences to ensure valid cost comparisons across projects. This primarily
descriptive data will be based on that data or technical reports already collected by FTA.
2.1.3 Escalation Factors

For this assignment, the original cost data from the 1991 study and the new cost data collection
from the post-1991 candidate systems will be adjusted to a common base year (e.g., $2003) and
to a common national average. These adjustments are required to ensure valid apples-toapples comparisons of unit costs among all projects within the database. These adjustments for
inflation and differences in regional price levels were undertaken using the publicly available
cost index, Means Construction Cost Index. The Capital Cost Model also includes related series
of cost indices for future use published by the Department Of Commerce and the Bureau of
Labor Statistics.
2.2 Data Collection Guide

Development of the data collection guide was accomplished through cooperative efforts of
industry professionals representing transit system operators, funding agencies, and
engineering, planning and consulting firms. The guide outlined above in Table 2-1, was
important because it formalized the initial definition of asset elements and established the
minimum level of unit cost detail. The actual data collection guide followed the final database
structure attached in Appendix A. This structure consists of eight summary groupings of
related project elements referred to here as "cost categories," individual project components and
then separate line items or "project elements" within these cost components and categories. This
guide was organized into a data entry spreadsheet with each of these cost elements. A detailed
explanatory effort was embedded into the spreadsheet to provide descriptive information on
each component and element to assist the data collection process. In addition, cost category and
component-level descriptive information was provided within the data entry database in a
separate worksheet.
2.3 Data Collection Process

The data collection process followed a consistent process, but through three separate paths. The
process was based on the data collection form and the descriptive information on the cost
components and elements. The first path was the update of the original project capital cost
2-7
2.0 Study Approach
information to be consistent with all of the additional projects included in this effort. The
second path was to request the information on current projects through the FTA PMO
contractors. The third path was to request this same information directly from some of the
ongoing projects and a few of the recently completed projects that have the capital cost
information readily available for this project. The following sections describe the general
process that was consistent to all three data collection paths.
2.3.1 Data Collection Guide
The data collection guide utilized the same project component, element and cost category
definitions as the file structure used in constructing the capital cost databases. The data
collection guide was distributed to each of the PMO and completed candidate systems outlined
earlier. The guides were distributed by the FTA Office of Engineering and addressed to the
project PMOs to ensure timely and accurate completion of the database. Interaction between
project staff, FTA and PMO staff was necessary to clarify the request; assist in the interpretation
of special conditions; and adapt the original data base structure and component definitions to
better fit the composition of the available cost information.
2.3.2 Review Of Returned Forms
Data collection guides were returned to FTA and project staff by the PMO staff assigned the
responsibility to complete the request. Additional supporting project reports and materials were
submitted by agency staff. These materials provided both a more complete description of the
projects and background information to better understand the cost data and thereby were used
to develop the descriptions included within this report. Additional light rail projects were
included within the capital cost database based on data availability from the remaining projects
included in the projects listing.
2.3.3 Clarification Of Submissions
The supporting reports, materials and data collection guides were reviewed for completeness
and understanding. Initial queries were submitted to PMO staff to ensure completeness of the
materials and to confirm questions about the materials.
2.3.4 Data Entry
After the data collection guides were returned and initially checked for completeness, the cost
information was entered into the database system for review and analysis. The capital cost
databases were prepared using Microsoft Excel for Windows software for ease of access and to
facilitate the addition of other transit modes and/or transit projects developed at a later date.
2.4 Data Verification

Cost values were entered into the database at the finest level of detail provided by each PMO.
Costs and quantities at the project element and component level were subtotaled to the cost
category level. Finally, unit costs were calculated at both the project element and cost category
2-8
2.0 Study Approach
levels of detail. Unit costs were compared as an initial test of reasonableness and to identify any
unusual trends or conditions. Logic checks were added to the database to confirm the
reasonableness of each value. Outliers were then checked with the PMO contacts to verify any
unusual unit costs or completion dates. Quantity estimates were checked with submitted project
reports and then crosschecked with the category subtotals.
2.5 Data Editing

To this point, the unit cost data entered into the database reflected the cost of developing
specific light rail project elements, in specific cities, and at specific points in time. Hence, to
facilitate meaningful comparisons of unit cost values across guideway projects, this cost data
required adjustment to reflect differences in price levels both among cities to account for
geographic differences in construction costs and through time to account for general price
inflation over time.
2.5.1 Constant Year Dollar Values
First, to account for general price inflation, individual unit costs were inflated from their yearof-expenditure values to a constant year 2003 dollar value using "Means Heavy Construction Cost
Data." Means Construction Cost Indices are published annually by the R.S. Means Company, Inc.
and are also available through the Engineering News Record. Mathematically, the cost value for
guideway element i in city x in year t (i.e., the city and year that cost was paid for element i in a
previously completed project) can be inflated from its value in year t (Ci,x,t) to its 2003 base year
value using the following transformation (where It is the cost index value in year t) to obtain
city cost dollars:
Ci x,2003 = Ci,x,t * ( I2003 / It )
2.5.2 National Average Metropolitan Cost Value

Second, to account for differences in price levels among cities, these 2003 constant dollar values
calculated using the above equation were adjusted from their "city cost expenditure" values to a
normalized national average basis. This process utilized Means total weighted average
construction cost indices which represent all construction types and utilize a weighted average
of labor, materials, and equipment installation costs.
Hence, the cost value for guideway element i in 2003 can be normalized from its value in city x
(Ci, N, 2003) to a national average value using the following expression, where 100 is the
national average cost index value for 1994 and CIx is the value of the index for city x in 2003:
Ci, N, 2003 = Ci, x, 2003 * (100 / CIx )

2-9
2.0 Study Approach
The nationwide average cost basis of 100 represents the 30 major city cost average as of January
1, 2003. This provides the unit cost comparative basis for the fixed guideway capital cost
categories. The cost index for each of the light rail transit cities that were used in this study are
the following values:
Exhibit 2-1
Unit Cost Indices Of The Project Cities
Light Rail Transit Cities

Denver
Los Angeles
Minneapolis
Newark
Pasadena
Pittsburgh
Portland
Sacramento
Salt Lake City
San Diego
San Jose
St. Louis
Trenton
Local Cost Index

95.9
107.5
113.2
109.5
105.2
100.2
104.8
111.0
90.1
105.5
119.7
102.3
107.5
Some of the cities examined have localized metropolitan area cost indices that are greater than
100. Values greater than 100 indicate that construction costs in these cities exceed those of the 30
major cities cost average as of January 2003. Those with cost indices of less than 100 have
construction costs below the 30-city average.
2.5.3 Further Desegregation
Finally, each project element was further segmented into the labor, material, and equipment
inputs used in its construction. Specifically, percentage distributions were developed which
depict each input's contribution to the total cost of developing that element. These proportions
were developed across several projects and do not necessarily depict the precise input costs for
the specific projects included in the database. Rather, they are provided here as an estimated
guide to provide further insight and value to the projection of future year component and unit
costs. Future year costs can be projected from a cost base of labor, materials and equipment
costs more easily and more accurately than from a capital cost base of project elements or cost
category subtotals. The methodology used to normalize project capital costs to a consistent year
and national level did not utilize this further desegregation information at this point. This
process has been maintained in the database so it may be used as part of a future related project.

2-10
2.0 Study Approach
2.6 Final Capital Cost Data

The full capital cost databases is presented in the Appendix A (Light Rail) of this report. These
databases provide all three of the basic cost data for each project element and cost category:
1. Actual, "as-built" costs in the original year-of-expenditure dollars

2. Constant dollar, 2003 unit costs for each city in which light rail projects were
developed
3. Constant dollar, (2003 base year), unit cost data normalized to a national average basis.
In addition to these key cost data, the database also presents quantities of each project
element, component and cost category and cost subtotals to each cost category.

2-11
3.0 Project Descriptions
3.0
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
The first phase focused on a thorough review of the cost categories and project elements utilized
in the original study report in order to identify gaps and validate assumptions. The emphasis
was on reviewing project definitions, level of detail in the asset categories, estimation of asset
category quantities and the values and basis for the unit costs for each category of the identified
New Start light rail projects. This phase also focused on identifying Section 5309 New Start light
rail projects that have been completed as well as those processing FFGAs since 1991. The study
team also identified the year of expenditure for those estimates, the escalation rate basis used to
form the current year estimates, the developmental process and formulation basis for the unit
costs, the contingency rates use for each asset category and the reasonableness tests used to
confirm each cost estimate. These results were presented to FTA with supporting draft cost
tables in the required format. The following project descriptions highlight the project
characteristics most pertinent to the understanding of the capital cost estimates presented here
and the forecasting basis in the next chapters.
The initial 1991 research effort was to document actual construction, systems procurement and
related developmental costs for the most recently constructed light rail transit systems in the
United States. With the successful opening of the San Diego Trolley in 1981, other U. S. cities
have followed with the development of their own light rail systems. Through the decade of the
1980s, seven light rail systems were constructed or significantly reconstructed.
San Diego inaugurated initial line service in 1981

Buffalo began service in 1985
Portland opened service in 1986
Sacramento initiated service in 1987
San Jose opened their first segment in 1987
Los Angeles initiated service (1990) to Long Beach
Pittsburgh reopened service on their line in 1988.
These new light rail systems represent an important investment of public funds in the
passenger transportation industry. The capital costs of these projects were documented in the
initial report except for San Diego and Buffalo, where cost information to this level of detail was
unavailable to these two projects. Since then, San Diego has documented the costs of their initial
line and it has been included here in this effort. The documentation of the actual "as-built"
element-level capital costs of these systems represents an opportunity to help prepare realistic
capital cost estimates in the planning and engineering of the next set of systems.
This chapter includes an update of these prior projects, plus additional light rail projects
completed since the 1991 light rail capital cost project. It includes references to the light rail
projects included within this database and several others that were requested but not received
in time to include in this project. The following projects represent those that were not
documented in this project, and will be reserved for a future effort.

3-1
Baltimore Central Light Rail and Extensions

Dallas Light Rail
Denver Southwest Corridor Light Rail Initial Segments
Los Angeles Green Line
Memphis Light Rail
New Orleans Light Rail Extensions
St. Louis Initial Segment
Salt Lake City University Line
San Diego Initial Segments
San Francisco Muni Recent and Planned Segments
San Jose Couth Corridor
Seattle Sound Transit Segment 1.
The following projects are described to support the better understanding of the capital cost
information provided in the database. These descriptions have been adapted from the project
and agency websites.
3.1 RTD Light Rail System

The Denver area is served by the Regional Transit District, providing bus and light rail services
throughout the metropolitan region. The light rail system, has been developed in two segments
and is operated as two lines with alternative destination alignments within downtown Denver.
Both connect downtown Denver with the southern portion of the neighboring suburbs. The
light rail lines are well integrated with the other RTD bus services, including the regional bus
services and the RTDs MallRide at Union Station or at bus stops all along the 16th Street Mall..
The Regional Transit District (RTD) developed the initial
line to connect downtown Denver with the southern
portion of the city in 1994. This segment has been
operational and the RTD has since constructed an 8.7-mile
light rail extension of the initial line that extends light rail
service from Denver to Littleton. This segment of the light
rail line extends from the I-25/Broadway station on the
initial Central Corridor line south to Mineral Avenue in
Littleton, running parallel to Santa Fe Drive over an
exclusive, grade-separated right-of-way. This Southwest
Corridor extension opened for revenue service in the year
2000, with an estimated 8,400 daily riders for the Southwest
extension and 22,000 daily riders for the entire LRT system
by the year 2015. Within one year of operation a total of
38,000 average daily riders were using the system, of these
17,400 average daily riders were using the Southwest
extension. This five-station extension is the segment
included in the database.
Signs on each train indicate which light rail line: the C Line
or the D Line. As illustrated in Exhibit 3-1. A color-coded
3-2
Exhibit 3-1
T-REX Light Rail System
sign in the front window identifies each line: C Line signs are orange and D Line signs are
green. The final destination for each train is identified on the sign above the front window of
the train. The C Line (orange) travels from Littleton/Mineral Station to Union Station in Lower
Downtown. There are 12 stations along this 13-mile line.
The D Line (green) travels from Littleton/Mineral Station through Downtown Denver to 30th &
Downing Station in Five Points. There are 20 stations along the entire 14-mile line. All stations
serve both northbound and southbound trains, except in Downtown Denver between 14th Street
and 19th Street. In that area, northbound trains travel along California Street and southbound
trains travel along Stout Street.
3.2 Los Angeles Light Rail
Exhibit 3-2
LACMTA Metro Rail System
The Los Angeles Metro Rail system is comprised of the

Metro Blue, Green, Red, and Gold Lines (Exhibit 3-2). This
capital cost study has focused on the light rail lines of this
network. These light rail lines, both operational and under
construction include the following for this study.
The Metro Blue Line runs north and south between

Long Beach and Los Angeles.
The Metro Green Line crosses the Blue Line, running

east and west between Norwalk and Redondo Beach,
curving south near the Los Angeles International
Airport.
The Metro Gold Line is scheduled to open in mid-2003.

It will expand the light rail system, connecting with the
Red Line at Union Station and running northeast to
Pasadena.
The Metro Red Line is a heavy rail subway that meets the Blue Line in Los Angeles and
provides service through Downtown, between Union Station, the Mid-Wilshire area,
Hollywood and the San Fernando Valley. This heavy rail line will be included within a heavy
rail capital cost study at a later date. The following descriptions of these light rail lines was
adapted from the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority website.
3.2.1 Los Angeles - Long Beach Blue Line
The Metro Blue Line (Exhibit 3-3), L.A.'s first light rail transit system, runs from 7th Street in
Downtown L.A., through the communities of Vernon, Huntington Park, South Gate, Watts,
Compton, Carson, finally ending in downtown Long Beach. The Metro Blue Line connects Long
Beach with downtown Los Angeles along a 22.6-mile, mostly at-grade or elevated fill
(approximately 80 percent), and dedicated alignment, that includes a subway section and
connection to the Metro Red Line in downtown Los Angeles. This line was constructed as the
first part of a regional network of rail service, serving the entire Los Angeles area. Construction

3-3
was initiated in October 1987, and the revenue service opening was July 14, 1990. The total
capital costs were $877 Million. Ridership has averaged about 63,000 daily.
Initial revenue service was inaugurated in July 1990, over almost
the full length, and since February 1991, into the tunnel connection
in central Los Angeles. There are 28 highway, 4 pedestrian and two
at-grade railroad crossings that required warning and control systems.
The full alignment is double-tracked except for the one-directional
loop in downtown Long Beach. The Blue Line was designed as a
modern and more state-of-the-art rail line including connections with
other planned lines along its length. There are 22 stations with only 5
offering parking facilities. One station is underground with
connections to the Red Line, three on elevated sections, and one
combined aerial/at-grade station with a link to the planned Green
Line. The service and ridership levels were anticipated at fairly high
rates, which required sophisticated control and support systems for
this light rail line.
Exhibit 3-3
Blue Line Schematic
The vehicle operated on the Blue Line is a P865 model light rail
vehicle, articulated, 6-axle, double-ended, pantograph, powered with
750V DC (Exhibit 3-4). The manufacturer was Sumitomo-Nippon
Sharyo of Japan. The fleet is composed of 54 vehicles, 100-153 series.
The passenger carrying capacity is 150 seated; 230 maximum seated
and standing, plus 2 wheelchair locations. The maximum allowable
operating speed is 55 mile per hour on the grade separated segments
and 35 mph for the street running segments. The cars currently
operate in train lengths of two or three cars. The vehicle maintenance
facility is located in Carson, between the Del Amo and Wardlow stations.
Starting in Downtown L.A., the Blue Line starts
underground at the 7th St/Metro Center station,
which provides transfers to the Metro Red Line.
The alignment begins through a half-mile subway
tunnel. It surfaces at the Pico station, the Los
Angeles Convention Center and the STAPLES
Center sporting arena nearby. The alignment then
travels on Flower Street, and down the middle of
Washington Blvd., before veering south at the
Washington Station. Here, the train reaches its
maximum speed of 55 mph in the separated
alignment, passing through the industrial and
residential districts of Vernon, Huntington Park
and Watts. At the Imperial/Wilmington Station,
passengers can transfer to the Metro Green Line.

3-4
Exhibit 3-4
Blue Line Rail Car

Exhibit 3-5
After passing the Compton Civic Center, it passes

Blue Line Train at Long Beach Boulevard
through the industrial areas of Rancho Dominguez
Station
and Carson, passing over the Long Beach Freeway,
the Metro Blue Line maintenance yard and the Los
Angeles River. Arriving on the east bank of the river,
the train enters north Long Beach, and at the Willow
Station, the trains enter street-running service again,
this time through Long Beach Blvd (Exhibit 3-5). After
passing the Long Beach Plaza shopping center, the
trains loop around downtown Long Beach within short
walking distance to the Long Beach Convention Center,
Shoreline Village and numerous shops, restaurants,
theatres and hotels.
3.2.2 Los Angeles Green Line
Los Angeles Green Line is a light rail line, running in an east to west direction through Los
Angeles County, serving the communities of Norwalk, Downey, Lynwood, Watts, Inglewood,
Lennox, El Segundo, Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach (Exhibit 3-6). The alignment length
is 20 miles in total. The Metro Green Line's route begins west of Studebaker Road in Norwalk
and travels for about 17 miles along the median of the Glenn Anderson (Century) Freeway (I105). After the Aviation Station, the
line splits from the freeway
Exhibit 3-6
structure at the Aviation Station,
Green Line Schematic With Interchange to Blue Line
where it connects with the LAX
Shuttle to the airport terminals. The
Green Line continues south along
an exclusive elevated right-of-way,
passing over El Segundo's high-tech
industrial complexes. The line ends
its run at Marine Avenue in
northeastern Redondo Beach.
Construction on the Green Line started in 1987 and the opening for revenue service was August
12, 1995 shortly after the opening of the I-105 freeway. Total capital cost was $718 million.
Ridership has grown to an average weekday of 23,000 daily trips. The line operates seven days
a week service on a frequency of every 7and 1/2 to 12 minutes.
The specifications for the Green Line vehicle fleet were oriented toward a higher technology
and performance at that time. The fleet is composed of two separate car orders an initial order
of 15 P2020 cars from Sumitomo-Nippon Sharyo, of Japan (dimensionally identical to the 54-car
Blue Line fleet) and another order of 52 P2000 light rail cars Siemens Transportation Systems of
Sacramento and Carson, California. The 52 Siemens cars are compatible and interchangeable
with the Sumitomo cars. The Siemens cars went into revenue service in the autumn of the year
2000. The Green Line shares the 52 cars with the Pasadena Gold Line as well as the Long Beach
Blue Line, and other future light rail lines.

3-5
The maximum operating speed was limited to 55 miles per hour at the inauguration of service
along the Green Line and subsequently increased to 65 mph in the year 2000. The service was
first operated in a single-car train length configuration. Operations of two-car consists has been
gradually phased in for peak hour service.
The vehicle maintenance facility is located in West Hawthorne, near the Marine Station. The
vehicles have only light maintenance service completed here, with heavy service done at the
Blue Line facility in Carson.
3.2.3 Los Angeles Pasadena Gold Line
Construction began in 1994 on 13.6-mile alignment of the
Gold Line that will run from Union Station in downtown
L.A. into Pasadena, serving the communities of Chinatown,
Highland Park and South Pasadena along the way (Exhibit
3-7). It was originally slated to open in May 2001, but lack of
funding and other complications have postponed the
opening of this rail line and construction had been
suspended. In 1998, the Pasadena Blue Line Construction
Authority, independent from the MTA, was formed to
oversee the completion of the line. Ground was re-broken in
Spring 2000 and the line is planned to open in July 2003. At
that time, the operation and maintenance of the line will be
turned over to the MTA. The Pasadena Gold Line is being
constructed by the Los Angeles to Pasadena Metro
Construction Authority. State Legislation (SB1847) created
the Authority effective January 1, 1999. Once completed
LACMTA will operate the light rail system.
Exhibit 3-7
Pasadena Gold Line Schematic
Exhibit 3-8
Chinatown Station
The route alignment for the Pasadena Gold Line extends for
13.7 miles from Union Station in downtown Los Angeles to
the Sierra Madre Villa station in eastern Pasadena, serving a
total of 13 stations. One distinctive feature of the construction
of the Gold Line is its attention to architecture and public art.
Exhibit 3-8 illustrates the Chinatown Station with its ornate
canopy to maintain the community theme.
3.3 New Jersey Light Rail Lines

Prior to completion of the Hudson-Bergen line, the Newark
Subway represented New Jersey Transits only operating
light rail line. During this period, the majority of the states
transit operations consisted of bus and commuter rail
services. More recently, New Jersey Transit embarked on an
effort to develop two new light rail investments in the
northern and southern parts of the state. Hudson-Bergen is
located along the Hudson River waterfront in the northern
3-6
Exhibit 3-9
Hudson-Bergen, Newport Station
portion of the state and the Southern New Jersey Light Rail Transit System is located along the
Delaware River waterfront in the southern portion of the state. Exhibit 3-9 shows HudsonBergens Newport Station. The following descriptions present the development of these light
rail lines. Note that the Hudson-Bergen Line is represented as two independent MOS segments
within the study database.
3.3.1 Hudson-Bergen Light Rail Transit System
The Hudson-Bergen Light Rail Transit System is a partnership between New Jersey Transit and
21st Century Rail Corporation, a special purpose company led by Washington Group, STV
Corporation and Kinki Sharyo. As the first design-build-operate-maintain (DBOM) project
development approach in the US, Hudson-Bergen has facilitated the completion of the line
several years ahead of a more typical project development schedule, yielding measurable
capital savings to the state.
Exhibit 3-10
The Hudson-Bergen transportation corridor is a key
link in the expanding commercial and residential
development along the Hudson River waterfront. From
about 1985, New Jersey Transit and the New Jersey
Department of Transportation proposed a light rail transit
system linking Bayonne to the Vince Lombardi Service
Area of the New Jersey Turnpike. This north-south project,
with its natural links to other east-west alignments within
the existing transit operations, represents an important part
of this growing waterfront community.
Hudson-Bergen 9th Street Elevator
The Hudson Bergen Light Rail Transit System was first planned as a 20.5 mile, 33-station light
rail system that would run from southern Bayonne north through Jersey City, Hoboken,
Weehawken, and North Bergen in Hudson County, to the New Jersey Turnpike's Vince
Lombardi Service Area in Bergen County. The project was planned in several segments given
the full alignment length and available funding support.
Hudson-Bergen Minimum Operating Segment I (MOS 1) Hudson-Bergen MOS 1 extends
from 34th Street in Bayonne continuing in a northerly direction into Jersey City and Hoboken,
and then connecting with the PATH, ferry and NJ commuter rail terminal along the waterfront.
The West Side Branch extends from Liberty State Park to West Side Avenue in Jersey City. This
9.5-mile segment includes 17 stations, 3 major intermodal transfer sites, and 5 regional parks &
ride sites providing 3,750 total parking spaces. A portion of the alignment that operates in city
streets is shown in Exhibit 3-10. Hudson-Bergen MOS 1 serves many schools, churches, medical
facilities, parks, and 10 major malls and shopping areas. Hudson-Bergen Light Rail ties together
cities in Hudson and Bergen Counties, including Bayonne, Jersey City, Hoboken, and
Weehawken. The Hudson-Bergen MOS 1 opened for revenue service the weekend of April 15th,
2000.
Hudson-Bergen Minimum Operating Segment 2 (MOS 2) A second Operation Segment
(MOS-2) for the Hudson-Bergen Waterfront Light Rail Transit System (HBLRTS) is under
development. The MOS-2 will run 5.1 miles north from Hoboken Terminal to the Tonnelle
3-7
Avenue Park-and-Ride lot in North Bergen and one mile south from 34th Street to 22nd Street
in Bayonne. MOS-2 is scheduled for completion in 2005 and is anticipated to carry 34,900
average weekday boardings in 2010.
The full Hudson-Bergen project includes the Vince Lombardi Park-and-Ride lot in Bergen
County to West Fifth Street in Bayonne in Hudson County. It is projected to serve 94,500
average weekday boardings in the year 2010. The outer ends will provide 8,800 park-and-ride
spaces. The core of the system will serve the high-density commercial and residential centers in
Jersey City and Hoboken and connect to ferries,
PATH and NJ TRANSIT commuter rail lines.
3.3.2 Southern New Jersey Light Rail Transit System
The Southern New Jersey Light Rail Transit
System (SNJLRTS) is a 34-mile light rail line
connecting Trenton to Camden along the
Delaware River waterfront (Exhibit 3-11). It
is being built along an active freight line
that was augmented for passenger operation
using advanced, diesel propelled, light rail
vehicles. The passenger operation is planned
for daytime and evening operation, while
freight service is limited to late night
periods, giving Federal Railway
Administration (FRA) time period and
access separation. The project is being
constructed and operated through the
design-build-operate-maintain project
delivery approach that has been so
successful with the development of the
Hudson-Bergen Line along the Hudson
River in northern New Jersey.
Exhibit 3-11
Southern New Jersey Light Rail Transit System
(SNJLRTS) Connecting Trenton To Camden
The Southern New Jersey Light Rail Transit System will connect the towns that developed
along the Delaware River waterfront with the governmental, commercial and entertainment
areas along the waterfront. In addition, the line
Exhibit 3-12
will connect with the regional bus and rail
SNJLRTS Vehicles
services operated by NJT, Southeastern
Pennsylvania Transit Authority (SEPTA) and
the extended interstate rail services operated by
Amtrak. The 34-mile line includes 20 and
stations, 20 vehicles (Exhibit 3-12) serving these
waterfront towns with direct access to the rail
services. Three of these stations provide parkand-ride facilities for wider access to residents
throughout the area. More than twenty bridges
were reconstructed and about 50 grade
crossings were upgraded.
3-8
Construction was initiated on the SNJLRTS line in May 2000, and revenue operations are
planned to begin by the end of 2003. The cost of the line is $604 million, with an additional $260
million in financing costs according to New Jersey Transit. The project was funded by the State
of New Jersey Transportation Trust Fund.
3.4 Pittsburgh Light Rail

Pittsburgh Port Authority of Allegheny County
(PAAC) inherited an extensive trolley system serving
the southern portions of the City of Pittsburgh and
the neighboring suburban areas. This trolley system
was in need of significant rehabilitation and
investment to bring it up to more modern light rail
transit standards. PAAC developed a plan to
approach this upgrade in two stages. Exhibit 3-13
illustrates this upgraded light rail system and
displays the two stages that constitute the two stage
segments included in the capital cost database.
Exhibit 3-13
Pittsburgh Light Rail Transit System
Stages I and II
3.4.1 Pittsburgh Stage I

The Port Authority of Allegheny County (PAAC)
has extensively rehabilitated the previous trolley
car alignment and built new extensions to the South
Hills Light Rail Line. The expanded service is
referred to as Stage I and includes 12.5 miles of new
alignment construction and 12 miles of complete
right-of-way rehabilitation. Since 1985, the
downtown Pittsburgh service has operated in a 1.6mile subway alignment, that is fully grade
separated and free of traffic congestion-related
delay. The suburban alignment includes sections of new track over previously unused rail rightof-way and rebuilt track and structure along the existing right-of-way. The availability of
unused rail alignments provided some low-cost opportunities that contrast with the high-cost
subway alignment in the downtown business district area. Transfer connections are provided to
local bus services at nine suburban stations plus to regional and busway services at downtown
stations. Service and passenger levels have increased when the new and rehabilitated services
were implemented and continue to expand. A Stage II plan involved expansion of this light rail
network into other high-density travel areas.
Also in 1985, several other improvements were completed including the conversion of a
railroad bridge over the Monongahela River to replace the tracks on the Smithfield Street
Bridge. Part of the system was upgraded to modern light-rail status, with articulated cars built
by Duewag (now Siemens). A short extension was built to the South Hills Village shopping
center.

3-9
3.4.2 Pittsburgh Stage II

In the early 1980s, Port Authority completed the Stage I rehabilitation of 13 miles of the 25-mile
T to modern light rail standards and promised the South Hills communities a future upgrade of
the remaining 12 miles of the system. Port Authority of Allegheny County is currently
reconstructing portions of old trolley lines to light rail transit (LRT) standards, constructing
park and ride lot facilities and making systematic improvements throughout its Light Rail
Transit System, the T, as part of the Authority's Stage II Light Rail Transit Improvement Priority
Project. The Stage II Light Rail Transit improvements fulfill that promise with a range of transit
and community related benefits.
Until 1993, PCC streetcars operated on a second route between South Hills Junction and Castle
Shannon, the "Overbrook route". This was the original route used by the Library and Drake
streetcars (and earlier, the Charleroi and Washington interurban). In the 1980s part of it was
incorporated into a busway, with the tracks running in the busway pavement. The rest was left
in its original state, partly single track with passing sidings, along the side of a valley with
several trestles spanning cross-valleys. This route was subsequently closed because the track
and roadbed were deteriorating. It is now being rebuilt into a modern light-rail line as the Stage
II light rail priority improvements.
In addition to the reconstruction of the trolley lines to more efficient, modern light rail
standards, Stage II improvements to the system reduce travel times into downtown Pittsburgh
on the T by up to 20 percent. Improved transit reliability and enhanced system wide operational
efficiency will also be benefits.
In April 2000, Port Authority broke ground on the Stage II priority project along the Overbrook
Line. Among other improvements, the project includes the purchase of 28 new light rail
vehicles, expansion and modernization of the Authoritys Operations Control Center and the
addition of approximately 2,200 park and ride lot spaces. These components of the Stage II
priority project are scheduled to be complete by June 2004.
Overbrook Line - Port Authority suspended service on the century-old Overbrook Line
seven years ago due to the deteriorated state of bridges and track bed along its right-of-way.
Currently, construction is underway to reconstruct the entire 5.2 miles of the Overbrook
Line to modern light rail transit standards. Rebuilding five major bridges, consolidating 22
stops into eight ADA accessible stations, installing new traction power sub-stations,
constructing an exclusive right-of-way, and double-tracking old single-track segments of the
line will be a three year undertaking to restore light rail transit service to the communities of
Beltzhoover, Bon Air, Overbrook and Castle Shannon.
Library Line Improvements include a 430-space park and ride facility at the southern end
of the Library Line in South Park Township, a new station at the Castle Shannon Junction,
reconstruction of track on 0.3 miles of the alignment, and improvements to the Logan Road
grade crossing, among other enhancements. The entire Library Line is also slated for
modernization and reconstruction under Stage II.
Drake Line Port Authority suspended operations along the Drake Trolley Line in 1999
and replaced trolley service with a mini-bus route, the 35A South Park. The project includes
modifications to the existing line as necessary to allow for the testing of light rail vehicles.

3-10
Operations Control Center Improvements to the Operations Control Center (OCC)

include upgrades to the computer-monitoring equipment and expansions and upgrades to
the facility.
Light Rail Vehicles The project includes an order with Construcciones Y Auxiliar De
Ferrocarriles, S.A. and CAF USA, Inc. (CAF) for the purchase of 28 new light rail vehicles
(LRVs).
Traction Power and Overhead Contact System Installation of four new traction power
substations, an overhead contact system, and a feeder cable network that together will
strengthen the existing power system for two-car train operations along the Overbrook,
Library Line.
Signal and Communications Systems Modernized signaling and communications

equipment for the Overbrook Line.
Park and Ride Lot Expansion -- Stage II will advance the Authority's successful Park and
Ride Lot Improvement Program by adding approximately 2200 new park and ride spaces
along the Overbrook and Library Lines in new or expanded facilities.
The capital costs of these improvements to the Port Authoritys light rail lines are combined in
the database under Stage II.
3.5 Portland Tri-Met Max Light Rail

Regional public transportation is operated by the Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation
District of Oregon (Tri-Met). The Metropolitan Area Express (MAX) is TriMet's light rail system
serving the greater Portland metropolitan area. MAX is part of an integrated regional transit
system that also includes 100 bus routes in the urbanized portions of Multnomah, Washington
and Clackamas counties.
Exhibit 3-14
Portland MAX Light Rail Network

3-11
Portlands light rail system (Exhibit 3-14) was opened in 1986 and christened MAX, for
metropolitan area express. The system was built in three segments. Eastside MAX Blue Line,
opened in 1986, stretches 15 miles eastward to Gresham; Westside MAX Blue Line, opened in
September 1998, runs 18 miles west to Hillsboro; Airport MAX Red Line, opened in September
2001, runs 5.5 miles northwest from Gateway Transit Center to PDX. With the addition of the
Airport MAX extension, the lines were color coded to help riders distinguish the different
routes. The original 33-mile east/west MAX line became the Blue Line. Airport MAX is the Red
Line. The Interstate MAX line, currently being developed, is designated as the Yellow Line.
The light rail system and the bus system operate as an integrated network. A total of 88 bus
lines connect with MAX at various light rail stations. MAX operates every day of the year
beginning around 5 a.m. During the day, all trains provide service frequencies, 10 to 15 minutes
during the day. MAX carries about 27 percent of all TriMet's weekday riders. During fiscal year
2002 (July 1, 2001 June 30, 2002), MAX averaged 25.4 million rides, or 78,000 rides each
weekday. Combined MAX and bus ridership at TriMet has grown 14 straight years, providing
more than 88.6 million trips during FY02.
3.5.1 MAX Blue Line
The east-west MAX Blue Line was developed as two separate corridor projects the Banfield
Corridor and the Westside Corridor. The 15-mile east-west, initial Banfield Corridor investment
is mostly at-grade with some elevated sections along joint highway alignments. The line utilizes
reserved rights-of-way in city streets, arterials and highway medians to connect the city of
Gresham and other eastern suburbs with central Portland. Passenger access is through 25 atgrade stations that provide spacing of less than one mile and easy walk-on accessibility for most
of the alignment length. Only 5 stations offer park-and-ride facilities, but almost all stations
have coordinated bus transfer facilities. A 26 vehicle articulated fleet was procured to operate
the peak service schedule requirement (for this segment) of 22 peak vehicles with the remaining
4 for scheduled maintenance.
As part of the region's overall
transportation strategy, MAX
was extended west into
Washington County in 1998.
The 18-mile extension runs from
downtown Portland to
Beaverton and Hillsboro.
Exhibit 3-15 presents the MAX
Blue Line in Central Portland
with trains operating to both
terminal destinations Gresham
and Hillsboro.
Exhibit 3-15
TriMet MAX Blue Line in Central Portland With Trains for
Both Terminal Destinations
This Westside extension

includes a three-mile, twin-tube
Westside MAX tunnel and the

3-12
Washington Park Station, the deepest transit station in North America at 260 feet underground.
Trains travel through the twin tunnels at speeds up to 55 m.p.h.
Nine of the 20 Westside MAX stations include park & ride lots. A total of 3,868 spaces are
available at nine lots for daily riders. Twenty-four different bus lines connect with Westside
MAX. Destinations along the line include Hillsboro Airport, numerous Washington County
employers such as Intel and Nike, PGE Park stadium, downtown Portland, Rose Garden arena,
Lloyd District and access to Portland State University and Oregon Health and Science
University. It also connects to the new 2.4 miles Portland Streetcar. MAX Blue Line connects to
the 5.5-mile Airport MAX Red Line at all MAX stations between downtown Portland and
Gateway Transit Center.
3.5.2 Portland TriMet MAX Red Line
The MAX system was expanded by an additional 5.5 miles to 38 miles with the opening of MAX
Red Line (Airport MAX) in September 2001. MAX Red Line provides direct service between
Portland International Airport and downtown Portland.
The 5.5-mile MAX Red Line extension to the airport connects to the existing 33-mile MAX light
rail system. The MAX station is just 150 feet from the baggage claim, and the trip to downtown
takes 38 minutes. Route runs north from Gateway Transit Center along I-205 to the Portland
International Airport terminal. MAX Red Line runs every 15 minutes between 5 a.m. and 11:30
p.m. Quick Drops are located at six MAX stations make drop-off or pick-up of passengers and
their luggage easy. Ridership will be an estimated 7,500 trips each day by 2015 (2.7 million rides
annually).
The total capital cost to build the Red Line is approximately $125 million. Project partners (Port
of Portland, TriMet, the City of Portland and Cascade Station Development Company) shared
the cost of the project using an all-local financing plan for construction of the Airport MAX
extension. This innovative cost-sharing venture means that no federal appropriations, state
general funds or any additional property taxes were used to build the project. Design and
construction of the rail extension cost $125 million. Additional elements of the overall project,
including new light rail vehicles, terminal improvements and CascadeStation infrastructure,
will bring the total to approximately $180.4 million.
3.5.3 Portland Interstate MAX Extension
The Interstate MAX, a 5.8-mile segment now under construction, will connect the Expo Center
in North Portland with downtown and the rest of the transit system. The line is set to open in
fall 2004. Between 1990 and 2000 TriMet ridership grew faster than vehicle miles traveled and
population growth. During the same period, TriMet ridership grew 49 percent. The $350
million, 5.8-mile extension will connect MAX to the Expo Center along N. Interstate Avenue.
Local funding sources include the City of Portland ($30 million) and TriMet ($25 million). In
addition, regional transportation funds include $37.5 million. Interstate MAX requires no
additional property taxes. The remaining $257.5 million is being funded through federal funds.
The extension is scheduled to open in fall 2004.

3-13
3.6 Sacramento Light Rail

Sacramento Light Rail System was initiated in the mid 1980s using a low cost project
development philosophy. As such, the initial phase was developed using single track with
passing sidings and limited station development. The Folsom Corridor added double tracking,
enhanced stations, additional stations, vehicles and enhanced train control to accommodate the
increased service levels. In contrast, the South Sacramento Corridor has been developed as full
double track sections, only extended in two separate phases. This database accounts for the
Phase 1 of this south Corridor.
3.6.1 Sacramento Initial Phase
The Sacramento Light Rail Project became operational with the opening of the first phase in
1987 (Exhibit 3-16). This first phase includes both the Northeast and Folsom Lines connected
through downtown Sacramento. The 20.6-mile line, which links both the eastern and
northeastern suburbs with Downtown Sacramento, carries almost 30,000 passengers on a
typical weekday. This initial light rail project is mostly composed of a single-track main line
with double-track passing sections along
Exhibit 3-16
about 40 percent of the length. The alignment
Initial Sacramento Light Rail System
utilizes unused freeway and abandoned
railroad rights-of-way for most of its length.
There are 101 grade crossings along this first
phase development. The orientation toward
single track operation with limited passing
sidings, extensive use of at-grade alignment and
the emphasis on existing rights-of-way allowed
for a low guideway investment cost. The
downtown portion was constructed within city
streets in both a dedicated transit mall and a
mixed traffic operation. The design philosophy
was a low-cost approach using off-the-shelf
technology and at-grade construction to
minimize total project capital costs.
The light rail system includes 36 miles of track with 31 passenger-boarding stations in the
system. Thirteen stations offer bus transfer services and 10 stations have free park-and-ride lots
with 3,821 parking spaces. RT operates light rail trains seven days a week with eight trains
running at 15-minute intervals during the day, and four trains running at 30-minute intervals
during the evening and early weekend mornings. The end-to-end running time on the light rail
system is 55 minutes. RT operates four-car trains during the peak periods and two-car trains
during the off-peak hours. Single-car trains provide late evening and Sunday service.

3-14
3.6.2 South Sacramento Corridor Project

The South Sacramento Corridor Light Rail Project (Exhibit 317) is a two-phased light rail project that will eventually
extend 11.2 miles south to the community of Elk Grove. Phase I
of the South Corridor Light Rail Project will extend light rail
service from Downtown Sacramento 6.3 miles to Meadowview
Road. The double tracks of the South alignment of the rail
project follows the Union Pacific Railroad corridor. The project
involves an eastward relocation of the existing Union Pacific
tracks in order to provide room for the light rail tracks. The
entire alignment will be at-grade with surface level street
crossings. One elevated grade crossing is incorporated into the
project at Florin Road (funded with local funds). There will be
seven new stations as part of the first phase extension, each
providing for bus and light rail transfers Broadway, 4th
Ave./Wayne Hultgren, City College, Fruitridge, 47th Avenue,
Florin, and Meadowview.
Exhibit 3-17
South Sacramento
3.6.3 Amtrak / Folsom Corridor Project

The Amtrak / Folsom Corridor Project (Exhibit 3-18) extends light rail service from the
Sacramento Valley station in downtown Sacramento to the historic railroad block near the
former railroad depot in downtown Folsom. Regional Transits light rail extension to Folsom is
designed to improve public transit service
within a corridor following Highway 50
Exhibit 3-18
Amtrak / Folsom Corridor Project
between the Amtrak Station in Downtown
Sacramento and the City of Folsom. The
Amtrak/Folsom Corridor Project consists
of five areas of improvements that will add
a 0.7 mile double track extension from the
existing downtown Sacramento stations to
the Amtrak Station, station enhancements
at existing stations including additional
boarding platforms, 10.9 miles of additional
track along the existing segments of the
Folsom Line, nine new stations, enhanced
signaling and 14 new light rail vehicles.
Scheduled to be completed by 2005, the
project will increase transit capacity, while
providing faster and more convenient
travel between the Folsom and Sacramento.

3-15
3.7 St Louis Metrolink Light Rail

MetroLink is the St. Louis metropolitan regions light rail transit system (Exhibit 3-19). It
stretches 34.4 miles from Lambert-St. Louis International Airport to Southwestern Illinois
College in St. Clair County, Illinois. Each vehicle has a maximum capacity of 72 seated
passengers, 106 standing passengers and travels at a maximum speed of 55 mph.
3.7.1 St. Louis Metrolink Initial Line
The initial operating segment of Metrolink operated between Lambert-St. Louis International
Airport eastward for 16.9 miles through the City of St. Louis and its downtown to a station at 5th
Street / Missouri just across the Mississippi River in East St. Louis, Illinois.
The line is entirely double-tracked, except for one single-track section between the two airport
stations. Much of the MetroLink Rail System is on upgraded railroad rights-of-way. This initial
segment includes 19 stations along the right-of-way. All stations are high platform and fully
accessible to the elderly and disabled. Of the 19
Exhibit 3-19
stations, 12 are at-grade, 3 are underground, 2
St.
Louis
Metrolink
are on existing bridge structures, and 2 are
elevated. Six of the stations provide
approximately 3,000 park-and-ride spaces.
Fare vending machines accommodating a
proof-of-payment fare collection system are
installed at each station. Light rail vehicles are
governed by an automatic block signal system
and propelled by electrical energy drawn
from an overhead catenary system. MetroLink
operates train service at speeds reaching at
least 55 mph at approximately 5-minute
headways to satisfy estimated peak-hour
ridership demands. Round trip time,
including terminal layovers, is 90 minutes.
3.7.2 St. Louis Metrolink St. Clair County Extension
The Bi-State Development Agency (BSDA) completed a 17.4-mile Minimum Operable Segment
(MOS) Light Rail Transit (LRT) extension from the existing MetroLink line in East St. Louis,
Illinois, to Southwestern Illinois College (SWIC) in St. Clair County, Illinois. The project
included eight new stations and modifications to the existing station at 5th Street/Missouri,
seven park-and-ride lots, 20 new light rail vehicles, and a new vehicle maintenance facility in
East St. Louis, Illinois. The MetroLink St. Clair extension was opened for revenue operations in
May 2001. The daily ridership of 13,500 was projected for the extension in 2010. This MOS
extension is part of a 26-mile LRT line from downtown East St. Louis, Illinois through SWIC
(formerly known as Belleville Area College) and Scott Air Force Base to the Mid America
Airport in St. Clair County.

3-16
3.8 Salt Lake City Light Rail

The Utah Transit Authority (UTA) operates a two-line atgrade light rail system known as TRAX (Exhibit 3-20). A 15mile north-south line runs from downtown Salt Lake City in
the north to Sandy in the south. This initial segment has been
included in the capital cost database. In December 2001, the
UTA opened a 2.3-mile extension from downtown Salt Lake
City to the University of Utah. Capital cost data for this
segment was not available at this time.
Exhibit 3-20
Salt Lake City Light Rail System
In the downtown area, trains operate in mixed traffic. A

portion of the north-south alignment is along track jointly
operated with local freight railroads using temporal
separation. Total daily passenger boardings on TRAX have
averaged between 20,000 and 25,000 since its opening in 1999.
TRAX is regularly operated from about 5:30 AM to 11:00 PM
Monday through Saturday and from 10:00 AM to 8:00 PM on
Sundays. Trains are run about every 10 minutes in each
direction during peak hours, about every 15 minutes during
off-peak hours and Saturdays, and about every 20 minutes on
Sundays and evenings.
3.8.1 Salt Lake City North-South Corridor
The North/South LRT Line travels approximately 15 miles south from the Delta Center Station
in the CBD to the Sandy Civic Center Station near 10000 South in Sandy. The North/South track
alignment is shown in Appendix A. This line consists mainly of double track, with two single
track sections at the I-215 overpass and the State Street Bridge (U.S. Highway 89). The line
supports a 7.5 minute peak operation headway and a headway of 15 minutes during reverse
contingency operation. The line includes 16 stations with access ramps to accommodate people
with disabilities in compliance with ADA regulations. The vehicles operate at posted speeds
during street running and up to 55 mph on designated right-of-way. The end to end travel time
is approximately 39 minutes. During the North/South LRT Line's inaugural operating year,
(2000), the system surpassed initial ridership projections by approximately 40 percent by
providing weekday service to over 19,000 passengers daily.
The Light Rail Vehicles (LRVs) are operated manually by UTA Operators. All mainline
operations are directed, controlled, and monitored by UTA personnel using radio
communications. TRAX Control directs mainline operations in accordance with established
operating schedules, rules, and procedures. LRT signaling and control subsystems are limited to
those functions required for safety and operations management.

3-17
3.8.2 University LRT Line Overview

The University LRT Line extends approximately 2.3 miles from the North/South LRT Line at
400 South to Rice-Eccles Stadium on the University of Utah campus. The alignment is double
track, center street running, and utilizes 1.1 miles of the North/South LRT alignment, between
400 South and the Delta Center, for a total distance of approximately 3.4 operating miles. This
line serves four new stations and four existing stations for a total of eight stations along this
alignment. The end to end travel time is approximately 20 minutes.
3.9 San Diego Light Rail

Exhibit 3-21
San Diego Trolley Blue and Orange Lines
The San Diego Light Rail System (the

Trolley) is operated as two lines that
connect in Centre City San Diego (Exhibit
3-21). The system was developed
incrementally over time since 1981 and has
evolved into the current two line operation.
The Blue Line includes the original South
Line to San Ysidro and the International
border, a segment through Centre City San
Diego, and the Old Town and Mission
Valley West Extensions. It will also include
the Mission Valley East Extension. The
Orange Line incorporates the East Line
and all its extensions (to El Cajon and
Santee) and the Bayside extension in
Center City San Diego serving the
Convention Center and the Gaslamp
Quarter.
The light rail lines are described in the
context of their incremental development.
3.9.1 San Diego Blue Line
The Blue Line includes the first operational segments and the most recently developed
segments of the system. The line extends from San Ysidro (Border) through downtown and
continues past Old Town and joins the Mission Valley Run to Mission San Diego. The San
Diego Trolley began operations in summer, 1981 between downtown San Diego and the
USA/Mexico border in San Ysidro. The original downtown terminus was where C Street met
Kettner Blvd. The original line was actually single track, but due to significant ridership growth
a second phase of improvements including double tracking was constructed on the entire
"South Line" shortly after the Trolley began operations.
The downtown terminus changed with the construction of America Plaza adjacent to the
Amtrak Station. The trolley was rerouted through the ground level of the building, in an open,
atrium-like right-of-way, and then a few feet west to a junction connecting with the "Bayside"
3-18
line which parallels the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway freight tracks to the
south of the Amtrak station, and the Coaster (North San Diego County commuter rail) and
Amtrak (as well as BNSF) tracks to the north of the station. Subsequent extensions of the line
included a 3.2 mile extension to Old Town (completed in 1996) and a 6.1 mile extension through
the western half of the Mission Valley (the Mission Valley West Project completed in 1998).
Progress to complete a line through the Mission Valley to connect to the Orange Line is
currently underway with construction of the Mission Valley East Segment.
3.9.2 San Diego Mission Valley East
The 5.9-mile Mission Valley East
Extension (Exhibit 3-22) provides the
final link between two separate Trolley
lines. Mission Valley East (MVE)
segment connects the Blue Line
(currently from San Ysidro on the south,
to downtown San Diego, Old Town,
Mission Valley and Mission San Diego)
along Interstate 8 to link with the Orange
Line at Baltimore Drive in La Mesa. The
Orange Line connects Santee, El Cajon, La
Mesa, Lemon Grove and East San Diego
with downtown. The MVE connection
will provide new and more convenient
access for East County and South Bay
riders to a wider variety of shopping,
recreation, entertainment, schools,
medical centers, local attractions and
employment centers.
Exhibit 3-22
Mission Valley East Light Rail Project Extension of
the San Diego Trolley Blue Line
The Mission Valley East Line also includes a short loop to serve San Diego State University
(SDSU). The cut-and-cover method is being used for most of the tunnel (3,000 ft), while a 1,000foot portion is being completed using New Austrian Tunneling Method.
Four new stations are planned Grantville, San Diego State University (an underground
station), Alvarado Medical, and 70th Street. Each station will include public art as an integral
component of the station design. Four artists, one for each station, have been commissioned to
develop artistic themes that reflect the history and character of the station areas.
3.9.3 San Diego Orange Line
The Orange Line (formerly the East Line) comprises several light rail segments developed
through the years in metropolitan San Diego. It includes the three East Line extensions to
Euclid, El Cajon, and Santee. The Euclid extended light rail service 4.5 miles to the east in 1986.
The 1989 El Cajon extension included a 11.1 mile extension to the eastern and northeastern
communities of La Mesa, Lemon Grove, and El Cajon. An extension for 3.6 miles extended
service on the Orange Line to the community of Santee. The Orange Line also includes service
3-19
in Centre City San Diego and extends along a transit mall in the downtown area. It also extends
along a 2 mile segment (the Bayside extension completed in 1992) to connect to the Convention
Center and the Gaslamp Quarter.
3.10 San Jose Light Rail

There is a lot happening with this light rail system. The Tasman and Guadalupe corridor lines
now operate separately with a three-track transfer station at Baypoint. The Tasman line was
extended west to Mt. View in December 1999. Soon the Tasman line will be extended towards
Milpitas, with an eventual extension along Capitol opening in 2004. A new line towards
southwest San Jose is under construction to open in 2004.
3.10.1
San Jose Guadalupe Corridor
This is the original mainline. It starts a Santa Teresa and head north in the median of Guadalupe
Expwy. It then swings thru downtown San Jose and north onto 1st St. Before the Mt View line
opened, trains swung west onto Tasman to Old Ironsides. Now trains swing east and end at the
3-track Baypointe station.
San Jose North Corridor -- Service started on the North Corridor line in December 1987. This
initial nine-mile segment from Santa Clara through downtown San Jose was completed in June
1988. This portion of the Guadalupe Corridor Project opened in December 1987, connecting the
cities of San Jose and Santa Clara with the surrounding suburban areas. The initial phase of the
light rail system consisted of a 20-mile North Line that is mainly located along the median area
of major roadways and along a transitway through downtown San Jose. The alignment is atgrade along the full length and included very little in new structural requirements. Only one
bridge and two overpasses in new guideway facilities were necessary to connect the full length
of the alignment. Almost the entire line is double-tracked with only two small sections of singletrack operation. There were 22 stations in operation with the expansion to 30 upon completion
of that full line length to the southern sections of San Jose. This north section is the portion of
the Guadalupe Corridor included in the cost database.
San Jose South Corridor -- This South Line extension added ten more miles of right-of-way to
this Guadalupe light rail line, but since construction was not completed at the time of the
original capital cost study and actual final construction costs were not available, this section was
not included in that portion of the research project. However, some of the original system
elements and support facilities included in this study for the North Line were designed to
include this additional South Line operational needs and corresponding cost impacts. Service to
the Tamien Station (Alma Avenue), two miles south of downtown, began in August 1990. The
entire 20.8-mile line was completed in April 1991.
3.10.2
San Jose Tasman Corridor
This line extends from Mt. View in the West to Milpitas at I-880 in the East. It connects with the
Guadalupe line at Baypointe. This line is to be extended down the Capitol corridor in a few
years.
3-20
The Tasman West line, which connects Mountain View with the existing light rail service, was
completed in December of 1999. Construction is already underway on the Tasman East/Capitol
Light Rail project to extend service from Milpitas to the Baypointe station.

3-21
4.0
4.0 Light Rail Capital Cost Database
LIGHT RAIL CAPITAL COST DATABASE
This section describes the design, functionality and use of the completed Light Rail Capital
Cost Database. Specifically, this includes the following:
Database Design: How the LRT project cost data are stored in the database,
Normalization and Adjustment: Conversion of the collected cost data to a comparable unit
cost basis (e.g., cost year and cost locality)
Unit Cost Functions: Estimation of unit cost models for use in analyzing cost for
completed projects and estimating/validating costs for proposed projects
Variance Analysis: Use of the model database and unit cost functions to evaluate
differences in the total project costs for individual projects documented in the database.
The completed Light Rail Capital Cost Database, including all related analyses and user tools,
is contained within a single Excel workbook.
4.1 Database Design

The Capital Cost Database represents the foundation of the Light Rail Capital Cost Study. In
particular, the unit costs and quantity values housed in the cost database provide the basis for
analyzing project costs for both completed and proposed LRT projects. Moreover, these cost
analyses are continuously updated to reflect the entry of additional historical cost data into the
underlying Capital Cost Database (Note: Database analysis tools allow users to be selective in
choosing the historic cost data used in database cost analyses).
The Light Rail Capital Cost Database itself consists of three basic components including the
actual database of as-built project costs, cost adjustment factors for inflation and locality and
the normalized and adjusted unit costs. This overall structure and portions of the underlying
detail is outlined below in Exhibit 4-1. Each of these primary components is discussed below.

4-1
Exhibit 4-1
LRT Capital Cost Database: Workbook Flowchart
LIGHT RAIL CAPITAL COST DATABASE
COST FUNCTIONS
ANALYSIS TOOLS
Variance Analysis Worksheets
This worksheet contains a database of the unit cost

functions used by the model. These unit cost
functions recognize the economies of scale from
purchases of increasing unit quantities. This
database also includes "pivot point" adjustment
process used to adjust the original unit cost
functions to reflect new cost data stored in the
database (i.e., new projects) and/or the user's
desire to limit cost analysis to a predetermined set
of database projects using the "Project Select"
option. (Note: The unit cost functions are preset
and were estimated using the original dataset for
the model.)
The Variance Analysis worksheets compare the actual project costs

for individual projects documented in the CostDatabase with:
(I) the "Standard Model LRT", which represents a "typical" LRT
project of the same alignment length as the project under analysis
and with unit costs based on the database sample average and
(II) a project with the same mix of alignment grades and other unit
quantities as the project under analysis but with unit costs based on
the database sample average. These comparisons yield measures
of cost variance by cost element resulting from (i) differences in unit
quantities and (ii) differences in unit costs.
$National: $City costs adjusted to national basis
UnitCostFunctions
This worksheet
converts the total
cost and unit quantity
data reported in the
Cost Database
worksheet to a unit
cost basis. It then
adjusts these unit
costs to a common
$2003 national basis
uses the index data
in the "Cost
Adjustment"
worksheet.
$City: Original unit costs adjusted to $2003
Normalization & Adjustment
$YOE: Unadjusted unit cost data
CostDatabase
Detailed total cost,unit
quantity and procurement
date / midpoint of
constuction data for all
projects currently stored in
the model. All cost and
unit quantity data are
reported by cost category
and element. Costs are
reported in their original
year-of-expenditure and
city-of-expenditure dollars
(i.e., unadjusted).
AdjustmentFactors
This worksheet contains all cost index data
required to adjust the year-of-expenditure
and city-of-expenditure data reported in the
CostDatabase to a common $2003
"National" basis. Specifically, this includes
both a time series index to convert to a
common year-of-expenditure ($2003) and a
cross sectional index to convert from city-ofexpenditure dollars to a national cost basis.
These data were obtained directly from
Means Capital Cost Estimation Reports.

ProjectSelect (Optional)
This worksheet allows the user to define model unit
costs based on the unit costs of a carefully
selected list of projects already stored in the model
0database. By doing so, the user can limit the cost
analysis to those database projects with cost
characteristics (e.g.,. design standards) believed to
most closely match the project for which costs are
currently being estimated.
4-2
Cost Model #1
Cost Model #1
Cost Model
Detailed
results #1
for Scenario_1: Projected FTE counts
Cost Model
#1
resultsamounts
for Scenario_1:
Projected
andDetailed
cost account
for Scenario
1 by FTE counts
Capital
Cost
Calculator
results
for
Scenario_1:
Projected
andDetailed
cost account
amounts
for Scenario
1 by FTE counts
management center and mode. Also includes all

worksheet
is used
to
cost
for a
andThis
cost
account
amounts
forgenerate
Scenario
1 byestimates
management
center
and
mode.
Also
includes
all
calculations
for
BRT
scenarios.
proposed
LRT
project.
Specifically,
the userallcan input
management
center
and mode.
Also includes
calculations
for BRT
scenarios.
unit quantity
for each cost element as well as
calculations
for amounts
BRT scenarios.
mid-point of construction dates. In return, the model
provides detailed and summary level cost estimates for
each coast category and cost element and for the full
project. This sheet can be copies to create multiple
scenarios for the same project.
4.1.1 CostDatabase Worksheet

The foundation of the Capital Cost Database is the CostDatabase worksheet. This worksheet
records the total cost expenditures, unit quantities and midpoint of construction (year) for all
projects by cost category and element. All cost data in this worksheet are reported in the
original year-of-expenditure and city-of-expenditure dollars (adjustment to a common $year
and $national basis is performed in the normalization worksheet). The layout of the
CostDatabase worksheet is exactly the same as that used by FTA, FTA PMO contractors and
project grantees in completing the project cost submissions used to develop the capital cost
database for this report. The layout and contents of the CostDatabase worksheet are presented
in Appendix A of this report. The current CostDatabase worksheet includes space for up to
thirty different light rail projects.
4.1.2 AdjustmentFactors Worksheet
The AdjustmentFactors worksheet contains the inflation and locality cost index data required
to adjust the year-of-expenditure and city-of-expenditure data reported in the
AdjustmentFactors worksheet to a common $2003-"National" basis. Specifically, this
worksheet includes both a time series inflation index to convert to a common year-ofexpenditure ($2003) and a cross sectional urban area index to convert from city-of-expenditure
dollars to a national cost basis. These data were obtained directly from Means Capital Cost
Estimation Reports. The inflation index time series covers the years 1970 through 2002 (the
most recent year for which historical data are currently available) as well as projections for the
years 2003 through 2050. The projections are based on a simple moving average of
construction cost inflation over the past five calendar years. These inflation projections
support the development of cost estimates for proposed LRT projects with midpoints of
construction well in advance of the current model baseline. Similarly, the cross sectional urban
area index provides local to national cost adjustment factors for close to two hundred different
US cities. Finally, the AdjustmentFactors worksheet includes the control used to adjust the
models underlying cost baseline (currently set at $2003). In practice, there is no need to alter
this cost baseline date as the model already adjusts project cost estimates to a proposed yearof-expenditure basis.
The layout and contents of the AdjustmentFactors worksheet are presented in Appendix B of
this report.
4.1.3 Normalization Worksheet
The Normalization worksheet first normalizes the total cost data from the CostDatabase
worksheet into unit costs using the associated unit quantities. This normalization is completed
for each cost category and cost element reported in the CostDatabase worksheet. The
Normalization worksheet then uses a two step process to adjust these original unit costs
(expressed in year-of-expenditure and city-of-expenditure dollars) to a common unit cost
basis; first to a common $2003 dollar basis to correct for the impact of price inflation ($City)
and second to a common national level to reflect differences in construction price levels
across urban areas ($National). Adjustments to a common dollar year and national basis are

4-3
performed using the cost index data reported in the AdjustmentFactors worksheet. The
conversion from year-of-expenditure to a common cost year is calculated based on the
midpoint of construction as reported in the CostDatabase worksheet. The common cost year is
currently set to $2003. This value can be reset on the AdjustmentFactors worksheet. The
Normalization worksheet automatically performs the normalization and adjustment
calculations for any new project cost data entered into the CostDatabase worksheet (up to the
maximum of thirty projects).
The layout and contents of the Normalization worksheet are reported in Appendix C of this
report.
The data reported in the Normalization worksheet provide a valuable unit cost reference for
analysts developing cost estimates for proposed LRT projects. When combined with the
project descriptions from Chapter 3, analysts can pick and choose which unit cost values are
most appropriate to a given cost analysis based on the design, geotechnical and other relevant
characteristics both of the projects reported in the database and of the proposed project for
which the cost estimates are being developed.
4.2 Unit Cost Functions

The unit cost data from the Normalization worksheet have been used to develop a full set of
unit cost functions, including one cost function for each cost element identified in the
database. These unit cost functions provide a more sophisticated means of evaluating project
costs both for completed and proposed LRT projects than that provided using simple unit
cost averages (e.g., average cost per mile). A sample of these cost element specific unit cost
functions is presented below in Exhibit 4-2. As discussed further below, the unit cost functions
are used within the database workbook to (i) conduct cost variance analysis of completed
projects documented in the database and (ii) to estimate total project costs for proposed LRT
investments.
Exhibit 4-2
Sample Unit Cost Relationships
Guideway Elements: Total
$ per L.F. Guideway
$35,000
$30,000
$25,000
$20,000
$15,000
$10,000
$5,000
$0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
L.F. Guideway

4-4
120,000
140,000
160,000

Exhibit 4-2
Sample Unit Cost Relationships (Cont.)
Signal System
$900
$800
$ per Foot
$700
$600
$500
$400
$300
$200
$100
$0
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
250,000
300,000
25
30
L.F. Guideway
Communications System
$300
$ per Foot
$250
$200
$150
$100
$50
$0
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
Track Feet
At-Grade Stations
$Millions per Sation
$5.0
$4.0
$3.0
$2.0
$1.0
$0.0
0
10
15
20
Stations
The unit cost functions were statistically estimated using regression analysis of the unit cost
and quantity data contained in the Normalization and CostDatabase worksheets and were
designed to capture the economies of scale (i.e., decreasing unit costs) associated with
increasing project size. Specifically, it was assumed that the capital costs for each project
element include both fixed and variable cost components. The variable cost component
recognizes the increase in total costs as increasing unit quantities are purchased. At the same
time, the fixed cost concept assumes there are some components of development costs (e.g.,
design costs) that are inescapable and that do not vary regardless of the number of units
purchased. This concept can be expressed mathematically as follows:
Total Cost = Fixed Cost + (Variable Cost) * (Units)

Dividing this expression by the number of units, we obtain an expression for project unit costs:

4-5
Total Cost/Units = Fixed Cost/Units + Variable Cost

Or
Unit Cost = /x +
(1)
Where is the slope term and is an asymptote (note: is the variable cost per unit and the
unit cost approaches this value as x, the number of units, gets very large). Regression analysis
was used to estimate these unit cost relationships for all cost elements identified in the capital
cost database structure. The estimated unit cost relationships are located on the CostFunction
worksheet. The layout and contents of the CostFunction worksheet are reported in Appendix
D of this report.
Unlike the unit cost functions for the seven hard cost categories, the cost functions for project
soft-costs are based on a per unit of physical asset. Rather, unit costs for this cost category
are expressed as a percentage of the total project hard costs (i.e., the sum of project costs for
cost categories 1 through 7). These percentage amounts reflect the average ratio of soft costs to
total hard costs (by soft cost element) across all projects documented in the capital cost
database. These ratios will change to reflect any new project cost data added to the
CostDatabase worksheet.
Note that the unit cost functions maintained in the CostFunction worksheet are not
automated, but hard coded into the worksheet. Reasons for not automating these relationships
include the high level of model complexity required and statistical problems relating to the
small sample sizes for many key cost elements. At the same time, it is important that the unit
cost models reflect information available when new projects become added to the underlying
database (i.e., in the CostDatabase worksheet). To do so, the CostFunction worksheet
performs a simple pivot point analysis that recognizes the addition of new data to the
CostDatabase worksheet ad adjusts the unit cost functions accordingly. A more detailed
description of this process is proved in Appendix E.
4.3 Project Select Worksheet

As discussed above, the unit cost functions in the CostDatabase worksheet are automatically
adjusted to reflect new cost data added to the underlying cost database. However, in some
instances the user may feel that the unit costs for one or more projects documented in the
CostDatabase worksheet are not truly representative of the cost range, design philosophy or
other characteristic of the specific project for which capital costs are being evaluated. Under
these circumstances, the user may want to limit the analysis solely to those database projects
the user considers representative of the project for which estimates are being developed. This
can be accomplished using the ProjectSelect worksheet.
Specifically, the ProjectSelect worksheet allows the user to select a preferred listing of projects
documented in the CostDatabase worksheet. The workbook then adjusts the unit cost

4-6
functions to reflect the cost experience of that limited set of projects. Use of the CostDatabase
worksheet is optional both for the variance analysis described above and for the cost calculator
described in the next chapter.
4.4 Adding New Projects to the Database

Adding a new project to the light rail capital cost database is a fairly straightforward
process. First the user must assemble a complete set of cost records for the project
under consideration including. In practice, the final cost data for a given project will
not conform precisely to this database structure and the user will need to adjust the
raw cost data accordingly. Next the user needs to enter these data into a blank set of
columns within the CostDatabase worksheet. To locate these columns, locate the data
for the last project entered into the database, (i.e., the project documented furthest to
the right in the worksheet). This blank column will show the number 1 in the
project name field. Next, overwrite the 1 with the name of he project. Then replace
the US 30 City Average with the name of the closest city from the drop-down list
located in this Select City field. This city selection is used elsewhere in the database
to adjust project costs to other regional cost bases, including the national average.
Finally, enter the unit quantities, total costs and mid-point of construction for each of
the cost categories and category sub-elements as identified in the CostDatabase
worksheet. When entering the cost data for a given cost element, it is crucial that all
fields be fully populated, including unit quantities, total costs and mid-point of
construction. Failure to fully populate these fields will lead to faulty results.
The user can perform a couple of checks to ensure the data are entered correctly. First,
ensure that the project total cost appearing in row 4 of the CostDatabase worksheet is
the same as the know project total for the light rail investment under consideration. If
not, the user will need to review the individual entries to determine where an error
has occurred. Second, the user should review the model calculated project unit costs
in the CostDatabase worksheet to ensure there are no obvious problems (e.g., divide by
zero errors). Any problems should be corrected as needed.
Finally, be wary that many subsequent analyses within the workbook may include the
cost data for the new project as part of the models cost baseline unless the user takes
the appropriate steps to prevent this from happening. Specifically, if the user does not
want costs for this project to be included in the cost baseline for subsequent analyses,
the user should selected either the Baseline Model: Unadjusted unit cost functions
option or the Adjusted Model 2: User Selected Projects option in the Var_Total
and CostCalculator worksheets (see section 4.3 for description of the project select
process). Otherwise, to include these project costs in the models cost baseline, the
user should choose the Adjusted Model 2: Full Database option.

4-7
5.0
5. Cost Variance Analysis
COST VARIANCE ANALYSIS
Simple comparisons of total project costs for the nineteen LRT projects documented in the
Capital Cost Database point to significant cost differences across these light rail investments. A
primary goal of this LRT Capital Cost Study Update is to examine the origins of these cost
differences and to identify their primary cost drivers. This chapter seeks to address these issues.
Specifically, it considers the following:
Development of a project Cost Variance Analysis Tool

Cost variance analysis results of individual LRT projects
Identification and analysis of the primary cost drivers across all projects
Examine how project costs have changed over time
The foundation of the project cost variance analyses is the set of unit cost functions found on the
CostFunctions worksheet and described in detail in Chapter 4. Together with the Standard
Model LRT concept described below, these unit cost relationships provide a powerful tool to
analyze differences in unit and total costs across all projects documented in the Light Rail
Capital Cost Database.
5.1 Cost Variance Analysis Tool

The Cost Variance Analysis Tool is a set of worksheets within the Light Rail Capital Cost
workbook and is designed to analyze the cost structure of those LRT projects documented
within the Capital Cost Database. Specifically, this tool compares and contrasts the unit cost and
unit quantity values for a selected database project (e.g., Pittsburgh Stage 1 LRT) against an
average or typical LRT investment referred to as the Standard Model LRT (see below). This
cost comparison then utilizes cost accounting techniques to identify the key drivers of variations
in total project costs relative to a typical LRT project as represented by the Standard Model LRT.
This includes cost differences resulting from:
Variations in Unit Quantities

Variations in Unit Costs
5.1.1 Standard Model LRT

The Standard Model LRT provides a convenient cost baseline to assess the primary cost drivers
of individual LRT projects. Specifically, the Standard Model LRT is intended to capture the cost
behavior of an average LRT project with a typical mix of grade types, trackwork types,
station investments (both mix of alignment types and number of stations), vehicle purchases,
soft costs and other project expenditures. The definition of the Standard Model LRT represents
the average mix of grades, vehicle purchases, etc. across all projects documented in the Capital
Cost Database. As such, the precise definition of the Standard Model LRT will change as

5-1
projects are added to (or removed from) the LRT Capital Cost database and the entire model
cost baseline is updated.
When used to assess the cost attributes of a specific project, the mix of assets within the
Standard Model LRT definition are scaled to reflect the dimensions of the project under
consideration. For example, if the project under consideration consists of 100,000 lineal feet of
guideway, the parameters that define the Standard Model LRT (e.g., x feet of trackwork per
lineal foot of guideway, y stations per lineal foot of guideway, z vehicles per 1,000 design period
passengers) are used to estimate the unit quantities for a typical LRT investment of 100,000
lineal feet in length. In practice, the Standard Model LRT uses two primary drivers to determine
the unit quantities for each of the eight cost categories recognized by the database: these are
Total Guideway Length and Peak Period Ridership. The relationship of these primary unit
quantity drivers to the unit quantity requirements for the eight individual cost categories is
presented below in Exhibit 5-1.
Exhibit 5-1
Standard LRT Model
Standard LRT Model Quantity Relationships

Design
Ridership
Guideway Length &

Distribution of Grades
ROW & Special

Conditions
Stations
Trackwork
(# and grade distribution)
Systems
Vehicles
Yards & Shops
Soft Costs
In addition to this quantity-based definition, the unit costs for the Standard Model LRT are
defined by the unit cost functions described in Chapter 4. As described there, these unit cost
functions provide a measure of the typical unit cost experience of the projects documented in
the LRT Capital Cost Database.
Putting all these pieces togetherincluding the unit quantity relationships and the unit cost
functionsthe Standard Model LRT provides an effective means of determining why the total
cost of a given light rail investment is above, below or close to analysts prior expectations
based on standard metrics such as $X per mile of alignment.
5-2
5.1.2 Standard Model LRT: What is a Typical LRT Project?

The Standard Model LRT concept relies heavily on the notion of a typical LRT project. This
typical or average LRT investment is then used to assess the cost characteristics of the
individual projects documented in the LRT Capital Cost Database. Specifically, the intent is to
provide a baseline to identify where actual costs for a specific project are either higher or lower
than that of a typical project. The analyst can then pursue the question of whether or not the
observed cost differences are warranted given the design requirements and objectives of the
project under review.
In practice there is, of course, no typical LRT investment. Rather, the nations existing LRT
systems cover a wide range project characteristics including differences in the mix of alignment
grades, fleet sizes, station spacings and other characteristics. These differences are evident in
the database projects themselves, which range from projects that are entirely at grade to those
that are completely grade separated (Exhibit 5-2). Note, however, that across these nineteen
projects, most LRT investments are, in fact, predominantly at-grade. At the same time, only
four of these nineteen projects are entirely at-grade. Hence, a typical LRT project can be
thought of as being predominantly at-grade but also including a small proportion gradeseparated alignment (20 percent on average).
Exhibit 5-2
Database Projects: Mix of Alignment Grades
Guideway Alignment Mix
160,000

120,000

100,000
AT GRADE GUIDEWAY
80,000
60,000
40,000
Southern New Jersey

Light Rail Transit System
Los Angeles Long

Beach Blue Line (1991)
Sacramento Stage 1
(1991)
Portland
Westside/Hillsboro MAX
St. Louis St. Clair Cnty

Extension

(1991)

(1991) Stage I

(1991)
Salt Lake North South

Corridor
Pasadena Gold Line
Sacramento Folsom
Corridor
Hiawatha Corridor
Hudson-Bergen MOS-I
Denver Southwest
Corridor
Sacramento South
Corridor
San Diego Mission

Valley East
20,000

Stage II
Alignment Length (Lineal Feet)
140,000
Based on this analysis of alignment mix and other project characteristics, it quickly becomes
clear that use of a simple cost baseline that assumes an all at-grade alignment, one-mile
station spacing and other industry rule of thumb standards is simply not representative of the
5-3
types of projects completed over the past twenty years. (Note: A cost baseline that assumed a
fully at-grade alignment as typical, would make all but four of the database projects appear to
be above average cost). Rather, the project team choose to select as the cost baseline the
Standard Model LRT. Specifically, this model represents the average alignment mix, station
mix (grade and spacing), fleet size, trackwork types and other project characteristics across all
nineteen projects in the database. A complete listing of the asset mix characteristics for the
Standard Model LRT is presented in Appendix G.
Having established this cost baseline, it is crucial to emphasize that significant cost and/or
quantity differences between an actual LRT project and those for a typical project as represented
by the Standard Model LRT do not imply that the actual project costs are somehow wrong.
There are, of course, imperative reasons why some projects include a higher mix of gradeseparated alignment, larger fleet sizes and other cost and quantity differences relative to a
typical LRT project. Rather, significant cost variations relative to the Standard Model LRT
concept merely provide a means to understanding the cost characteristics of a given project and
how and why they differ from other projects. Once again, the Standard Model LRT is merely
intended to act as a reference point, it does not in any way represent a preferred cost profile for
proposed LRT projects.
5.1.3 Cost Variance Analysis Worksheets
While the cost variance analysis using the Standard Model LRT concept is spread across several
worksheets within the Light Rail Capital Cost Workbook, the foundation for this analysis is
located on the Var_Total worksheet (see Appendix H). Specifically, the Var_Total worksheet
calculates three separate unit and total cost estimates for projects contained in the Capital Cost
Database (where the user selects the specific project). These cost values are as follows:
1. Actual Project Costs The cost actuals for the project under consideration, based on the
actual unit costs and actual unit quantities (Var_Total worksheet: total costs column M)
2. The Quantity Adjusted Cost Estimate Cost estimates based on the actual unit costs for the
project under consideration but using the unit quantities for a typical (Standard Model)
LRT investment of the same length and ridership. (Var_Total worksheet: total costs column
L). This estimate demonstrates the variance in individual project definitions from a
Standard Model LRT project of similar size.
3. The Standard Model Cost Estimate Cost estimates based on the unit costs and unit
quantities for a typical (Standard Model) LRT investment of the same length and
ridership as the project under consideration (Var_Total worksheet: total costs column K).
This estimate demonstrates the variance in the unit costs of the project under analysis from
that of an average LRT project of similar length (based on the unit cost functions described
in Chapter 4).
Comparison of these three cost values reveals to what degree project costs are driven by
variations in unit quantities versus by variations in unit costs relative to a typical LRT
investment as represented by the Standard Model LRT. Specifically, the cost difference between
the Actual Project Cost and the Quantity Adjusted Cost Estimate (i.e., the unit-quantity cost
variance) is determined by the difference between the unit quantities for the actual project versus
those for the Standard Model LRT. In contrast, the cost difference between the Quantity
5-4
Adjusted Cost Estimate and the Standard Model LRT (i.e., the unit-cost variance) is determined
by the difference in unit costs between the actual project and the Standard Model LRT (e.g., the
project alignment may including a higher proportion of underground construction leading to
higher total project costs). Finally, the total cost variance between the Actual Project Cost and
the Standard Model LRT Cost Estimate is the sum of unit-quantity and unit-cost cost variances.
These cost relationships are presented diagrammatically in Exhibit 5-3.
Exhibit 5-3
Cost Variance Analysis
Cost Variance Analysis

Quantity Adjusted
Cost Estimate:
Standard unit
quantities: Project
unit costs
Standard Model
Cost Estimate:
Standard unit costs
and quantities
Unit-Cost Cost
Variance:
Difference in total
costs resulting from
difference in unit
costs between
the project and a
typical LRT
investment
Project Cost
Actuals:
Project unit costs and
unit quantities
Unit-Quantity Cost
Variance:
Difference in total
costs resulting from
difference in unit
quantities between
the project and a
typical LRT
investment
+
Total Cost Variance:
Sum of the unitquanity and unit-cost
cost variances
Performing this cost variance analysis on a cost category and cost element basis provides an
effective means of identifying those cost drivers having the greatest impact on total project cost.
An example of this type of cost category level variance analysis is presented below in Exhibit 54. Specifically this analysis is for Pittsburghs initial Stage 1 light rail segment. The results
suggest that the cost variance relative to the Standard Model LRT results almost entirely from
differences in unit quantities. In particular, the guideway mix includes a higher proportion of
underground and retained cut guideway relative to a typical LRT project. The project also
included a larger then typical vehicle procurement. Partially offsetting these unit quantity
5-5
increases were generally lower unit costs relative to the unit cost values predicted by the
Databases unit cost functions. The higher unit requirements in the project definition are
illustrated by the positive value in the unit-quantity variance while the higher unit costs are
illustrated of the positive unit-cost variance. The total cost variance represents their combined
impact as compared to the Standard Model LRT.
Inspection of the results in Exhibit 5-4 and Exhibit 5-5 demonstrate how elements from the
different LRT cost categories can be grouped into related cost variance drivers. For example,
Pittsburghs Stage 1 alignment includes a segment of underground alignment that, as a
proportion of total system length, is very long relative to the average of the projects
documented in the database. This relatively long subway segment is a primary source of the
significant increase in unit quantity expenditures both on underground guideway elements and
underground stations. Similar groupings can be prepared for trackwork (which drives
investment in systems) and vehicles (which drive investments in yards & shops).
5.1.4 Standard Model LRT Versus Actual Project Costs
The Standard Model LRT concept is intended to provide a cost reference point for projects of all
sizes. As such, it also provides a valuable means of examining how project costs change as a
function of size (e.g., do larger projects enjoy significant economies of scale?). At the same time,
the actual project costs for the nineteen projects documented in the Capital Cost Database
provide a means of confirming (or refuting) the validity of the Standard Model LRT approach.
In other words, does the Standard Model behave help explain actual cost behavior?
Preliminary answers to these questions are provided by Exhibits 5-6 through 5-8. Each of these
exhibits plots the Standard Model LRT costs against project size in the form of total alignment
length. Specifically, Exhibit 5-6 presents the Standard Model LRT in total cost form, Exhibit 5-7
presents the Standard Model LRT in total cost per foot of guideway form and finally Exhibit 5-8
converts the total cost per lineal foot values in Exhibit 5-7 to a log-log scale. As expected, total
project costs increase with project size while total costs per unit of guideway decline reflecting
the form of the unit cost functions underlying development of the Standard Model LRT. Also,
the lumpy nature of the Standard Model LRT cost functions reflects discrete or step-wise
investments in vehicles, stations and maintenance facilities.
Review of Exhibits 5-6 and 5-7 underscores the significant economies of scale from increased
project size. For example, the Standard Model LRT predicts a 25 percent reduction in cost per
lineal foot for projects of 100,000 lineal feet versus a similar project of 50,000 lineal feet. These
economies of scale become less favorable for larger project sizes but are much more significant
(negatively so) for projects of smaller size.
Directly related to these economies of scale is the models prediction of fixed costs. Specifically,
the total cost chart in Exhibit 5-5 suggests that fixed costs for a typical LRT project are roughly
$180 million per project (i.e., the predicted level of expenditures for a project of zero length).
Once again, these fixed costs represent required expenditures for all new investments,
independent of project size, for such elements as design, construction crew mobilization, project
oversight, etc. For smaller projects, these fixed costs are spread over a relatively small base
leading to higher costs on a per foot of guideway basis. As project size increases (e.g., total
5-6
guideway length increases), these fixed costs become distributed over a larger base leading to
lower costs per unit length, in other words economies of scale.
The black diamonds in Exhibits 5-5 through 5-7 represent the cost actuals for the nineteen
projects documented in LRT Capital Cost Database. Though well distributed about the
Standard Model LRT cost function, these actual cost data points generally follow the same cost
trend as the Standard Model function itself (i.e., the total cost actuals tend to increase with
project alignment length while actual cost per foot of guideway tend to decrease). The
relationship between the Standard Model LRT cost function predictions and the cost actuals
becomes even more apparent when the cost actuals are quantity adjusted to eliminate
differences in asset mix (represented by the white triangles). Specifically, this quantity
adjustment modifies each project to utilize the same mix of alignment grades, trackwork types,
number and type of stations, number of vehicles purchased etc. as the Standard Model LRT.
With a few exceptions, this quantity adjustment has the effect of shifting the cost actuals for the
nineteen database projects closer to Standard Model LRT cost function. The remaining
difference between the quantity adjusted actuals and the Standard Model LRT cost function is
strictly the result of differences in unit costs between these two cost values. All unit-quantity
differences have been removed. (Note: the vertical difference between the cost actual and the
quantity adjusted actual is the unit-quantity variance; the difference between the quantity
adjusted actual and the Standard Model LRT cost function is the unit-cost variance). These
quantity adjusted points provide further empirical evidence of declining capital costs per unit of
guideway investment (i.e., economies of scale).
Exhibits 5-9 through 5-11 present revised versions of Exhibits 5-6 through 5-8 respectively.
Specifically, these exhibits present various rebasing of the Standard Model LRT to reflect the
unit cost and unit quantity experiences of subsets of the nineteen projects documented within
the project database. For example, while the Standard Model LRT concept has been defined
thus far to include all nineteen projects documented in the project database, the lowest curve in
this series of exhibits only reflects the unit cost and quantity experience of the four projects that
are entirely at-grade. Similarly, the dotted grey curve captures the average cost experience of
those projects with a high mix of grade separation (65% at-grade, 5% subway, 24% other grade
types) while the dotted dark curve captures the cost experience of the highest-grade separation
(no at-grade alignment). The end result is a family of curves that demonstrates the impact of
alternate alignment mixes (and related project characteristics) on expected project cost.

5-7
Exhibit 5-4
Cost Variance Analysis: By Cost Category
Note: To ensure valid project to project comparisons, the variance analysis exc
DATABASE VARIANCE ANALYSIS: SUMMARY ($)

Category Summary
FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS
0.00 TOTAL PROJECT COST VARIANCE

AT GRADE GUIDEWAY
ELEVATED GUIDEWAY
TRACKWORK
2.00 YARDS & SHOPS

3.00 SYSTEMS
4.00 STATIONS
AT-GRADE STATIONS
SUBWAY STATIONS
ELEVATED STATIONS
PARKING
5.00 VEHICLES
7.00 RIGHT-OF-WAY
8.00 SOFT-COSTS
PLANNING/DESIGN
CONST./PROJ MANAGEMENT
PROJECT INITIATION/TRAINING/START-UP/TESTING
OTHER SOFT COSTS

Units
of
Measure
Unit Cost Variance

Project Cost Variance Analysis
$19,637,682
$16,518,355
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
Track Feet
$5,551,988
($5,534,500)
$26,183,942
($2,860,954)
($6,822,121)
$189,201,100
$88,622,183
($3,579,703)
($9,908,133)
$97,773,788
$4,790,170
($453,938)
$208,838,782
$105,140,538
$1,972,284
($15,442,633)
$123,957,730
$1,929,216
($7,276,059)
Station
($8,365,019)
$16,866,353
$7,968,890
Station
Station
Station
Spaces
Each
$7,968,890
$0
$0
$0
$0
($4,290,864)
$18,548,933
$0
($5,250,036)
($565,779)
$3,678,026
$18,548,933
$0
($5,250,036)
($565,779)
Total
($13,631,346)
($20,054,969)
($921,295)
$21,256,714
$26,090,655
($6,630,318)
($2,152,010)
$45,230,673
$12,459,308
($26,685,287)
($3,073,305)
$66,487,387
Total
Total
Total
Total
$48,148,620
($16,281,364)
($8,129,167)
($2,481,376)
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
5-8
$27,191,582
$2,406,080
$8,442,254
Total Cost Variance
$36,355,873
$8,874,800
$0
$0
$18,826,563
$19,272,434
$16,411,144
$84,504,493
($7,406,564)
($8,129,167)
($2,481,376)
Exhibit 5-5
Cost Variance Analysis: By Cost Driver
Note: To ensure valid project to project comparisons, the variance analysis exc
DATABASE VARIANCE ANALYSIS: SUMMARY ($)

Driver Summary (Note: Diver variances may sum to more than 100%)
FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS
Units
of
Measure

Unit Price Variance
L.F. Guideway
AT-GRADE (guideway, stations)
L.F. Guideway
$13,520,878
($7,870,567)
$5,650,311
ELEVATED (guideway, special structures, stations)
L.F. Guideway
($5,534,500)
($9,908,133)
($15,442,633)
SUBWAY (guideway, stations)
L.F. Guideway
$26,183,942
RETAINED CUT (guideway)
L.F. Guideway
B: TRACKWORK RELATED
TRACKWORK (track, systems)
C: VEHICLE RELATED
REV. VEHICLE (rev veh, non-rev veh, yards & shops, on-board fare
D: STATION RELATED
STATIONS (stations, parking, ped overpasses, elevators/esc)
E: SPECIAL CONDITIONS
F: RIGHT-OF-WAY
G: SOFT-COSTS

L.F. Guideway
($2,860,954)
$189,201,100
$103,334,190
Total Cost Variance
$19,637,682
$31,309,366
TOTAL PROJECT COST VARIANCE

A: GRADE RELATED
$116,322,721
$208,838,782
$134,643,556
$142,506,663
$4,790,170
$1,929,216
Track Feet
$10,044,233
$1,952,142
$11,996,375
Track Feet
$10,044,233
$1,952,142
$11,996,375
$31,285,871
Rev. Vehicle
($21,996,366)
$53,282,237
Rev. Vehicle
($21,996,366)
$53,282,237
$31,285,871
$8,442,254
$16,411,144
$7,968,890
Station
Station
$7,968,890
($20,054,969)
($921,295)
$21,256,714
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
Total
5-9
$8,442,254
($6,630,318)
($2,152,010)
$45,230,673
$16,411,144
($26,685,287)
($3,073,305)
$66,487,387
Exhibit 5-6
Standard Model LRT: Total Project Cost
Standard LRT: Total Project Cost

$1,400
Standard LRT Model

Actuals
$1,200
Quantity Adjusted
LA Blue Line
Hudson-Bergen MOS II
$ Millions
$1,000
Pittsburgh Stage I
Hudson-Bergen MOS I
$800
Southern New Jersey LRT
Hiawatha
$600
$400
Pittsburgh Stage II
San Jose North

Pasadena Gold
Salt Lake North-South
St. Claire County Extension

Sacramento Stage I
$200
Portland MAX Segment I
$0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90

5-10
100
110
120
130
140
150
Exhibit 5-7
Standard Model LRT: Total Project Cost per Foot of Guideway

$35,000
$30,000
Standard LRT Model

Actuals
Quantity Adjusted
$ Per Lineal Foot
$25,000
$20,000
Hudson-Bergen MOS I
Mission Valley
$15,000
Pittsburgh Stage II
Pittsburgh Stage I
$10,000
LA Blue Line
Hiawatha
$5,000
San Jose North

Pasadena Gold
Sacramento Stage I
$0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110

5-11
120
130
140
150
Exhibit 5-8
Standard Model LRT: Cost per Foot of Guideway
Standard LRT: Cost per Foot of Guideway

4.8
4.6
Standard LRT Model

Actuals
Quantity Adjusted
Log ($ Per Lineal Foot)
4.4
Hudson-Bergen MOS I
4.2
Mission Valley
Pittsburgh Stage II
Hiawatha
4.0
Pittsburgh Stage I
LA Blue Line
3.8

San Jose North
Pasadena Gold
3.6

3.4
Sacramento Stage I
3.2
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
Log (Lineal Feet of Guideway)

5-12
4.9
5.0
5.1
5.2
5.3
Exhibit 5-9
Rebasing of Standard Model LRT: Total Project Cost
Standard LRT: Total Project Cost

$1,400
100% At-Grade
Standard Model (83% at-grade, 5% subway, 24% other)
High Mix Projects (65% at-grade, 11% subway, 24% other)
$1,200
Highest Mix (0% at-grade, 36% subway, 64% other)
LA Blue Line
Actuals
$ Millions
$1,000
Pittsburgh Stage I
Hudson-Bergen MOS I
$800
Minneapolis Hiawatha
$600
$400
San Jose North
Pittsburgh Stage II
Pasadena Gold
Sacramento Stage I
$200

St Louis/St. Claire County Extension
$0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90

5-13
100
110
120
130
140
150
Exhibit 5-10
Rebasing of Standard Model LRT: Total Project Cost per Foot of Guideway

$35,000
100% At-Grade
$30,000

Actuals
$ Per Lineal Foot
$25,000
$20,000
Hudson-Bergen MOS I
$15,000
Pittsburgh Stage II

Pittsburgh Stage I
$10,000
$5,000
Pasadena Gold
LA Blue Line
San Jose North


Sacramento Stage I
$0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110

5-14
120
130
140
150
Exhibit 5-11
Rebasing of Standard Model LRT: Cost per Foot of Guideway
Standard LRT: Cost per Foot of Guideway

4.8
100% At-Grade
Actuals
4.6
4.4
4.2
Hudson-Bergen MOS I
Pittsburgh Stage II
Pittsburgh Stage I
4.0
LA Blue Line
3.8
Pasadena Gold
San Jose North

3.6

3.4
Sacramento Stage I
3.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9

5-15
5.0
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.2 Cost Variance Analysis: Database Projects

This section uses the cost variance analysis tools described in the last section to analyze the
project costs of the nineteen projects documented in the Light Rail Database. The section places
particular emphasis on explaining project cost behavior relative to the Standard Model LRT.
This analysis is provided individually for each of the following nineteen projects:

New Jersey Hudson-Bergen MOS-I
New Jersey Hudson-Bergen MOS-II
Pasadena Gold Line
Pittsburgh Light Rail (1991) Stage I
Pittsburgh Light Rail Stage II Priority Project
Portland MAX Segment 1 (1991)
Sacramento Stage 1 (1991)
San Jose North Corridor (1991)
For each project, the analysis provides two exhibits. The first exhibit provides a summary of the
project unit quantities, unit costs (cost category level), total costs (both in Denvers local $1999
year-of-expenditure dollars and also in $2003 adjusted to national average prices) and finally
cost shares for each cost category. The second exhibit presents the cost and quantity variances
for the eight major cost categories, for several of the larger cost elements and for the project as a
whole. Its is important to note here that the cost variance analysis does not include project soft
costs relating to early phases of project design or for project financing. The reason being that
these costs were not reported for all database projects, hence the decision was made to ignore
these costs in the variance analysis to place all projects on an equal basis. Hence, these costs do
appear in the pie chart distributions of project costs but not in the accompanying variance
analysis charts.
5.2.1 Denver Southwest Corridor
Analysis results for Denvers Southwest Corridor project are presented in Exhibits 5-12 and 513. The analysis reveals a project with a total cost per linear foot of $4,644, which is well below
the average of $10,189 per linear foot ($2003), and places the Denver Southwest Corridor in the
lowest cost quartile across the nineteen projects studied. Based on the cost variance analysis
(Exhibit 5-13), the low project cost results from a combination of low unit-quantity expenditures
relative to a typical project (as represented by the Standard Model LRT) and also from below
5-16
average unit costs. The combined impact of these two variances yields a project cost that is 46
percent lower than that predicted by the Standard Model LRT. These cost savings resulted from
the following primary sources:
A high proportion of at-grade alignment (i.e., below average expenditures on expensive

below and above grade alignments)
Low expenditures on Yards & Shops and Special Conditions
Relatively low soft cost expenditures (18.7 percent versus the average of 23.5 percent)
Below average unit costs
5.2.2 Los Angeles Long Beach Blue Line

Analysis results for Los Angeles MTAs Long Beach Blue Line project are presented in Exhibits
5-14 and 5-15. The Long Beach Blue Line project has a total cost per linear foot of $10,210
($2003), which is very close to the average of $10,189 per linear foot. However, the variance
analysis reveals a fairly high unit-cost variance for this project, suggesting that costs for a
typical project would likely have been lower than the actual cost experience (the unit-quantity
variance is small). The origin of this discrepancy is the length of Long Beach Blue Line
alignment. With a total length of 120,000 linear feet (22.6 miles), the Long Beach Blue Line
represents a fairly large project that might have benefited from greater economies of scale
leading to lower unit cost values. Note, however, that the vast majority of the unit-cost variance
originates from Systems (signals and electrification), Special Conditions (utility betterments and
relocations) and Soft Cost (mobilization and construction management). Expenditures for these
items are well above average and reflect the design and construction of a high ridership system
in a well developed urban environment.
The primary cost characteristics for the Long Beach Blue Line are as follows:
Above average unit costs for a project of its size primarily for the Systems, Special
Conditions and Soft-Costs cost categories.
Small unit-quantity variance (i.e., the project has a mix of assets and alignment types
representative of a typical LRT investment)

5-17

Exhibit 5-12
Analysis Denver Southwest Corridor Chart

SOFT-COSTS (18.7%)
GUIDEWAY ELEMENTS (22.8%)
YARDS & SHOPS (0.2%)
SYSTEMS (6.5%)
RIGHT-OF-WAY (21.8%)
STATIONS (10.7%)
SPECIAL CONDITIONS (0.8%)

VEHICLES (18.5%)
Asset Category
Unit
of
Measure

Unit Costs
$2003-National
Units
Total Costs
$1999-Local
$2003-National
Percent of Total
Cost
L.F. Guideway
44,687
$1,057
$40,300,000
$47,219,037
22.8%
2.00 YARDS & SHOPS
Rev. Vehicles
18
$26,038
$400,000
$468,675
0.2%
92,546
$147
$11,600,000
$13,591,584
6.5%
3.00 SYSTEMS
Track Feet
4.00 STATIONS
Stations
$4,452,415
$19,000,000
$22,262,077
10.7%
5.00 VEHICLES
Rev. Vehicles
18
$2,128,567
$32,700,000
$38,314,206
18.5%
L.F. Guideway
44,687
$37
$1,400,000
$1,640,364
0.8%
7.00 RIGHT-OF-WAY
L.F. Guideway
44,687
$1,012
$38,600,000
$45,227,167
21.8%
TOTAL HARD COSTS

8.00 SOFT-COSTS
L.F. Guideway
44,687
$3,776
$144,000,000
$168,723,111
81.3%
$33,100,000
$38,782,882
18.7%
$177,100,000
$207,505,993
100.0%
TOTAL PROJECT COST

% of Hard Costs
L.F. Guideway
$144,000,000
44,687
5-18
23.0%
$4,644

Exhibit 5-13
Variance Analysis For Denver South Corridor
Variance Analysis: By Cost Category
TOTAL COST VARIANCE: Denver Southwest Corridor

At Grade Guideway
Elevated Guideway
Underground Guideway
Retained Cut Guideway
Trackwork
2.00 YARDS & SHOPS
3.00 SYSTEMS
4.00 STATIONS
At-Grade Stations
Subway Stations
Elevated Stations
Parking
5.00 VEHICLES
Total Cost Variance
7.00 RIGHT-OF-WAY
Unit Cost Variance
8.00 SOFT-COSTS
($180)
($160)
($140)
($120)
($100)
($80)
($60)
($40)
($20)
$0
$20
$40
Millions

5-19

Exhibit 5-14
Analysis on Los Angeles, Long Beach Blue Line
Los Angeles - Long Beach Blue Line

SOFT-COSTS (24.0%)

RIGHT-OF-WAY (6.8%)
SYSTEMS (14.4%)
STATIONS (7.5%)

VEHICLES (9.1%)
Asset Category
Unit
of
Measure

Unit Costs
$2003-National
Units
Total Costs
$1987-Local
$2003-National
Percent of Total
Cost
L.F. Guideway
119,283
$1,705
$148,719,104
$203,346,460
17.0%
2.00 YARDS & SHOPS
Rev. Vehicles
54
$836,212
$33,024,821
$45,155,466
3.8%
238,566
$725
$126,453,164
$172,901,816
14.4%
3.00 SYSTEMS
Track Feet
4.00 STATIONS
Stations
22
$4,095,337
$65,893,479
$90,097,407
7.5%
5.00 VEHICLES
Rev. Vehicles
54
$2,024,117
$79,939,129
$109,302,292
9.1%
L.F. Guideway
119,283
$1,901
$152,349,392
$226,720,205
17.4%
7.00 RIGHT-OF-WAY
L.F. Guideway
119,283
$689
$60,084,803
$82,155,094
6.8%
TOTAL HARD COSTS

8.00 SOFT-COSTS
119,283
$7,794
% of Hard Costs
TOTAL PROJECT COST

L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
$666,463,892
119,283
5-20
31.0%
$10,210
$666,463,892
$929,678,739
76.0%
$210,805,963
$288,239,003
24.0%
$877,269,855
$1,217,917,742
100.0%

Exhibit 5-15
Analysis on Los Angeles, Long Beach Blue Line

TOTAL COST VARIANCE: Los Angeles Long Beach Blue Line
At Grade Guideway
Elevated Guideway
Trackwork
2.00 YARDS & SHOPS
3.00 SYSTEMS
4.00 STATIONS
At-Grade Stations
Subway Stations
Elevated Stations
Parking
5.00 VEHICLES
Total Cost Variance
7.00 RIGHT-OF-WAY
Unit Cost Variance
8.00 SOFT-COSTS
($50)
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
$350
$400
Millions

5-21
5.2.3 Minneapolis Hiawatha Corridor

Analysis results for Minneapolis Hiawatha Corridor project are presented in Exhibits 5-16 and
5-17. The Hiawatha Corridor has a total cost per linear foot of $10,002 ($2003), which is close to
the average of $10,189 per linear foot. Similar to the Los Angeles Blue Line, this cost per foot of
guideway is higher than expected for a project over 61,000 feet in length (11.6 miles).
Specifically, the total cost variance suggests that project costs are roughly $160 million or 32
percent higher than that predicted by the Standard Model LRT. Roughly one-quarter of this
increase originates from the above average investment in subway alignment and subway
stations (unit-quantity variance). The remaining 75 percent of these cost increase comes from
higher unit costs relative to the average cost experience of the sample projects(unit-cost
variance), originating primarily from above-average costs for at-grade guideway, trackwork,
systems and subway stations.
The primary cost characteristics for the Minneapolis Hiawatha Corridor are as follows:
Above average unit costs for a project of its size (roughly 32 percent higher) primarily
relating to increased unit costs at-grade guideway, systems and trackwork.
Positive unit-quantity variance resulting from above average investment in subway

alignment and stations
5.2.4 New Jersey Hudson-Bergen MOS I

Analysis results for the New Jersey Hudson-Bergen MOS I project are presented in Exhibits 518 and 5-19. MOS I has a total cost per linear foot of $22,181 ($2003), which is above average.
Some of this high cost is attributable to a shorter than average alignment length (8.7 miles
versus an average of 13.2 miles), leading to increased project unit costs as fixed costs are spread
over a smaller base. High unit-cost variances account for roughly 70 percent of the total cost
variance and are associated primarily with the at-grade guideway, yards & shops, stations and
special conditions cost categories. The remaining 30 percent in unit-quantity variances are
driven primarily by above average purchases of stations, yards & shops capacity and vehicles.
These quantity increases are to be expected given a system designed for high ridership.

5-22

Exhibit 5-16
Analysis on Hiawatha Corridor
Hiawatha Corridor
SOFT-COSTS (10.8%)
RIGHT-OF-WAY (7.3%)

VEHICLES (11.1%)
STATIONS (6.8%)
SYSTEMS (15.4%)
Asset Category
Unit
of
Measure
Hiawatha Corridor
Unit Costs
$2003-National
Units
Total Costs
$2002-Local
$2003-National
Percent of Total
Cost
L.F. Guideway
61,248
$4,159
$280,857,379
$254,741,016
41.6%
2.00 YARDS & SHOPS
Rev. Vehicles
26
$1,278,436
$36,647,066
$33,239,329
5.4%
122,496
$768
$103,707,649
$94,064,083
15.4%
3.00 SYSTEMS
Track Feet
4.00 STATIONS
Stations
17
$2,456,984
$46,050,906
$41,768,725
6.8%
5.00 VEHICLES
Rev. Vehicles
26
$2,606,299
$74,711,000
$67,763,774
11.1%
L.F. Guideway
61,248
$166
$11,243,000
$10,197,536
1.7%
7.00 RIGHT-OF-WAY
L.F. Guideway
61,248
$726
$49,026,000
$44,467,171
7.3%
TOTAL HARD COSTS

8.00 SOFT-COSTS
61,248
$8,919
$602,243,000
$546,241,633
89.2%
% of Hard Costs
$73,187,000
$66,381,488
10.8%
$675,430,000
$612,623,121
100.0%
TOTAL PROJECT COST

L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
$602,243,000
61,248
5-23
12.2%
$10,002

Exhibit 5-17
Analysis on Minneapolis Hiawatha Corridor

TOTAL COST VARIANCE: Hiawatha Corridor
At Grade Guideway
Elevated Guideway
Trackwork
2.00 YARDS & SHOPS
3.00 SYSTEMS
4.00 STATIONS
At-Grade Stations
Subway Stations
Elevated Stations
Parking
5.00 VEHICLES
Total Cost Variance

Unit Cost Variance
7.00 RIGHT-OF-WAY
8.00 SOFT-COSTS
($100)
($50)
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
Millions

5-24

Exhibit 5-18
Analysis on Hudson-Bergen MOS I
Hudson - Bergen MOS-I

SOFT-COSTS (29.4%)
SYSTEMS (5.8%)
RIGHT-OF-WAY (4.6%)
STATIONS (12.0%)

VEHICLES (9.9%)
Asset Category
Unit
of
Measure
Hudson-Bergen MOS-I
Unit Costs
$2003-National
Units
Total Costs
$1999-Local
$2003-National
Percent of Total
Cost
L.F. Guideway
45,900
$4,783
$213,937,981
$219,535,351
21.6%
2.00 YARDS & SHOPS
Rev. Vehicles
70
$665,057
$45,367,000
$46,553,960
4.6%
91,800
$646
$57,835,000
$59,348,167
5.8%
3.00 SYSTEMS
Track Feet
4.00 STATIONS
Stations
14
$8,693,070
$118,599,991
$121,702,983
12.0%
5.00 VEHICLES
Rev. Vehicles
29
$3,487,505
$98,559,000
$101,137,650
9.9%
L.F. Guideway
45,900
$2,704
$120,964,991
$124,129,860
12.2%
7.00 RIGHT-OF-WAY
L.F. Guideway
45,900
$1,014
$45,338,038
$46,524,241
4.6%
TOTAL HARD COSTS

8.00 SOFT-COSTS
L.F. Guideway
45,900
$15,663
$700,602,000
$718,932,212
70.6%
$291,538,000
$299,165,659
29.4%
$992,140,000
$1,018,097,872
100.0%
TOTAL PROJECT COST

% of Hard Costs
L.F. Guideway
$700,602,000
45,900
5-25
41.6%
$22,181

Exhibit 5-19
Analysis on New Jersey Hudson-Bergen MOS I

TOTAL COST VARIANCE: Hudson-Bergen MOS-I
At Grade Guideway
Elevated Guideway
Trackwork
2.00 YARDS & SHOPS
3.00 SYSTEMS
4.00 STATIONS
At-Grade Stations
Subway Stations
Elevated Stations
Parking
5.00 VEHICLES
Total Cost Variance
7.00 RIGHT-OF-WAY
Unit Cost Variance
8.00 SOFT-COSTS
($50)
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
$350
$400
$450
Millions

5-26
The primary cost characteristics for the Hudson-Bergen MOS I project are as follows:
High unit-costs driven in part by a relatively short project alignment and also for
construction of a high ridership rail transit system in a well developed urban environment
(leading to high utility relocation expenses)
A 35 percent unit-quantity variance driven primarily by the design requirements for a high
ridership system.
5.2.5 New Jersey Hudson-Bergen MOS II

Analysis results for the New Jersey Hudson-Bergen MOS II project are presented in Exhibits 520 and 5-21. MOS II has a total cost per linear foot of $39,611 ($2003), which is well above
average. As with MOS I, some of this high cost is attributable to a shorter than average
alignment length (5.8 miles versus an average of 13.2 miles) leading to a significant increase in
project unit costs as fixed costs are spread over a smaller base. High unit-cost variances account
for roughly 95percent of the total cost variance and are associated primarily with the at-grade
guideway, stations and special conditions cost categories, once again reflecting development of
a high ridership design system in a well developed urban environment. The remaining 5
percent in unit-quantity variances are driven primarily by an above average proportion of
below-grade alignment.
The primary cost characteristics for the Hudson-Bergen MOS II project are as follows:
High unit-costs driven by a relatively short project alignment (distributing fixed costs over a
smaller base) and also for construction of a high ridership rail transit system in a well
developed urban environment (leading to high utility relocation expenses)
A small 12 percent unit-quantity variance driven primarily by the design requirements for a
high ridership system.

5-27

Exhibit 5-20
Analysis on Hudson-Bergen MOS II
Hudson - Bergen MOS-II

SOFT-COSTS (23.7%)
RIGHT-OF-WAY (3.2%)

SYSTEMS (6.1%)
STATIONS (12.2%)
VEHICLES (6.2%)
Asset Category
Unit
of
Measure
Unit Costs
$2003-National
Units
Total Costs
$2000-Local
$2003-National
Percent of Total
Cost
L.F. Guideway
30,704
$13,714
$421,838,000
$421,059,325
34.6%
2.00 YARDS & SHOPS
Rev. Vehicles
$0
$0
$0
0.0%
61,193
$1,222
$74,911,000
$74,772,721
6.1%
$74,349,254
$148,973,500
$148,698,508
12.2%
3.00 SYSTEMS
Track Feet
4.00 STATIONS
Stations
5.00 VEHICLES
Rev. Vehicles
23
$3,293,127
$75,882,000
$75,741,929
6.2%
L.F. Guideway
30,704
$5,491
$168,917,500
$168,605,694
13.9%
7.00 RIGHT-OF-WAY
L.F. Guideway
30,704
$1,270
$39,077,000
$39,004,867
3.2%
TOTAL HARD COSTS

8.00 SOFT-COSTS
30,704
$30,220
$929,599,000
$927,883,045
76.3%
% of Hard Costs
$288,875,000
$288,341,763
23.7%
$1,218,474,000
$1,216,224,808
100.0%
TOTAL PROJECT COST

L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
$929,599,000
30,704
5-28
31.1%
$39,611

Exhibit 5-21
Analysis on New Jersey Hudson-Bergen MOS II

TOTAL COST VARIANCE: Hudson-Bergen MOS-II
At Grade Guideway
Elevated Guideway
Trackwork
2.00 YARDS & SHOPS
3.00 SYSTEMS
4.00 STATIONS
At-Grade Stations
Subway Stations
Elevated Stations
Parking
5.00 VEHICLES
Total Cost Variance
7.00 RIGHT-OF-WAY
Unit Cost Variance
8.00 SOFT-COSTS
($200)
($100)
$0
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
$700
$800
Millions

5-29
5.2.6 Pasadena Gold Line

Analysis results for the Pasadena Gold Line are presented in Exhibits 5-22 and 5-23. The Gold
Line has a total cost per linear foot of $5,343 ($2003), well below the average of $10,189 and
placing this project in the second lowest cost quartile. Based on the cost variance analysis
(Exhibit 5-23), the low project cost results from a combination of low unit-quantity expenditures
relative to a typical project (i.e., a negative unit-quantity variance) and also from below
average unit costs (negative unit-cost variance). The negative unit-quantity variance is driven
primarily by the absence of any expenditures on rail vehicles and related expenditures (fleet
vehicles are to be provided from LACMTAs existing rolling stock). The negative unit-cost
variance is driven by low unit costs for at-grade guideway and for right-of-way acquisition.
These low unit costs are the result of the development of extensive project alignment on preexisting freight right-of-way purchased prior to the start of this project (i.e., the right-of-way
costs for the freight right-of-way are not included in the project totals). The combined impact of
these two negative variances yields a project cost that is 26 percent lower than that predicted by
the Standard Model LRT.
The primary cost characteristics for the Pasadena Gold Line are as follows:
Below average unit-quantity related costs resulting primarily from the absence of any
vehicle purchases.
Below average unit-costs for at-grade guideway and right-of-way acquisition due to existing
freight right-of-way purchased prior to the start of this project.
5.2.7 Pittsburgh Stage I

Analysis results for Pittsburghs Stage I LRT project are presented in Exhibits 5-24 and 5-25.
Stage I has a total cost per linear foot of $10,804 ($2003) which is above the average of $10,189
and places this 15.5 mile project and in the second highest cost quartile. Based on the cost
variance analysis (Exhibit 5-25), the above average project cost results almost entirely from unitquantity differences with a typical LRT project (i.e., a positive unit-quantity variance), in
particular, the purchase of extensive subway guideway and stations. After correcting for this
significant unit-quantity variance (which is 90 percent of the total cost variance), the remaining
unit-cost variance is insignificant, accounting for less than 4 percent of total project costs.

5-30

Exhibit 5-22
Analysis on Pasadena Gold Line
Pasadena Gold Line

SOFT-COSTS (27.6%)
RIGHT-OF-WAY (2.5%)
SYSTEMS (13.8%)
VEHICLES (0.1%)
Asset Category
Unit
of
Measure
STATIONS (12.9%)
Pasadena Gold Line

Unit Costs
$2003-National
Units
Total Costs
$2002-Local
$2003-National
Percent of Total
Cost
L.F. Guideway
73,730
$1,180
$89,154,842
$87,013,905
22.1%
2.00 YARDS & SHOPS
Rev. Vehicles
25
$649,928
$16,647,970
$16,248,191
4.1%
147,166
$370
$55,815,978
$54,475,630
13.8%
3.00 SYSTEMS
Track Feet
4.00 STATIONS
Stations
13
$3,899,517
$51,941,011
$50,693,715
12.9%
5.00 VEHICLES
Rev. Vehicles
25
$20,649
$528,933
$516,231
0.1%
L.F. Guideway
73,730
$902
$68,108,837
$66,473,292
16.9%
7.00 RIGHT-OF-WAY
L.F. Guideway
73,730
$134
$10,101,841
$9,859,259
2.5%
TOTAL HARD COSTS

8.00 SOFT-COSTS
L.F. Guideway
73,730
$3,869
$292,299,412
$285,280,224
72.4%
$111,318,897
$108,645,720
27.6%
$403,618,310
$393,925,943
100.0%
TOTAL PROJECT COST

% of Hard Costs
L.F. Guideway
$292,299,412
73,730
5-31
38.1%
$5,343

Exhibit 5-23
Analysis Pasadena Gold Line
TOTAL COST VARIANCE: Pasadena Gold Line

At Grade Guideway
Elevated Guideway
Trackwork
2.00 YARDS & SHOPS
3.00 SYSTEMS
4.00 STATIONS
At-Grade Stations
Subway Stations
Elevated Stations
Parking
5.00 VEHICLES
Total Cost Variance
7.00 RIGHT-OF-WAY
Unit Cost Variance
8.00 SOFT-COSTS
($160)
($140)
($120)
($100)
($80)
($60)
($40)
($20)
$0
$20
$40
Millions

5-32
Exhibit 5-24
Analysis on Pittsburgh Light Rail Stage 1
Pittsburgh Light Rail Stage 1

SOFT-COSTS (23.9%)
RIGHT-OF-WAY (3.9%)

VEHICLES (10.3%)
SYSTEMS (10.8%)
STATIONS (6.2%)
Asset Category
Unit
of
Measure

Unit Costs
$2003-National
Units
Total Costs
$1985-Local
$2003-National
Percent of Total
Cost
L.F. Guideway
82,198
$3,932
$202,419,030
$323,177,846
36.4%
2.00 YARDS & SHOPS
Rev. Vehicles
97
$610,922
$37,116,525
$59,259,441
6.7%
164,394
$582
$59,951,818
$95,717,776
10.8%
3.00 SYSTEMS
Track Feet
4.00 STATIONS
Stations
12
$4,561,262
$34,282,779
$54,735,144
6.2%
5.00 VEHICLES
Rev. Vehicles
55
$1,666,231
$57,399,440
$91,642,705
10.3%
L.F. Guideway
82,198
$196
$10,038,972
$16,145,284
1.8%
7.00 RIGHT-OF-WAY
L.F. Guideway
82,198
$430
$21,511,920
$35,373,261
3.9%
TOTAL HARD COSTS

8.00 SOFT-COSTS
L.F. Guideway
82,198
$8,225
$422,720,484
$676,051,455
76.1%
$132,804,580
$212,032,920
23.9%
$555,525,064
$888,084,376
100.0%
TOTAL PROJECT COST

% of Hard Costs
L.F. Guideway
$422,720,484
82,198
5-33
31.4%
$10,804

Exhibit 5-25
Analysis on Pittsburgh Stage I

TOTAL COST VARIANCE: Pittsburgh Light Rail Stage I
At Grade Guideway
Elevated Guideway
Trackwork
2.00 YARDS & SHOPS
3.00 SYSTEMS
4.00 STATIONS
At-Grade Stations
Subway Stations
Elevated Stations
Parking
5.00 VEHICLES
Total Cost Variance

Unit Cost Variance
7.00 RIGHT-OF-WAY
8.00 SOFT-COSTS
($50)
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
Millions

5-34
The primary cost characteristics for the Pittsburghs Stage I project are as follows:
High unit-quantity variance driven by a high proportion of subway alignment and related
expenditures. This unit-quantity variance yielded a cost increase of over 50percent relative
to a typical LRT project of the same alignment length.
Project unit costs are only marginally higher than standard industry experience.
5.2.8 Pittsburgh Stage II

Analysis results for Pittsburghs Stage II LRT priority project are presented in Exhibits 5-26 and
5-27. Stage II has a total cost per linear foot of $13,553 ($2003) placing this 5.5-mile project
among the higher cost projects documented in the database (in part due to the short alignment
length). Similar to the Stage I project, the above average project costs for the Stage II priority
project result almost entirely from unit-quantity differences with a typical LRT project (i.e., a
positive unit-quantity variance), in particular above average purchase of retained fill and
retained cut guideway, stations parking and revenue vehicles. After correcting for this
significant unit-quantity variance (which is 85 percent of the total cost variance), the remaining
unit-cost variance is insignificant, accounting for roughly 2.5 percent of total project costs.
The primary cost characteristics for the Pittsburghs Stage II priority project are as follows:
High unit-quantity variance driven by a high proportions of elevated, elevated fill and
retained cut guideway alignment, extensive station parking facilities and large revenue
vehicle procurement for a project of this size. This unit-quantity variance yielded a cost
increase of roughly 20 percent relative to a typical LRT project of the same alignment
length.
Project unit costs are only marginally higher than standard industry experience.
5.2.9 Portland MAX Segment 1

Analysis results for Portland MAX Segment 1 are presented in Exhibits 5-28 and 5-29. MAX
Segment 1 has a total cost per linear foot of $4,825 ($2003) placing this 15.2 mile project among
the lower cost projects documented in the database. Based on the cost variance analysis (Exhibit
5-29), the low project cost results from a combination of low unit-quantity expenditures relative
to a typical project (i.e., a negative unit-quantity variance) and also from below average unit
costs (negative unit-cost variance).

5-35

Exhibit 5-26
Analysis on Pittsburgh Light Rail Stage II Priority Project

SOFT-COSTS (25.2%)
RIGHT-OF-WAY (0.8%)
SYSTEMS (15.8%)
VEHICLES (17.7%)
Asset Category
1.00 GUIDEWAY
2.00 YARDS &
3.00
4.00
5.00 VEHICLES
6.00 SPECIAL
7.00 RIGHT-OFTOTAL HARD
8.00 SOFTTOTAL PROJECT
Unit
of
Measure
L.F. Guideway
Rev. Vehicles
STATIONS (10.7%)
Pittsburgh Light Rail Stage

Unit Costs
$2003-National
Units
28,763
$3,354
Total Costs
$2003-Local
$94,133,841
$2003-National
$96,457,838
Percent of Total
Cost
24.4%
28
$150,982
$3,875,595
$4,227,488
1.0%
Track Feet
57,636
$1,121
$61,009,982
$60,888,206
15.8%
Stations
11
$3,751,421
$41,348,161
$41,265,630
10.7%
Rev. Vehicles
28
$2,371,580
$68,400,544
$66,404,226
17.7%
L.F. Guideway
28,763
$624
$17,520,479
$17,953,028
4.5%
L.F. Guideway
28,763
$105
$2,950,000
$3,022,830
0.8%
L.F. Guideway
28,763
$10,090
$289,238,602
$290,219,246
74.8%
$97,219,739
$99,619,921
25.2%
$386,458,341
$389,839,167
100.0%
% of Hard Costs
L.F. Guideway
$289,238,602
28,763
5-36
34.3%
$13,553

Exhibit 5-27
Analysis Pittsburgh Stage II Priority Project

TOTAL COST VARIANCE: Pittsburgh Light Rail Stage II
At Grade Guideway
Elevated Guideway
Trackwork
2.00 YARDS & SHOPS
3.00 SYSTEMS
4.00 STATIONS
At-Grade Stations
Subway Stations
Elevated Stations
Parking
5.00 VEHICLES
Total Cost Variance

Unit Cost Variance
7.00 RIGHT-OF-WAY
8.00 SOFT-COSTS
($40)
($20)
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
Millions

5-37

Exhibit 5-28
Analysis on Portland MAS Segment 1

SOFT-COSTS (23.6%)
GUIDEWAY ELEMENTS
(38.3%)
RIGHT-OF-WAY (6.1%)

VEHICLES (10.2%)
STATIONS (6.1%)
Asset Category
Unit
of
Measure
SYSTEMS (8.6%)

Unit Costs
$2003-National
Units
Total Costs
$1984-Local
$2003-National
Percent of Total
Cost
L.F. Guideway
80,179
$1,814
$94,599,637
$145,462,935
38.3%
2.00 YARDS & SHOPS
Rev. Vehicles
100
$182,404
$11,602,000
$18,240,436
4.7%
160,358
$203
$21,167,000
$32,547,841
8.6%
3.00 SYSTEMS
Track Feet
4.00 STATIONS
Stations
25
$922,433
$15,107,000
$23,060,829
6.1%
5.00 VEHICLES
Rev. Vehicles
26
$1,747,093
$25,218,000
$45,424,414
10.2%
L.F. Guideway
80,179
$110
$5,756,000
$8,850,823
2.3%
7.00 RIGHT-OF-WAY
L.F. Guideway
80,179
$295
$15,070,000
$23,692,758
6.1%
TOTAL HARD COSTS

8.00 SOFT-COSTS
80,179
$3,708
$188,519,637
$297,280,035
76.4%
% of Hard Costs
$58,278,000
$89,612,278
23.6%
$246,797,637
$386,892,313
100.0%
TOTAL PROJECT COST

L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
$188,519,637
80,179
5-38
30.1%
$4,825

Exhibit 5-29
Analysis on Portland MAX Segment 1

TOTAL COST VARIANCE: Portland MAX Segment I
At Grade Guideway
Elevated Guideway
Trackwork
2.00 YARDS & SHOPS
3.00 SYSTEMS
4.00 STATIONS
At-Grade Stations
Subway Stations
Elevated Stations
Parking
5.00 VEHICLES
Total Cost Variance
7.00 RIGHT-OF-WAY
Unit Cost Variance

8.00 SOFT-COSTS
($120)
($100)
($80)
($60)
($40)
($20)
$0
$20
$40
Millions

5-39
The negative unit-quantity variance accounts for about $68 million or roughly two-thirds of the
relative cost savings and is driven by both the absence of any investment in subway guideway
and also by low special conditions requirements. The $34 million negative unit-cost variance
originates from a variety of cost savings across the project including those for yards & shops,
systems, vehicles and right-of-way. The combined impact of these two negative variances yields
a project cost that is 30 percent lower than that predicted by the Standard Model LRT.
The primary cost characteristics for Portlands MAX Segment 1 project are:
Negative unit-quantity variance driven by below average expenditures on below-grade

guideway and special conditions.
Negative unit-cost variance driven by slightly below average unit costs for yards & shops,
systems, vehicles and right-of-way.
5.2.10
Analysis results for Portland Interstate MAX are presented in Exhibits 5-30 and 5-31. Interstate
MAX has a total cost per linear foot of $11,244 ($2003) placing this 5.8 mile project among the
mid-tier cost projects documented in the database. Based on the cost variance analysis (Exhibit
5-31), this project has offsetting positive unit-quantity variance and negative unit-cost variance.
This offset yields a total project cost that is near the expected value for a project of this size. The
positive unit-quantity variance ($53 million) results primarily from extensive in-street guideway
alignment and higher quantity vehicle purchases relative to a typical LRT project (vehicle
purchases may be driven by the relatively high ridership projects for this project). The offsetting
negative unit-cost variance (-$48 million) is the result of low unit costs for yards & shops, rightof-way acquisition and soft costs.
The primary cost characteristics for Portlands Interstate MAX project are:
Offsetting 16 percent positive unit-quantity variance and 15 percent negative unit-cost

variance relative to the Standard Model LRT
The positive unit-quantity expenditures primarily reflect the extensive use of in-street and
elevated guideway and related direct fixation and embedded trackwork. Vehicle quantity
purchases were also above average reflecting above average ridership projections.
The negative unit-cost variance is driven by below average unit costs for most cost
categories, in particular yards & shops, right-of-way acquisition and soft costs

5-40

Exhibit 5-30
Analysis on Portland Interstate MAX

SOFT-COSTS (19.7%)

RIGHT-OF-WAY (1.9%)
VEHICLES (20.9%)
STATIONS (3.3%)
Asset Category
Unit
of
Measure
SYSTEMS (10.3%)

Unit Costs
$2003-National
Units
Total Costs
$2002-Local
$2003-National
Percent of Total
Cost
L.F. Guideway
30,408
$3,854
$119,609,651
$117,182,944
34.2%
2.00 YARDS & SHOPS
Rev. Vehicles
24
$579,457
$14,194,955
$13,906,960
4.1%
60,816
$566
$36,104,512
$34,450,870
10.3%
3.00 SYSTEMS
Track Feet
4.00 STATIONS
Stations
10
$1,117,672
$11,408,179
$11,176,724
3.3%
5.00 VEHICLES
Rev. Vehicles
24
$2,987,696
$73,189,604
$71,704,693
20.9%
L.F. Guideway
30,408
$646
$19,493,599
$19,647,688
5.6%
7.00 RIGHT-OF-WAY
L.F. Guideway
30,408
$209
$6,473,336
$6,342,001
1.9%
TOTAL HARD COSTS

8.00 SOFT-COSTS
L.F. Guideway
30,408
$9,024
$280,473,836
$274,411,879
80.3%
$68,901,236
$67,503,329
19.7%
$349,375,072
$341,915,209
100.0%
TOTAL PROJECT COST

% of Hard Costs
L.F. Guideway
$280,473,836
30,408
5-41
24.6%
$11,244

Exhibit 5-31
Analysis on Portland Interstate MAX

TOTAL COST VARIANCE: Portland Interstate MAX
At Grade Guideway
Elevated Guideway
Trackwork
2.00 YARDS & SHOPS
3.00 SYSTEMS
4.00 STATIONS
At-Grade Stations
Subway Stations
Elevated Stations
Parking
5.00 VEHICLES
Total Cost Variance

7.00 RIGHT-OF-WAY
Unit Cost Variance
8.00 SOFT-COSTS
($60)
($40)
($20)
$0
$20
$40
$60
Millions

5-42
5.2.11
Analysis results for Portland Westside/Hillsboro MAX are presented in Exhibits 5-32 and 5-33.
Westside/Hillsboro MAX has a total cost per linear foot of $11,964 ($2003) placing this 17.4 mile
project among the higher cost projects documented in the database. Based on the cost variance
analysis (Exhibit 5-33), this project has strong positive unit-quantity and unit-cost variances.
The positive unit-quantity variance ($145 million) results primarily from a high level of
investment in underground guideway and stations relative to the Standard Model LRT. The
positive unit-cost variance (over $250 million) is the result of high unit costs for at-grade
guideway, trackwork and soft-costs. Some of these above average costs may be explained by the
projects high than average projected ridership loads.
The primary cost characteristics for Portlands Westside/Hillsboro MAX project are:
Positive unit-quantity and unit-cost variances yielding total project cost per unit of
guideway that are higher than a typical LRT project of similar size. A primary driver of
these cost increases is the large proportion of subway guideway, stations and related
investments.
Unit costs were likewise higher than typical especially for at-grade guideway, trackwork
and soft-costs.
5.2.12
Sacramento Stage 1
Analysis results for Sacramento Stage 1 are presented in Exhibits 5-34 and 5-35. Sacramento
Stage 1 has a total cost per linear foot of $2,327 ($2003) making this 21.1 mile investment the
lowest cost project documented in the LRT Capital Cost Database. While unit costs for a project
of this length are expected to be lower than average (a cost behavior effect captured by the
Standard Model LRT), the total cost variance for this project points to total project costs that are
65 percent lower than that predicted by the Standard LRT model. This variance includes both
negative unit-quantity and negative unit-cost variances. The negative unit-quantity variance is
derived primarily from the absence of any investment in subway alignment, minimal abovegrade investments, low station density and low special conditions requirements. Similarly, the
negative unit-cost variance originates from below average unit costs across all cost categories
but in particular for systems, vehicles and soft-costs.

5-43
Exhibit 5-32
Analysis on Portland Westside/Hillsboro MAX 1

SOFT-COSTS (22.2%)

RIGHT-OF-WAY (6.7%)
VEHICLES (11.2%)
STATIONS (10.4%)
Asset Category
Unit
of
Measure
SYSTEMS (7.4%)

Unit Costs
$2003-National
Units
Total Costs
$1996-Local
$2003-National
Percent of Total
Cost
L.F. Guideway
92,126
$4,439
$357,388,524
$408,917,537
37.1%
2.00 YARDS & SHOPS
Rev. Vehicles
36
$621,051
$19,540,459
$22,357,843
2.0%
153,292
$534
$71,555,861
$81,872,932
7.4%
3.00 SYSTEMS
Track Feet
4.00 STATIONS
Stations
20
$5,735,752
$100,259,433
$114,715,045
10.4%
5.00 VEHICLES
Rev. Vehicles
36
$3,441,474
$108,280,886
$123,893,047
11.2%
L.F. Guideway
92,126
$345
$27,762,340
$31,765,171
2.9%
7.00 RIGHT-OF-WAY
L.F. Guideway
92,126
$797
$64,199,462
$73,455,873
6.7%
TOTAL HARD COSTS

8.00 SOFT-COSTS
L.F. Guideway
92,126
$9,302
$748,986,965
$856,977,448
77.8%
$214,280,878
$245,176,336
22.2%
$963,267,843
$1,102,153,784
100.0%
TOTAL PROJECT COST

% of Hard Costs
L.F. Guideway
$748,986,965
92,126
5-44
28.6%
$11,964

Exhibit 5-33
Analysis on Portland Westside/Hillsboro MAX 1

TOTAL COST VARIANCE: Portland Westside/Hillsboro MAX
At Grade Guideway
Elevated Guideway
Trackwork
2.00 YARDS & SHOPS
3.00 SYSTEMS
4.00 STATIONS
At-Grade Stations
Subway Stations
Elevated Stations
Parking
5.00 VEHICLES
Total Cost Variance

Unit Cost Variance
7.00 RIGHT-OF-WAY
8.00 SOFT-COSTS
($100)
$0
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
Millions

5-45

Exhibit 5-34
Analysis on Sacramento Stage 1
Sacramento Stage 1
SOFT-COSTS (20.0%)
RIGHT-OF-WAY (9.6%)
SYSTEMS (10.8%)
STATIONS (5.7%)
VEHICLES (19.1%)
Asset Category
Unit
of
Measure
Sacramento Stage 1
Unit Costs
$2003-National
Units
Total Costs
$1984-Local
$2003-National
Percent of Total
Cost
L.F. Guideway
111,936
$601
$46,678,400
$67,274,572
25.8%
2.00 YARDS & SHOPS
Rev. Vehicles
50
$114,694
$3,979,000
$5,734,677
2.2%
154,374
$182
$19,514,037
$28,124,325
10.8%
3.00 SYSTEMS
Track Feet
4.00 STATIONS
Stations
28
$528,625
$10,270,000
$14,801,490
5.7%
5.00 VEHICLES
Rev. Vehicles
36
$1,385,188
$34,600,000
$49,866,752
19.1%
L.F. Guideway
111,936
$156
$12,153,425
$17,515,949
6.7%
7.00 RIGHT-OF-WAY
L.F. Guideway
111,936
$224
$17,408,000
$25,089,030
9.6%
TOTAL HARD COSTS

8.00 SOFT-COSTS
L.F. Guideway
111,936
$1,862
$144,602,862
$208,406,794
80.0%
$36,119,000
$52,055,989
20.0%
$180,721,862
$260,462,783
100.0%
TOTAL PROJECT COST

% of Hard Costs
L.F. Guideway
$144,602,862
111,936
5-46
25.0%
$2,327

Exhibit 5-35
Analysis on Sacramento Stage 1

TOTAL COST VARIANCE: Sacramento Stage I
At Grade Guideway
Elevated Guideway
Trackwork
2.00 YARDS & SHOPS
3.00 SYSTEMS
4.00 STATIONS
At-Grade Stations
Subway Stations
Elevated Stations
Parking
5.00 VEHICLES
Total Cost Variance
7.00 RIGHT-OF-WAY
Unit Cost Variance
8.00 SOFT-COSTS
($350)
($300)
($250)
($200)
($150)
($100)
($50)
$0
$50
Millions

5-47
It is important to note here that Sacramento Stage 1 represents in a sense an incomplete

project. As discussed at length in Chapter 3, the grantees intention was to build a preliminary
corridor investment with low station densities and for some segments, single track. This is the
investment documented as Stage 1 in the LRT Capital Cost Database. As noted in Chapter 3,
Sacramentos Folsom Corridor project represents an investment to complete the initial Stage 1
investment by adding additional stations, increasing the level of double tracking and adding
upgrades to the initial Stage 1 investment. Hence, while this staged investment in the
complete Folsom Corridor alignment has been recognized as two independent, low cost
corridors in the LRT Capital Cost Database, these two database entries ultimately represent a
single, long-term LRT investment. However, even if these two investment are grouped as a
single project, total project costs remain below that predicted by the Standard Model LRT.
The primary cost characteristics for Sacramento Stage 1 are:
Negative unit-quantity and unit-cost variances for nearly all cost categories, in particular
guideway elements and soft-costs
These negative cost variances result primarily from the development of an incomplete rail
investment with low station densities and extensive single tracked alignment
Alignment development was completed with construction of the Folsom Corridor project,
an investment that added additional track and station capacity to the original Stage 1 LRT
investment.
5.2.13
Analysis results for Sacramento Folsom Corridor are presented in Exhibits 5-36 and 5-37. The
Folsom Corridor has a total cost per linear foot of $3,133 ($2003) making this the second lowest
cost investment documented in the LRT Capital Cost Database. However, as noted above
(section 5.2.12), the Folsom Corridor project represents in many respects an effort to complete
and upgrade the initial Stage 1 investment through the construction of additional stations,
double tracking of formerly single tracked segments and related improvements. The upgrade
nature of this investment becomes apparent when reviewing the cost analysis in Exhibits 5-36
and 5-37. For example, the project includes no investment in yards & shops and the cost for
right-of-way acquisition is unusually low. Also, as might be expected for an upgrade
investment, the unit-quantity and unit-cost variances for the Folsom Corridor project are both
negative.

5-48

Exhibit 5-36
Analysis on Sacramento Folsom Corridor

SOFT-COSTS (18.7%)
RIGHT-OF-WAY (2.3%)

VEHICLES (15.5%)
SYSTEMS (24.5%)
STATIONS (8.1%)
Asset Category
Unit
of
Measure

Unit Costs
$2003-National
Units
Total Costs
$2002-Local
$2003-National
Percent of Total
Cost
L.F. Guideway
68,070
$817
$60,103,859
$55,595,398
26.1%
2.00 YARDS & SHOPS
Rev. Vehicles
$0
$0
$0
0.0%
95,262
$550
$56,594,643
$52,349,412
24.5%
3.00 SYSTEMS
Track Feet
4.00 STATIONS
Stations
10
$1,725,365
$18,652,818
$17,253,648
8.1%
5.00 VEHICLES
Rev. Vehicles
14
$2,357,882
$35,687,292
$33,010,346
15.5%
L.F. Guideway
68,070
$152
$11,159,388
$10,322,309
4.8%
7.00 RIGHT-OF-WAY
L.F. Guideway
68,070
$72
$5,311,529
$4,913,105
2.3%
TOTAL HARD COSTS

8.00 SOFT-COSTS
68,070
$2,548
$187,509,529
$173,444,219
81.3%
% of Hard Costs
$43,050,471
$39,821,205
18.7%
$230,560,000
$213,265,423
100.0%
TOTAL PROJECT COST

L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
$187,509,529
68,070
5-49
23.0%
$3,133

Exhibit 5-37
Analysis on Sacramento Folsom Corridor

TOTAL COST VARIANCE: Sacramento Folsom Corridor
At Grade Guideway
Elevated Guideway
Trackwork
2.00 YARDS & SHOPS
3.00 SYSTEMS
4.00 STATIONS
At-Grade Stations
Subway Stations
Elevated Stations
Parking
5.00 VEHICLES
Total Cost Variance

Unit Cost Variance
7.00 RIGHT-OF-WAY
8.00 SOFT-COSTS
($350)
($300)
($250)
($200)
($150)
($100)
($50)
$0
$50
Millions

5-50
The primary cost characteristics for the Folsom Corridor are:
The Folsom Corridor project represents an effort to complete and upgrade the earlier
Stage 1 investment.
Given the upgrade nature of this investment, project costs are low or non-existent for some
cost elements and the unit-quantity and unit-cost variances are almost all negative
(implying below average costs).
5.2.14
Analysis results for the 6.3 mile Sacramento South Corridor project are presented in Exhibits 538 and 5-39. The South Corridor has a total cost per linear foot of $6,414 ($2003), placing this
project in the second lowest cost quartile documented in the LRT Capital Cost Database and
well below the average cost per foot of $10,189. Unlike the phased Stage 1 and Folsom Corridor
investments, the South Corridor project represents a complete investment unto itself.
Based on the cost variance analysis (Exhibit 5-39), the low project cost for Sacramento South
Corridor results primarily from low unit-quantity expenditures on expensive cost elements. For
example, the project includes no investment in underground guideway, retained cut guideway
or yards & shops. The project also had minimal requirements for special condition investments
such as utility relocations and betterments. Together, these below-average unit quantity
requirements yielded a total cost savings of roughly 33 percent or over $120 million relative to a
typical project cost as predicted by the Standard Model LRT. The project also enjoyed a small
unit-cost advantage yielding an additional 4 percent or $12 million in cost savings.
The primary cost characteristics for Sacramento South Corridor are as follows:
A high proportion of at-grade alignment (i.e., below average expenditures on expensive

below and above grade alignments and related investments)
No expenditures on yards & shops and low expenditures on special conditions
Relatively low soft cost expenditures (16.1 percent versus the average of 23.5 percent)
Modest unit cost savings

5-51

Exhibit 5-38
Analysis on Sacramento South Corridor

SOFT-COSTS (16.1%)
SYSTEMS (12.2%)
STATIONS (9.7%)
VEHICLES (26.4%)
Asset Category
Unit
of
Measure
L.F. Guideway
2.00 YARDS & SHOPS
Rev. Vehicles

Unit Costs
$2003-National
Units
33,264
$1,262
Total Costs
$2002-Local
$2003-National
$45,383,025
$41,978,791
Percent of Total
Cost
19.7%
$0
$0
$0
0.0%
66,528
$393
$28,230,274
$26,112,688
12.2%
Stations
$3,461,696
$22,454,518
$20,770,178
9.7%
5.00 VEHICLES
Rev. Vehicles
24
$2,347,485
$60,908,467
$56,339,651
26.4%
L.F. Guideway
33,264
$219
$7,878,469
$7,287,496
3.4%
7.00 RIGHT-OF-WAY
L.F. Guideway
33,264
$795
$28,596,906
$26,451,818
12.4%
TOTAL HARD COSTS

8.00 SOFT-COSTS
L.F. Guideway
33,264
$5,379
$193,451,659
$178,940,622
83.9%
$37,198,985
$34,408,645
16.1%
$230,650,644
$213,349,268
100.0%
3.00 SYSTEMS
Track Feet
4.00 STATIONS
TOTAL PROJECT COST

% of Hard Costs
L.F. Guideway
$193,451,659
33,264
5-52
19.2%
$6,414

Exhibit 5-39
Analysis on Sacramento South Corridor

TOTAL COST VARIANCE: Sacramento South Corridor
At Grade Guideway
Elevated Guideway
Trackwork
2.00 YARDS & SHOPS
3.00 SYSTEMS
4.00 STATIONS
At-Grade Stations
Subway Stations
Elevated Stations
Parking
5.00 VEHICLES
Total Cost Variance

7.00 RIGHT-OF-WAY
Unit Cost Variance
8.00 SOFT-COSTS
($160)
($140)
($120)
($100)
($80)
($60)
($40)
($20)
$0
$20
$40
Millions

5-53
5.2.15
Analysis results for the 15.0 mile Salt Lake North South Corridor are presented in Exhibits 5-40
and 5-41. The North South Corridor has a total cost per linear foot of $5,016 ($2003), well below
the average of $10,189 and placing this project in the lowest cost quartile. Based on the cost
variance analysis (Exhibit 5-41), the low project cost for this project results almost entirely from
low unit-quantity expenditures on expensive cost elements. For example, the project alignment
is composed entirely from at-grade alignment with minimal in-street investment. The project
was also characterized by below average vehicle purchases and minimal requirements for
special condition investments such as utility relocations and betterments. Together, these
below-average unit quantity requirements yielded a total cost savings of roughly 33 percent or
close to $140 million relative to a typical project cost as predicted by the Standard Model LRT.
The project also enjoyed a small unit-cost savings of roughly $5 million.
The primary cost characteristics for Salt Lake North South Corridor are as follows:
All at-grade alignment (i.e., below average expenditures on expensive below and above
grade alignments and related investments) leading to significantly lower costs as compared
to a more typical LRT investment
Low special conditions requirements (e.g., for utility relocations and betterments).
Below average investment in the number of fleet vehicles but above average vehicle unitcosts
Low soft cost expenditures (15.3 percent versus the average of 23.5 percent)
Modest unit cost savings
5.2.16
Analysis results for 5.5 mile San Diego Mission Valley East project are presented in Exhibits 542 and 5-43. Mission Valley East has a total cost per linear foot of $15,570 ($2003), placing this
project in the highest cost quartile. In part, this projects above average cost per foot of guideway
is explained by its relatively shore alignment length (i.e., project fixed costs are allocated across
a relatively small base). In addition, the project is also characterized by positive unit-quantity
and unit cost variances relative to the Standard Model LRT. Specifically, the total cost variance
suggests that project costs are roughly $130 million or 39 percent higher than that predicted by
the Standard Model LRT. Roughly one-half of this increase originates from the above average
investment in subway, retained cut and elevated guideway alignment, above and below grade
stations and other non-at-grade investments (the project does not include any at-grade
alignment or stations).

5-54

Exhibit 5-40
Analysis on Salt Lake North South

SOFT-COSTS (15.3%)
SYSTEMS (21.1%)
VEHICLES (22.0%)
STATIONS (4.2%)
Asset Category
Unit
of
Measure

Unit Costs
$2003-National
Units
Total Costs
$1998-Local
$2003-National
Percent of Total
Cost
L.F. Guideway
79,200
$695
$43,199,327
$55,044,620
13.9%
2.00 YARDS & SHOPS
Rev. Vehicles
23
$1,225,356
$22,118,327
$28,183,191
7.1%
158,400
$529
$65,772,667
$83,807,589
21.1%
16
$1,038,914
$13,045,531
$16,622,627
4.2%
3.00 SYSTEMS
Track Feet
4.00 STATIONS
Stations
5.00 VEHICLES
Rev. Vehicles
23
$3,806,697
$68,712,893
$87,554,028
22.0%
L.F. Guideway
79,200
$138
$8,598,856
$10,956,670
2.8%
7.00 RIGHT-OF-WAY
L.F. Guideway
79,200
$684
$42,497,770
$54,150,695
13.6%
TOTAL HARD COSTS

8.00 SOFT-COSTS
79,200
$4,246
$263,945,371
$336,319,421
84.7%
% of Hard Costs
$47,854,816
$60,976,648
15.3%
$311,800,187
$397,296,069
100.0%
TOTAL PROJECT COST

L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
$263,945,371
79,200
5-55
18.1%
$5,016

Exhibit 5-41
Analysis on Salt Lake North South Corridor
TOTAL COST VARIANCE: Salt Lake North South Corridor

At Grade Guideway
Elevated Guideway
Trackwork
2.00 YARDS & SHOPS
3.00 SYSTEMS
4.00 STATIONS
At-Grade Stations
Subway Stations
Elevated Stations
Parking
5.00 VEHICLES
Total Cost Variance

Unit Cost Variance
7.00 RIGHT-OF-WAY
8.00 SOFT-COSTS
($160)
($140)
($120)
($100)
($80)
($60)
($40)
($20)
$0
$20
$40
$60
Millions

5-56

Exhibit 5-42
Analysis on San Diego Miss on Valley East
San Diego Misson Valley East

SOFT-COSTS (29.1%)
RIGHT-OF-WAY (9.7%)
Asset Category
Unit
of
Measure
SYSTEMS (5.8%)
VEHICLES (8.0%)
STATIONS (12.7%)

Unit Costs
$2003-National
Units
Total Costs
$2003-Local
$2003-National
Percent of Total
Cost
L.F. Guideway
28,969
$4,731
$144,602,103
$137,063,605
30.4%
2.00 YARDS & SHOPS
Rev. Vehicles
$0
$0
$0
0.0%
57,938
$450
$27,516,730
$26,082,209
5.8%
3.00 SYSTEMS
Track Feet
4.00 STATIONS
Stations
$14,278,198
$60,253,996
$57,112,792
12.7%
5.00 VEHICLES
Rev. Vehicles
11
$3,283,068
$38,100,000
$36,113,744
8.0%
L.F. Guideway
28,969
$673
$20,575,510
$19,502,853
4.3%
7.00 RIGHT-OF-WAY
L.F. Guideway
28,969
$1,512
$46,200,000
$43,791,469
9.7%
TOTAL HARD COSTS

8.00 SOFT-COSTS
L.F. Guideway
28,969
$11,035
$337,248,339
$319,666,672
70.9%
$138,595,538
$131,370,178
29.1%
$475,843,877
$451,036,850
100.0%
TOTAL PROJECT COST

% of Hard Costs
L.F. Guideway
$337,248,339
28,969
5-57
41.1%
$15,570

Exhibit 5-43
Analysis on San Diego Mission Valley East
TOTAL COST VARIANCE: San Diego Mission Valley East

At Grade Guideway
Elevated Guideway
Trackwork
2.00 YARDS & SHOPS
3.00 SYSTEMS
4.00 STATIONS
At-Grade Stations
Subway Stations
Elevated Stations
Parking
5.00 VEHICLES
Total Cost Variance
7.00 RIGHT-OF-WAY
Unit Cost Variance
8.00 SOFT-COSTS
($60)
($40)
($20)
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
$140
Millions

5-58
The remaining 50 percent of the positive cost variances originates from above average unit costs
relative to the cost experience of the nineteen sample projects (unit-cost variance). Unit costs
were most notably higher for trackwork and project soft-costs.
The primary cost characteristics for San Diego Mission Valley East are as follows:
Above average unit costs driven in part by the relatively shore alignment length (i.e., project
fixed costs distributed over a small base)
Above average guideway, station and related costs resulting from the absence of any atgrade alignment
Below average investment in the number of fleet vehicles but above average vehicle unitcosts
Above average soft cost expenditures (29.1 percent versus the average of 23.5 percent)
High investment in special trackwork
5.2.17
Analysis results for the 15.6 mile San Jose North Corridor project are presented in Exhibits 5-44
and 5-45. The North Corridor project has a total cost per linear foot of $5,938 ($2003), well below
the average of $10,189 and placing it among the lowest cost projects documented in the
database. Based on the cost variance analysis (Exhibit 5-45), the low project cost for this project
results both from the absence of investment in expensive below grade or elevated alignment
and below average unit costs for several project cost elements. The combined impact is a project
that is roughly $100 million or 22 percent less expensive than a typical project of similar size as
predicted by the Standard Model LRT. The negative unit-quantity cost variance originates
almost entirely from the exclusive use of at-grade alignment and stations. Partially offsetting
this unit-quantity variance is a relatively high vehicle order size, likely reflecting above average
ridership expectations. The negative unit-cost variance results from significantly lower unit
costs for yards & shops, systems, revenue vehicles and special conditions. Partially offsetting
these savings are higher than expected costs for right-of-way acquisition and project soft-costs.
The primary cost characteristics for San Jose North Corridor are as follows:
Above average vehicle order size offset by a below average cost per unit
Below average unit costs for systems, yards & shops and special conditions
High soft cost expenditures (35.9 percent versus the average of 23.5 percent)

5-59

Exhibit 5-44
Analysis on San Jose North Corridor

SOFT-COSTS (35.9%)
SYSTEMS (8.7%)
STATIONS (1.3%)
VEHICLES (14.6%)
Asset Category
Unit
of
Measure

Unit Costs
$2003-National
Units
Total Costs
$1986-Local
$2003-National
Percent of Total
Cost
L.F. Guideway
82,252
$1,008
$65,887,000
$82,936,175
17.3%
2.00 YARDS & SHOPS
Rev. Vehicles
50
$569,105
$21,291,136
$28,455,266
5.6%
164,504
$236
$33,124,742
$38,777,934
8.7%
3.00 SYSTEMS
Track Feet
4.00 STATIONS
Stations
22
$267,730
$4,914,000
$5,890,055
1.3%
5.00 VEHICLES
Rev. Vehicles
50
$1,530,947
$55,611,000
$76,547,356
14.6%
L.F. Guideway
82,252
$135
$8,487,000
$11,127,202
2.2%
7.00 RIGHT-OF-WAY
L.F. Guideway
82,252
$887
$54,617,000
$72,994,755
14.4%
TOTAL HARD COSTS

8.00 SOFT-COSTS
82,252
$3,851
% of Hard Costs
TOTAL PROJECT COST

L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
$243,931,878
82,252
5-60
54.2%
$5,938
$243,931,878
$316,728,744
64.1%
$136,417,000
$171,716,790
35.9%
$380,348,878
$488,445,534
100.0%

Exhibit 5-45
Analysis on San Jose North Corridor

TOTAL COST VARIANCE: San Jose North Corridor
At Grade Guideway
Elevated Guideway
Trackwork
2.00 YARDS & SHOPS
3.00 SYSTEMS
4.00 STATIONS
At-Grade Stations
Subway Stations
Elevated Stations
Parking
5.00 VEHICLES
Total Cost Variance
7.00 RIGHT-OF-WAY
Unit Cost Variance
8.00 SOFT-COSTS
($120)
($100)
($80)
($60)
($40)
($20)
$0
$20
$40
Millions

5-61
5.2.18
Analysis results for the 26.6 mile Southern New Jersey Light Rail Transit System are presented
in Exhibits 5-46 and 5-47. This project has a total cost per linear foot of $6,872 ($2003), well
below the average of $10,189 and placing it among the lower cost projects documented in the
database. This low cost results in part from the projects long total length, allowing project fixed
costs to be allocated across a large unit base. Based on the cost variance analysis (Exhibit 5-47),
the project also enjoys a significant negative unit-quantity variance but a partially offsetting
positive unit-cost variance. The negative unit-quantity variance result from the almost exclusive
use of at-grade alignment and stations, lower station densities and a below average vehicle fleet
size (reflecting modest ridership projections relative to total alignment length). This total unitquantity variance is estimated at just over $400 million dollars or roughly 45 percent lower than
that predicted by the Standard Model LRT. At the same time, these unit-quantity cost savings
are partially offset by above average unit costs for guideway, yards and shops, vehicles and
soft-costs.
The primary cost characteristics for the Southern New Jersey Light Rail Transit System are as
follows:
Almost exclusive at-grade alignment (i.e., below average expenditures on expensive below
and above grade alignments and related investments) leading to significantly lower costs as
compared to a more typical LRT investment
Below average vehicle order size partially offset by an above average cost per unit
Above average unit costs for guideway and yards & shops
High soft cost expenditures (42.5 percent versus the average of 23.5 percent)
5.2.19
Analysis results for the 17.4-mile St. Louis St. Clair County Extension are presented in
Exhibits 5-48 and 5-49. The St. Clair County Extension has a total cost per linear foot of $3,939
($2003), well below the average of $10,189 and placing it among the lowest cost projects
documented in the database. Based on the cost variance analysis (Exhibit 5-49), the low project
cost for this project results both from the absence of any investment in expensive below or
above-grade alignment and below average unit costs for most project cost elements. The
combined impact is a project that is more than $200 million or 40 percent less expensive than a
typical project of similar size as predicted by the Standard Model LRT.

5-62

Exhibit 5-46
Analysis on Southern New Jersey Light Rail Transit System

SOFT-COSTS (42.5%)
SYSTEMS (5.7%)
STATIONS (4.8%)
RIGHT-OF-WAY (8.4%)
Asset Category
Unit
of
Measure
VEHICLES (7.3%)

Unit Costs
$2003-National
Units
Total Costs
$2002-Local
$2003-National
Percent of Total
Cost
L.F. Guideway
139,958
$1,493
$218,795,747
$208,972,855
21.7%
2.00 YARDS & SHOPS
Rev. Vehicles
20
$2,164,772
$45,330,570
$43,295,442
4.5%
295,755
$186
$57,555,962
$54,971,972
5.7%
3.00 SYSTEMS
Track Feet
4.00 STATIONS
Stations
20
$2,327,760
$48,743,551
$46,555,197
4.8%
5.00 VEHICLES
Rev. Vehicles
20
$3,531,197
$73,943,650
$70,623,931
7.3%
L.F. Guideway
139,958
$341
$49,960,495
$47,717,506
5.0%
7.00 RIGHT-OF-WAY
L.F. Guideway
139,958
$575
$84,302,000
$80,517,240
8.4%
TOTAL HARD COSTS

8.00 SOFT-COSTS
L.F. Guideway
139,958
$3,949
$578,631,974
$552,654,141
57.5%
$428,413,885
$409,180,132
42.5%
$1,007,045,859
$961,834,273
100.0%
TOTAL PROJECT COST

% of Hard Costs
L.F. Guideway
$578,631,974
139,958
5-63
74.0%
$6,872

Exhibit 5-47
Analysis on Southern New Jersey Light Rail Transit System
TOTAL COST VARIANCE: Southern New Jersey Light Rail Transit System
At Grade Guideway
Elevated Guideway
Trackwork
2.00 YARDS & SHOPS
3.00 SYSTEMS
4.00 STATIONS
At-Grade Stations
Subway Stations
Elevated Stations
Parking
5.00 VEHICLES
Total Cost Variance
7.00 RIGHT-OF-WAY
Unit Cost Variance
8.00 SOFT-COSTS
($500)
($400)
($300)
($200)
($100)
$0
$100
$200
$300
Millions

5-64

Exhibit 5-48
Analysis on St. Louis, St. Clair County Extension

SOFT-COSTS (19.9%)
RIGHT-OF-WAY (6.5%)

SYSTEMS (13.5%)
VEHICLES (18.4%)
STATIONS (3.1%)
Asset Category
Unit
of
Measure
St. Louis St. Clair Cnty Extension

Unit Costs
$2003-National
Units
Total Costs
$1999-Local
$2003-National
Percent of Total
Cost
L.F. Guideway
91,872
$1,276
$106,693,929
$117,191,136
32.4%
2.00 YARDS & SHOPS
Rev. Vehicles
24
$604,261
$13,203,257
$14,502,275
4.0%
183,744
$266
$44,559,729
$48,943,790
13.5%
$1,383,667
$10,077,816
$11,069,334
3.1%
3.00 SYSTEMS
Track Feet
4.00 STATIONS
Stations
5.00 VEHICLES
Rev. Vehicles
24
$2,774,228
$60,617,537
$66,581,464
18.4%
L.F. Guideway
91,872
$91
$7,572,009
$8,316,990
2.3%
7.00 RIGHT-OF-WAY
L.F. Guideway
91,872
$255
$21,349,279
$23,449,753
6.5%
TOTAL HARD COSTS

8.00 SOFT-COSTS
91,872
$3,157
$264,073,556
$290,054,741
80.1%
% of Hard Costs
$65,420,740
$71,857,236
19.9%
$329,494,296
$361,911,977
100.0%
TOTAL PROJECT COST

L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
$264,073,556
91,872
5-65
24.8%
$3,939
Exhibit 5-49
Analysis on St. Louis Saint Clair County Extension
TOTAL COST VARIANCE: St. Louis St. Clair Cnty Extension

At Grade Guideway
Elevated Guideway
Trackwork
2.00 YARDS & SHOPS
3.00 SYSTEMS
4.00 STATIONS
At-Grade Stations
Subway Stations
Elevated Stations
Parking
5.00 VEHICLES
7.00 RIGHT-OF-WAY
Total Cost Variance

Unit Cost Variance
8.00 SOFT-COSTS
($250)
($200)
($150)
($100)
($50)
$0
$50
Millions

5-66
5.0 Cost Variance Analysis
Roughly three-quarters of this cost reduction originates from the negative unit-quantity cost
variance, which in turn is driven predominantly by the exclusive use of at-grade alignment and
stations (i.e., no investment in expensive below or above grade segments). Additional unitquantity savings result from below average stations densities, a smaller than expected fleet size
and below average utility relocation requirements (note: some of these lower unit quantities
relate to the relatively low ridership projections relative to the length of guideway). The
negative unit-cost variance results from lower unit costs for a variety of cost categories
including systems, stations, special conditions, and right-of-way. Once again, this lower unit
cost may result in part from design of a relatively low ridership system.
The primary cost characteristics for the St. Louis St. Clair County Extension are as follows:
Below average vehicle order size and stations densities, likely driven in art by low ridership
projections relative to total alignment length
Below average unit costs most cost categories, especially systems, stations, special
conditions, and right-of-way
Low soft cost expenditures (19.9 percent versus the average of 23.5 percent)
5.3 How to Conduct Cost Variance Summary Analysis for

New Projects
After reviewing the detailed cost variance analyses in the last section, users may wish to know
how they can perform similar analyses for projects not currently documented in the database.
This section provides step-by-step instructions on how to do so including data entry fir the new
project, selection for variance analysis and review of variance analysis results.
The first step in the process is to enter the data for the project that the user wishes to analyze.
Specifically, this requires entering the project cost data (including unit quantities, total costs and
mid-points of construction) for all project cost elements into the CostDatabase worksheet. These
steps were described in detail above in Section 4.4 and the reader should refer there for further
guidance on this step.
Second, once entry of the project cost data is complete, the user must select this project for cost
variance analysis. To do so, select the Var_Total worksheet from the LRT Cost Model
Workbook. Next, click the Select Project button and highlight the name of the project to be
analyzed (if the project name does not appear, the user needs to enter the name in the
appropriate column of the CostDatabase worksheet). Next, move to cell L3 and select the name
of the nearest city to the project location from the drop-down list in the City: field. Finally,
the user may wish to select the cost baseline for analysis. Once again, refer to Section 4.4 for
guidance on selecting a preferred unit cost and unit quantity baseline.
Once the latter steps are complete, the user can review the results of the models cost variance
analysis. Here it is recommended that the user first review the charted analysis summaries on
5-67
the Var_CatChrt and Var_DriverChrt worksheets. The user can next review the numeric values
behind these summary charts on worksheets Var_CostSum, Var_%Sum and Var_%Share (the later
two present these results in percentage terms relative to the Standard model LRT). Review of
these charts and summary numbers provides a quick and reliable understanding of the primary
cost drivers for the project in question. However, to investigate a specific cost driver in greater
detail, the user should next review the detailed, line item based analysis in the Var_Total and
Var_Cost worksheets. These latter two sheets provide the cost variance back up for all eight
capital cost categories at the cost element level of detail. As discussed throughout this
document, significant unit-cost or unit-quantity variances for ant given project or project
element does not imply that these costs were somehow wrong. Rather, these cost variances
are intended to provide a point of reference to identify key cost differences and then to help
point the analyst towards cost elements that may require further review and cost analysis.
Finally, should the user wish to contrast and compare the cost experience of this particular
project against that of a peer group of projects, the user should use the project select option, as
described in section 4.3.
5.4 Cost Variance Summary Analysis: High Cost Projects

This section uses the cost variance analysis from Section 5.2 to identify the primary drivers of
cost variances for the highest cost projects documented in the LRT Capital Cost Database. More
precisely, this section attempts to answer the question what drives project costs for projects
with high unit-cost variances. For the purposes of this analysis, a high cost project is defined as
having a total unit-cost variance (i.e., after correction for unit-quantity differences) that exceeds
the Standard Model LRT predicted costs by 25 percent or more. Within the context of Exhibit 550, this refers to those projects where the quantity adjusted data points (white triangles) are 25
percent or higher above the Standard Model LRT predicted value. Five of the nineteen projects
documented in the database fit this definition including Hudson-Bergen MOS I and MOS II,
Westside/Hillsboro MAX, Long Beach Blue Line and the Southern New Jersey LRT System.
Note that the decision to focus only on projects with high unit-cost variances and to eliminate
the impact unit-quantity variances is key to an attaining an effective understanding of high cost
projects. High unit-quantity variances are easily identified and explained using unit-quantity
variances (as described for each project in the previous section) and typically result from high
proportions of above or below grade alignments and related investments (e.g., undergrounds
stations, below grade substations, etc.). In contrast, high unit-cost variances are less easily
explained and represent the genuine differences in unit costs between projects.
In practice, the unit-cost variance may result from both quantitative and qualitative factors not
accounted for in the current cost database. For example, while the database does account for
differences in station vertical alignment (subway, at-grade, elevated) and platform positioning
(center or side) it does not account for differences in station size, platform size, unique
structural design, construction materials, passenger amenities, or other factors which help
determine cost. Similarly, high unit-costs can also result from other factors including high
ridership design (leading to larger vehicles, larger stations, increased electrification needs),
extreme geotechnical conditions, local construction market conditions, etc. The goal here is not
to identify such specific sources of these cost variances (a task better accomplished through a
5-68
more detailed analysis of each of the high cost projects than is supported by the current
database) but rather to identify broad trends or common cost characteristics across these high
cost projects.
The results of this high-level analysis are presented below in Exhibit 5-50. Specifically, this
exhibit considers the unit-cost variances for eight major cost categories as well as for total
project costs. The left-most column (a) provides the average of the unit-cost variances across the
five highest cost projects documented in the database (after correction for unit-quantity
differences). As a group, the total unit-cost variances for these projects was 83 percent higher
than that predicted by the Standard Model LRT. At the cost category level, the largest unit-cost
values were associated with Guideway Elements (100 percent increase), Stations (233 percent)
and special conditions (165 percent). All cost categories experienced higher unit costs relative to
the Standard Model LRT.
The high unit-cost variances for guideway elements may originate from the above-average
proportion of below-grade alignment for most of the five high cost projects. While the unitquantity adjustment is designed to eliminate these differences, there remains a very high
variance in unit-costs for below-grade construction resulting from a wide range of construction
techniques (from cut-and-cover to tunneling) and the geotechnical conditions encountered
during the construction process. These differences likely lie at the root of the high guideway
unit-cost variances for these projects. Similarly, the high unit-cost variances for station costs
reflects in part the high ridership projections for three of the five high cost projects and also the
development of intermodal transfer facilities for Hudson-Bergen. Finally, the high special
conditions costs reflect development of new rail lines in highly developed metropolitan areas
(in particular Northern New Jersey and LA) and hence where utility relocations and betterment
requirements were high.
The center column of Exhibit 5-50 (b) documents each cost categorys contribution to the total
unit-cost variance for these projects. This analysis demonstrates that roughly one-third of the
total cost variance originates from the high unit-costs for guideway elements. Other significant
contributors include stations, special conditions and soft-costs, each representing close to onesixth of total project costs. The implication being that while the unit-cost variance for a
particular cost category may be high, this only has significant implications for a projects total
costs if that cost category represents a significant share of total project expenditures. To help put
this issue in better perspective, column (c) documents each cost categorys contribution to total
project expenditures across the five highest cost projects (for these five projects, guideway
elements represents roughly one-quarter for project costs). Column (d) presents the same
information as (c) but calculated across all nineteen projects in the database. Comparison of
columns (a), (b), (c) and (d) suggests that while some cost categories have higher unit-cost
variances (a) than others (e.g., stations), the contribution of each cost category to the total cost
increase (b) still falls roughly in line with that categorys share of total project expenditures (c
and d). This suggests that while these projects experienced some cost increases due to
construction conditions (geotechnical, urban development), ridership design needs and related
factors, there remains a tendency for these project costs to exceed the database cost average.

5-69

Exhibit 5-50
Unit-Cost Variance Analysis: High Cost Projects
COST CATEGORY
0.00 Total Unit-Cost Variance
1.00 Guideway Elements
2.00 Yards & Shops
Avg. Unit-Cost
Share of
Avg. Category Share
Variance Relative
Total Unit-Cost
to Standard LRT
Variance
of Total Project Cost

High Cost
All Projects
Projects
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
83%
100%
100%
100%
100%
30%
26%
27%
34%
5%
3%
3%
3.00 Systems
34%
5%
8%
11%
4.00 Stations
233%
14%
9%
8%
5.00 Vehicles
32%
8%
9%
14%
165%
13%
10%
6%
7.00 Right-Of-Way
70%
7%
6%
7%
8.00 Soft-Costs
55%
17%
28%
23%
6.00 Special Conditions
5.5 Cost Variance Summary Analysis: What Drives Cost

Differences Between Projects
To briefly summarize the results of the preceding sections, the study team identified three
primary drivers of cost differences across the nineteen projects documented in the updated cost
database. These drivers include the following:
Project Size As expected, the largest determinant of differences in total project cost
among projects was project size (e.g., total alignment length). Less obvious was the fact
that smaller projects experienced higher costs on a per unit basis. The latter is a direct
outcome of the economies of scale associated with most project components (i.e., unit cost
decreases as the number of units purchased/constructed increases).
Asset Mix (Unit Quantity Variances) After project size, the greatest variation in cost
among projects resulted from differences in asset mix and, in particular, differences in
alignment mix. Whereas a typical LRT investment includes only a small proportion of
above- and below-grade alignment, the projects documented in the database ranged from
those that are entirely at-grade to those with no at-grade alignment. These wide differences
in alignment mix (and related station grades) yielded equally wide variances in project cost.
Variations in station spacing and vehicle procurement size were also primary contributors
to quantity driven differences in costs among projects (though much less significant than
alignment mix). Together, these differences in alignment and station grades, station spacing
and vehicle procurement size explained more than 50% of the variation in cost between
projects of the same alignment length.
Unit Costs (Unit Cost Variances) The remaining variation in project costs (close to 50% of
total cost variation for projects of similar length) was driven by differences in unit costs. For
the most part unit cost differences reflect qualitative differences between cost elements

5-70
across projects (e.g., station design) but can also reflect quantitative differences not
documented in the database (e.g. station size). The following cost elements represented the
largest contributors to unit cost variances among projects (both positive and negative):
-
Below-Grade Guideway
Station Size, Grade and Design Standards
Utility Relocation
Right-of-Way acquisition costs
Soft-Costs
The significant cost variation for below-grade guideway investments is well recognized and
results from wide-ranging geotechnical conditions and engineering approaches. Cost
variations in utility relocation and right-of-way acquisition costs appear closely correlated
with the level of existing urban development prior to project construction, with construction
in well-developed urban areas yielding significant increases in total cost for these elements.
Finally, wide soft-cost variances appear to be driven primarily by wide variances in the
preceding items on this list. It is useful to note here that this list of primary contributors to
unit cost variances corresponds closely with the primary sources of project risk on a cost
element basis.
5.6 Time Based Analysis of LRT Project Costs

The updated LRT Capital Cost Database provides a unique opportunity to evaluate how LRT
project costs have changed over the past twenty years. Specific questions to address in this
analysis include the following:
Are total project costs increasing or decreasing (and if so why)?
Are project unit costs increasing or decreasing (and if so why)?
How does the rate of cost increase for the eight LRT asset categories compare with general
price inflation for capital projects?
This subsection seeks to address these questions using both the raw data from the LRT Capital
Cost Database and the cost variance analysis tools described above.
5.6.1 Are Project Costs Increasing or Decreasing?
Exhibit 5-51 below compares project costs for the five LRT projects included in the original LRT
Capital Cost database (built over the period 1984 through 1987) with that of the fourteen new
projects added for this update (built over the period 1996 through 2003). While the two project
samples jointly cover a period of twenty years, the samples themselves are separated by a nineyear gap for which no data have been collected. The top portion of Exhibit 5-51 focuses on
differences in total project costs while the lower half considers changes to project unit costs.
Finally the three right-most columns provide (i) the actual project costs, (ii) re-estimated project
costs using actual project unit costs and Standard Model LRT unit quantities and (iii) reestimated project costs using Standard Model LRT unit costs and quantities. All project costs

5-71
have been adjusted to a common $2003-national average basis using Means time cost inflation
and locality construction cost indices (as described above).
Exhibit 5-51
Comparison of Project Costs and Alignment Lengths Over Time ($2003)
Project Sample
Pre 1991 Sample
Post 1991 Sample
$ Change
% Change
Sample
Period
Avg. Alignment
Length (Miles)
1984-1987
1996-2003
17.2
11.5
-5.8
-33%
Quantity
Standard
Adjusted
Model LRT
Average Total Project Cost ($Millions)
$625.0
$645.8
$618.1
$508.8
$555.2
$463.0
$-116.4
$-90.7
$-155.2
-19%
-14%
-25%
Actuals
Average Unit Cost (per L.F. Guideway)

$6,566
$6,694
$6,532
$10,386
$10,369
$8,489
$3,820
$3,676
$1,957
58%
55%
30%
Pre 1991 Sample

Post 1991 Sample
$ Change
% Change
Note first that the average project alignment length is 33 percent shorter for projects completed
within the last seven year period versus projects completed in the mid-nineteen eighties. While
actual project cost totals have declined to reflect the decrease in average project size, the
proportional decrease is considerably smaller (i.e., a less than 20 percent total cost reduction
versus the 33 percent decrease in alignment length). The implication being that project unit
costs have increased, a conclusion that is confirmed in the lower portion of Exhibit 5-51.
Analysis of the three sample unit cost valuesincluding the Actuals, Quantity Adjusted and
Standard Model LRT valuessuggests that the increase in unit costs for the more recent
projects (over and above inflation) originates from three separate sources. These sources include
(i) a more expensive mix of asset types and grades, (ii) higher fixed costs per unit and (iii) cost
increases over and above inflation. Each of these sources are described greater detail below.
Their estimated contribution to the observed increase in project unit costs is provided below in
Exhibit 5-52.
A More Expensive Mix of Asset Types and Alignment Grades Projects completed within
the past seven years tend to include a more expensive mix of assets and alignment grades
than those completed in the mid-nineteen eighties. Specific differences include the
following:
Guideway Alignment: Projects completed since 1996 feature a higher ratio of belowgrade to at-grade alignment (70 percent more subway alignment and 24 percent more
retained cut).
Trackwork: Projects completed since 1996 are installing roughly 4.3 percent more
trackwork per foot of guideway and include a higher ratio of direct fixation to ballasted
trackwork.
Stations: While average station spacing appears to have dropped relative to the earlier
sample, the proportion of at-grade stations has increased by 16 percent. Moreover, the

5-72
more recent stations feature more than three times the parking capacity and twice as
many passenger overpasses compared to the pre-1991 sample.
Vehicles: Projects completed since 1996 are purchasing 1 percent more vehicles per foot
of guideway as compared to projects in the earlier time period.
Together, these differences in asset mix and alignment proportions account for only 5
percent of the observed increase in project unit costs.
Higher Fixed Costs Per Unit The Standard Model LRT unit cost estimates are roughly 30
percent higher for recently completed projects versus those completed in the mid-nineteen
eighties. Recall that these estimates have been adjusted to remove any differences in asset
mix and also use a common set of unit cost functions (described in Chapter 4). Hence, any
remaining cost differences between projects (when converted to the Standard LRT basis)
originate entirely from differences in project size (e.g., alignment length). In particular, the
smaller projects completed in recent years require a lesser amount of each asset type (e.g.,
trackwork stations, vehicles, etc.) and hence find themselves higher up the corresponding
unit cost curves (see Exhibit 4-2). In reality, this implies that the smaller, more recent
projects are spreading roughly the same level of fixed costs including those for design,
mobilization, project management etc.over a smaller number of units (e.g., guideway feet)
yielding an increase in average unit costs. In total, this effect accounts for roughly one-half
of the increase in project unit costs.
Exhibit 5-52
Analysis on Sources of Unit Cost Increases
Cost Increases
Above Inflation
45%
Changes in
Asset Mix /
Grade Mix
5%
Higher Fixed
Cost Per Unit
50%
Higher Unit Costs The remaining 45 percent increase in unit costs represents a genuine
increase over and above inflation (in effect the unit cost functions may have shifted up over
time). Possible explanations for this increase include the following:
Technology Improvements and Betterments: Projects completed in more recent years

likely include more sophisticated and more expensive technologies as well as other
betterments relating to safety, security and other objectives. Examples include changes
to vehicle propulsion systems, signals, communications, passenger accessibility,

5-73
passenger information systems, environmental mitigation etc. Not only may this lead to
increases in the cost of individual components, it may also lead to purchasing of
additional components not purchased or even available for earlier LRT investments
(e.g., AVL systems). The cost analysis above does not control for these differences.
Incomplete Accounting of Changes in Unit Quantities: The analysis above is based on

gross metrics for several asset types such as per station or per vehicle. As with
changes to technology, the characteristics of these assets on a unit basis may also be
changing over time. For example, average station and vehicle size may be increasing or
they may include additional passenger amenities. Once again, the current analysis does
not control for these issues.
Higher Cost Inflation for LRT versus a Typical Construction Project: The unit costs for
the two samples were adjusted to a common 2003 dollar basis using Means construction
cost index. Note however that the construction cost index is designed to represent
changes in a weighted basket of inputs (labor, materials, equipment) used to complete a
typical construction project. Hence, this index may not effectively represent the rate of
inflation for many LRT investment components that require a basket of inputs that
includes different inputs (and a different weighting of inputs) than a typical
construction project. Key examples here include vehicles and systems.
5.6.2 Time Series Analysis

The analysis in section 5.4.1 was completed at a macro level, examining differences total project
costs (including total costs on a per linear feet of alignment basis) overtime from sources other
than inflation. In contrast, this section works at a micro level by examining time related unit
cost differences at the category and element level of detail. By working at this level of project
detail and using year-of-expenditure dollar values, the analysis eliminates cost differences due
to changes in asset mix or mix of alignment types and focuses instead on cost differences due to
(i) project size, (ii) inflation and (iii) cost increases over and above general construction inflation.
The strategy here is to provide a parallel analysis to that described in section 5.4.1 with the aim
of confirming (or disproving) that analysis.
The analysis proceeds by converting the year-of-expenditure unit cost data from the Light Rail
Capital Cost Database into a time-series format. This step is performed independently for all
asset element types (e.g., at-grade guideway, ballasted track communications). Trend analysis is
then used to provide a rough estimate of the rate of cost increase for each of these project cost
elements. It is important to note here that, even with nineteen documented projects, the sample
size is low and the data points are spread over a twenty-year time period. For this reason, the
quantitative results for individual project elements should be viewed as indicative rather than
precise measurements of the true rate of cost inflation at the element level.
Several examples of this analysis are presented below in Exhibits 5-53 through 5-65.
Specifically, these exhibits show the actual unit costs for a range of cost element types (e.g.,
ballasted guideway) plotted against time across the nineteen projects documented in the LRT
Capital Cost Database. The scatter points generally reveal an increased dispersion and cost
increase over the past twenty years. The scatter points have also been converted into a trend
line using an iterative smoothed (three-year) averaging process. Based on this trend analysis,
5-74
ballasted trackwork unit costs (for example) have increased at an average annual compound
rate of roughly 3.0 percent, or slightly higher than the 2.8 percent rate of general construction
inflation as documented by Means construction cost index.

5-75
Exhibit 5-53
Unit Cost Time Series: At-Grade Guideway
Unit Costs: At-Grade Guideway

($YOE)
$3,500
Actuals
Quant Adj. Actuals
$3,000
Trend
Adj Trend
$2,500
$2,000
Inflation Averages:
At-Grade Guideway (trend) = 4.9%
At-Grade Guideway (Adj trend) = 4.2%
$1,500
$1,000
$500
$0
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
Year Built

5-76
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
Exhibit 5-54
Unit Cost Time Series: Elevated Guideway
Unit Cost Inflation: Elevated Guideway

($YOE)
$8,000
Actuals
Trend
Quantity Adjusted Trend
$7,000
$6,000
$5,000
$4,000
Inflation Averages:
Elevated Guideway (trend) = 4.7%
Elevated Guideway (Adj trend) = 4.2%
$3,000
$2,000
$1,000
$0
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
Year Built

5-77
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
Exhibit 5-55
Unit Cost Time Series: Subway Guideway
Unit Costs: Underground Guideway

($YOE)
$16,000
AT GRADE GUIDEWAY
Trend
$14,000
$12,000
$10,000
$8,000
$6,000
$4,000
Inflation Averages:
Undergound Guideway (trend) = -0.3%
$2,000
$0
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
Year Built
Note: No significant difference between actuals and quantity adjusted actuals

5-78
2000
2002
2004
Exhibit 5-56
Unit Cost Time Series: Ballasted Track
Unit Costs: Ballasted Trackwork

($YOE)
$200
$175
Actuals
Quant. Adjusted Actuals
$YOE Per Track Foot
$150
Trend
Adj Trend
$125
$100
Inflation Averages:
Ballasted Track (trend) = 3.0%
Ballasted Track (Adj. trend) = 2.2%
$75
$50
$25
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
Year Built

5-79
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
Exhibit 5-57
Unit Cost Time Series: Yards & Shops
Unit Costs: Yards and Shops

($YOE)
$2,500,000
YARDS AND SHOPS

Trend
Quant Adj Trend
Quant Adj Actuals
$YOE Per Rev. Vehicle
$2,000,000
$1,500,000
Inflation Averages:
Yards & Shops (trend) = 6.3%
Yards & Shops (Adj. trend) = 3.6%
$1,000,000
$500,000
$0
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
Year Built

5-80
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
Exhibit 5-58
Unit Cost Time Series: Signal Systems
Unit Costs: Signal System

($YOE)
$450
Actuals
$400
Quant Adj. Actuals

Trend
$350
Quant Adj. Trend
$YOE Per Track Foot
$300
Inflation Averages:
Signal System (trend) = 3.8%
Signal System (Adj. trend) = 1.5%
$250
$200
$150
$100
$50
$0
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
Year Built

5-81
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
Exhibit 5-59
Unit Cost Time Series: Electrification Systems
Unit Costs: Electrification System

($YOE)
$450
Actuals
Quant Adj. Actuals
$400
Trend
Quant Adj. Trend
$350
$YOE Per Track Foot
$300
Inflation Averages:
Electrification (trend) = 2.5%
Electrification (Adj. trend) = 1.3%
$250
$200
$150
$100
$50
$0
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
Year Built

5-82
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
Exhibit 5-60
Unit Cost Time Series: Communications Systems
Unit Costs: Communications Systems

($YOE)
Actuals
Quant Adj. Actuals
Trend
Quant Adj. Trend
$250
$YOE Per Track Foot
$200
Inflation Averages:
Communications (trend) = 2.1%
Communications (Adj. trend) = -1.1%
$150
$100
$50
$0
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
Year Built

5-83
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
Exhibit 5-61
Unit Cost Time Series: At-Grade Center Platform Station
Unit Costs: At-Grade Center Platform Station

($YOE)
$4,000,000
$3,500,000
$YOE Per Station
$3,000,000
Inflation Averages:
At-Grade Center (trend) = 6.0%
At-Grade Center (Adj. trend) = 6.0%
$2,500,000
$2,000,000
$1,500,000
$1,000,000
$500,000
$0
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
Year Built

5-84
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
Exhibit 5-62
Unit Cost Time Series: At-Grade Side Platform Station
Unit Costs: At-Grade Side Platform Station

($YOE)
$4,000,000
$3,500,000
$YOE Per Station
$3,000,000
Inflation Averages:
At-Grade Side (trend) = 5.8%
At-Grade Side (Adj. trend) = 5.6%
$2,500,000
$2,000,000
$1,500,000
$1,000,000
$500,000
$0
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
Year Built

5-85
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
Exhibit 5-63
Unit Cost Time Series: Revenue Vehicles
Unit Costs: Revenue Vehicles

($YOE)
$4,000,000
Actuals
Quant Adj. Actuals
Trend
Quant Adj. Trend
$3,500,000
$YOE Per Rev. Vehicle
$3,000,000
$2,500,000
$2,000,000
Inflation Averages:
Vehicles (trend) = 4.7%
Vehicles (Adj. trend) = 3.2%
$1,500,000
$1,000,000
$500,000
$0
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
Year Built

5-86
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
Exhibit 5-64
Unit Cost Time Series: Special Conditions
Unit Costs: Special Conditions

($YOE)
$3,000
$2,500
Inflation Averages:
Special Conditions (trend) = 3.3%
$YOE Per Track Foot
$2,000
$1,500
$1,000
$500
$0
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
Year Built
Note: No quantum adjustment for special conditions

5-87
1998
2000
2002
2004
Exhibit 5-65
Unit Cost Time Series: Right-of-Way
Unit Costs: Right-of-Way

($YOE)
$1,800
$1,600
Inflation Averages:
ROW (trend) = 3.4%
$1,400
$YOE Per Track Foot
$1,200
$1,000
$800
$600
$400
$200
$0
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
Year Built
Note: No quantum adjustment for Right-of-Way

5-88
1998
2000
2002
2004
Note, however that the unit cost actual in Exhibits 5-53 through 5-65 do not account for
differences in project size. As discussed above in section 5.4.1, projects completed since 1996
have tended to be smaller in size than those completed in the 1984 to 1987 time period. In the
analysis above, this reduction in project size resulted in increased project unit costs as project
fixed costs were spread across a smaller number of units (in effect, moving back-up the unit
cost curve). To account for this effect, the data points in Exhibits 5-53 through 5-65 have been
adjusted to a common project size using the unit costs function for each cost element (see
Section 4.2 Unit Cost Functions). These adjusted data points are represented by the white
triangles in these exhibits. When these points are converted to a trend line, the estimated
average compound rate of inflation tends to decline, reflecting the generally smaller (and high
unit cost) sizes of projects completed in recent years.
Exhibit 5-66 below presents the results of this analysis across all cost categories and cost
elements wherever sufficient data were available to make the analysis meaningful. In most
instances, the observed inflation trend is in excess of the rate of increase in Means construction
index. Adjusting for differences in project size tends to reduce the observed rate of inflation
(reflecting the decrease in average project size). However, even these adjusted rates tend to
exceed the average annual rate of increase in the Means index for most asset types. This finding
is consistent with the results from 5.4.1 and supports this general conclusion that unit costs for
LRT projects have increased in excess of general price inflation, even when adjusted for the
trend towards (i) smaller project size and (ii) a more expensive mix of alignment types.
Exhibit 5-66
Approximate Inflation Rate Estimates
Category
0.00 Total Project Cost
1.00 Guideway Elements
At Grade Guideway
Elevated Structure Guideway
Direct Fixation Track
Ballasted Track
Embedded Track
2.00 Yards & Shops
3.00 Systems
Signal System
Electrification
Communications
Revenue Collection
4.00 Stations
At-Grade Center Platform
At-Grade Side Platform
Subway
Elevated
5.00 Vehicles
6.00 Special Conditions
7.00 Right-of-Way
8.00 Soft Costs

Sample
Period
1984-2003
Inflation (Avg. Annual Compound Rate)

Trend
Adj. Trend
Means
3.5%
3.2%
2.5%
1984-2002
1984-2003
1983-2003
1985-2002
1983-2002
1983-2002
1983-2002
4.9%
5.1%
-0.3%
2.0%
3.0%
3.2%
6.3%
4.2%
4.6%
-0.3%
1.2%
2.2%
2.8%
3.6%
2.5%
2.5%
2.6%
2.6%
2.8%
2.8%
2.8%
1984-2003
1984-2003
1983-2003
1984-2003
3.8%
2.9%
5.3%
3.5%
3.6%
1.8%
3.3%
2.8%
2.5%
2.5%
2.6%
2.5%
1983-2003
1983-2002
6.0%
6.0%
5.8%
5.6%
Insufficient Data
Insufficient Data
4.7%
3.2%
3.3%
3.1%
3.4%
2.8%
3.5%
3.2%
2.6%
2.8%
1981-2003
1984-2003
1983-2003
1983-2003
5-89
2.9%
2.5%
2.6%
2.6%
5.7 Unexplained Unit Cost Variances

A primary focus of the analysis in this report has been to eliminate unit quantity differences
between projects for the purpose of better understanding differences in unit costs. Indeed,
much of the analysis in earlier sections of this chapter is dedicated specifically to this issue of
isolating unit cost from unit quantity cost variances. However, while every effort has been
made to control for these differences given the data collected by the project, the isolation of unit
cost and unit quantity differences is not complete.
Specifically, ongoing analysis of the study results suggests that, despite quantity adjustments to
control for differences in the mix of alignment grades between projects, this isolation of grade
related quantity impacts has not been complete. In particular, the analysis has been successful
in controlling for these impacts where directly related to the Guideway Elements cost category
but has not fully controlled for secondary grade related impacts on costs in other cost
categories. This incomplete isolation tends to manifest itself in the form of observed unit cost
variances that are actually unit quantity (i.e., grade mix) related.
To see this more clearly, examine Exhibit 5-67 below. This chart plots the quantity adjusted
data points (cost per foot of total alignment versus total alignment length) for all nineteendatabase projects on a log-log scale. (Note: These data points are just the quantity adjusted
points from Exhibit 5-8, the unadjusted actuals have been omitted from this chart). The
quantity adjustment process ensures that all points on this chart (the white triangles) utilize the
same mix of alignment grades as the Standard Model LRT. As such, all these quantity adjusted
data points are closer to the center line than the original, un-adjusted datapoints, which
reflected the actual mix of alignment types for these nineteen projects. (In other words, the
adjustment process tends to draw the datapoints inward, towards the location of the Standard
Model LRT curve as shown in Exhibit 5-8. In fact if there were no unit cost differences between
projects, the adjusted datapoints would all line up along the Standard Model LRT curve. The
fact that they do not underscores that fact that these unit cost differences do exist.)
Close inspection of these quantity adjusted data points reveals, however, that despite the
quantity adjustment process, the points in the upper half of the chart tend to be those with a
higher mix of grade separated alignment. Similarly, those points towards the bottom of the
chart tend to be those with little or no grade separation. This observation is confirmed by the
three regression lines estimated using these adjusted data points and presented on the same
chart. Specifically, the regression results clearly reveal an increase in unit cost with increasing
grade separation. Since the regression lines were estimated using the quantity adjusted data, it
follows that the adjusted data still contains valuable information on the impact of grade on unit
costs.
This finding indicates that the cost variance analysis has not, in fact, controlled for all unit
quantity impacts related to grade mix. Moreover, these grade mix issues are being reported in
the analysis as unit cost related when, in fact, they are unit quantity related.
While further analysis is needed, it would appear that while alignment mix related adjustments
are controlling for differences directly related asset quantities in the Guideway Elements cost
category, it is not condoling for the impact of grade separations on other cost categories. For
5-90
example, installation costs for electrification, train control and communications systems should
be appreciably higher when installed in underground segments versus at-grade segments.
Hence projects with a high proportion of underground investment should have a higher
average unit cost for systems costs. There is likely a similar impact for other cost categories,
likely including special conditions, right-of-way and soft costs. These questions represent areas
for further LRT capital cost research.

5-91
Exhibit 5-67
Analysis of Unexplained Cost Variances
Regression Analysis of Unexplained Unit Cost Variance

Full Cost and Quantity Baseline
4.8

0% Grade Separated
4.6
10% Grade Separated

20% Grade Separated
4.4
4.2
Hudson-Bergen MOS I
Pittsburgh Stage II
4.0

LA Blue Line
3.8

Pasadena Gold

Pittsburgh Stage I
San Jose North
3.6
Sacramento Stage I
3.4
3.2
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8

5-92
4.9
5.0
5.1
5.2
6.0 Light Rail Capital Cost Calculator
6.0 LIGHT RAIL CAPITAL COST CALCULATOR
This section describes the design and use of the Light Rail Capital Cost Calculator. The
Calculator is a separate worksheet in the Capital Cost Workbook that allows the user to develop
detailed capital cost estimates for a proposed new light rail project. Specifically, the Calculator
allows the user to enter unit quantity amounts (e.g., number of track feet, vehicles, stations, etc.)
and midpoint of construction data for a proposed LRT project. In return, the Calculator
provides detailed estimates of project costs at the cost element, cost category and full project
levels of detail. The Calculator also provides the user with considerable control in defining the
cost basis used to develop these cost estimates, including permitting the user which database
projects are used to adjust the workbooks unit cost functions (using the Project Select option).
The Calculator is intended to provide FTA with a reliable tool for validating capital cost
estimates for light rail projects seeking federal funding approval through FTAs New Starts
process. At the same time, industry analysts and project sponsors can use the Calculator to
develop preliminary cost estimates for new light rail projects currently under consideration.
6.1 Calculator Design

Light Rail Capital Cost Calculator consists of three basic components including the model
database, the unit cost functions and the project cost estimate worksheets. This overall structure
and portions of the underlying detail is outlined earlier in Exhibit 4-1. Each of these primary
components is discussed below.
6.1.1 Capital Cost Database
The Capital Cost Database represents the foundation of the Light Rail Capital Cost Calculator.
In particular, the unit costs and quantity values housed in the Normalization worksheet
provide the basis for developing project cost estimates for proposed LRT projects. As with other
aspects of the full workbook, all unit cost estimates for proposed LRT projects are continuously
updated to reflect entry of additional historical capital cost data into the underlying Capital
Cost Database (note, however, that the model provides users the option of not including new
cost data added to the database).
6.1.2 Unit Cost Functions and Cost Function Adjustment
The unit cost functions from the CostFunctions worksheet provide the link between the Light
Rail Capital Cost Database (i.e., the CostDatabase worksheet) and the estimation of capital costs
for proposed LRT projects using the Capital Cost Calculator. The design and development of
the cost functions was discussed earlier in Section 4.0.
The ProjectSelect worksheet allows the user to adjust the unit cost function parameters to
reflect the cost experience of a preferred listing of projects documented in the CostDatabase
6-1
worksheet. The user should select this option if it is determined that that the cost characteristics
of one or more projects documented in the CostDatabase worksheet are not truly representative
of the design philosophy or other characteristic of the project for which capital costs are being
estimated. In this instance, the user can choose to limit the adjustment of the unit cost functions
to reflect those select database projects that the user considers representative of the project for
which estimates are being developed. If the user does not use the Project Select option, the
Calculator will then use a unit cost function that reflects the unit cost experience across all
projects documented in the CostDatabase worksheet. In some instances, however, the user may
feel.
6.1.3 Project Cost Worksheet
The final component of the Capital Cost Calculator is the CostCalculator worksheet. As with
most other worksheets in the model, the CostCalculator worksheet is formatted using the same
structure as the cost database itself. This worksheet provides blank spaces where the user is
expected to enter the unit quantities and midpoints of construction for all project cost elements
of a proposed light rail investment. In addition, the user must enter the name of the
metropolitan area in which the project will be constructed. This worksheet provides a
dropdown list that lists close to two hundred different US metropolitan areas. Upon completing
these data entry fields, the model provides a point cost estimate for each cost element using the
unit cost functions found on the CostFunctions. Note that these cost estimates have been
automatically adjusted to the midpoint of construction for that cost element and to the cost
basis of the specific metropolitan area where the project is to be constructed. Finally, the
element totals are also summed up to the category and full project levels. Users can copy the
worksheet to create new scenarios of an existing project as desired.
The CostCalculator worksheet also allows the user to select a specific cost basis for that
worksheet. In particular, this option allows the user to select which unit cost function
adjustment the worksheet will use in estimating project costs. If the user selects the Baseline
Model, the worksheet will select the original unit cost functions estimated for use by the
calculator. As noted above, these baseline cost functions were estimated using the original
dataset recorded in the database as of June 2003. Hence, the Baseline models do not reflect the
entry of new data into the CostDatabase worksheet since that time. In contrast, if the user
selects Adjusted Model 1: Full Database, the model will adjust the unit cost functions to
reflect the full range of unit cost values across all project cost data stored in the CostDatabase
worksheet (see section 4.0 for a discussion of the adjustment process). Finally, if the user selects
Adjusted Model 2: User Selected Projects, the model will limit adjustment of the unit cost
functions to reflect only the unit cost values of those projects selected on the ProjectSelect
worksheet.
In addition to providing space to define project characteristics and the resulting output, the
CostCalculator worksheet also includes several simple data validation checks. These checks are
intended to ensure that the data entered into the calculator are reasonable (e.g., linear feet of
guideway can not exceed the total track feet). If the user has violated a data input rule, the
calculator will flag the error in the validation check columns of the worksheet (column K
performs checks on unit quantities while column L performs checks on midpoint of
construction entries). In addition, the calculator includes several checks within the data entry
cells themselves (using Excels internal validation functions).
6-2
6.2 Project Cost Estimation

Despite the level of detail and complexity utilized by the LRT Capital Cost Calculator, actual
use of the model is quite simple. This section provides a detailed description of calculator use
and identifies some of the issues users may encounter if data are not entered properly as well as
solutions to any of these potential problems.
6.2.1 Data Entry
Prior to using the calculator, the user must assemble the required data inputs. Specifically, the
user requires the data inputs identified in Table 6-1. Once these data are assembled, the user
must enter these data into the corresponding locations on the CostCalculator worksheet.
Specifically, the unit quantity data are entered into column G while the year values are entered
in column H. If the user is unsure what data the model requires, the calculator provides brief
comments located in column F to assist in selecting the proper input value (commented cells
have a sample red triangle, place the mouse over these comment triangles to view the
comment). Note: users should only enter data into cells that are highlighted in white. All other cells are
intended for model use only.
Following completion of the data entry process, the user should review the validation check
results in columns L and M of the CostCalculator worksheet. If data entry validation rules have
been violated, the calculator will indicate this with a brief message identifying the problem (e.g.,
total guideway feet exceed track feet). The user should then correct the problem accordingly.
Finally, the calculators cost estimates by cost element, cost category and for the project in
total are presented in column J while the corresponding unit costs are found in column I. The
user should review these estimates to further validate the unit quantity and year entries in
columns G and H (i.e., look for total cost estimates by element which considered too high or too
low). When conducting this analysis, the user may wish to compare the results of project cost
estimates when using the Baseline Model estimate basis versus the Adjusted Model (1 or 2)
estimate basis. It is possible here that outlier data points associated with new projects entered
into the underlying CostDatabase worksheet may result in invalid or questionable results. If
this appears to be the case, the user will need to identify which project (as recorded in the
CostDatabase worksheet) is causing the problem and eliminate that project from further
analysis using the Project Select option.

6-3
6.2.2 Adjusting the Model Cost Estimate Basis

As described earlier, the CostCalculator worksheet allows the user to select a cost basis used by
the calculator. Specifically, this option permits the user to select which set of unit costs function
that worksheet will use in estimating project costs. For example, if the user selects the Baseline
Model, the worksheet will select the original unit cost functions estimated for use by the
model. As noted above, these baseline cost functions were estimated using the original dataset
recorded in the database as of early June 2003. Hence, the Baseline models do not reflect the
entry of new data into the CostDatabase worksheet since that time. In contrast, if the user
selects Adjusted Model 1: Full Database, the calculator will select baseline unit cost functions
which have been adjusted to reflect the unit cost values across all project cost data stored in the
CostDatabase worksheet (see Chapter 4 for a discussion of the adjustment process). Finally, if
the user selects Adjusted Model 2: User Selected Projects, the calculator will modify the
baseline unit cost functions to reflect only the unit cost values of those projects selected on the
ProjectSelect worksheet.
To select a preferred cost estimate basis, select the associated option in the option box located in
the upper left-hand corner of the CostCalculator worksheet. Note that the unit and total cost
amounts automatically change to reflect the users selected option.
When selecting the Adjusted Model 2: User Selected Projects option, it important that the user
also review / revise the listing of selected projects located on the ProjectSelect worksheet.
However, prior to doing so it is advised that the user first review the project descriptions
provided in Chapter 3 of this document. Using these descriptions, the user can then identify
those existing light rail projects that have design and other characteristics that best match the
characteristics of the proposed project. Once identified, the user can then go to ProjectSelect
worksheet and constrain the Cost Model such that the models unit cost functions use only
recognize the unit cost data for this user defined list of similar projects. To do so, click on the
ProjectSelect worksheet tab. Next, click the Select Projects button located near the top of the
worksheet. This action will open up a list box where the user can choose one, many or all of the
project names displayed. Specifically, the user should select those existing projects with unit
cost characteristics that most closely match those of the proposed project. Once the select is
made, click the select button and the model will automatically select the highlighted project
unit costs. Finally, the user must ensure that the Adjusted Model2: User Selected Projects
option has been selected from the Select Estimate Basis box located in the upper left-hand
corner of the CostCalculator worksheet.

6-4

Table 6-1
LRT Capital Cost Calculator: Data Input Requirements
Input Type
Unit Quantities
Input
L.F. Guideway
Track Feet
Special Guideway
Structures
Intersections
Stations
Parking Spaces
Elevators / Escalators
Pedestrian Overpasses
Revenue Vehicles
Non-Revenue Vehicles
Year
Metro Area
Description
In total and segmented by alignment type (at-grade,
subway, elevated, fill, etc.)
In total and segmented by type (ballasted, direct fixation,
yard, etc.)
Number of bridges and highway overpasses
Crossing protection is scaled by the number of intersections
In total and segmented by grade (at-grade, subway,
elevated) and platform positioning (center or side)
Parking facilities are scaled by the number of spaces
Number of each
Number of each
Total number by procurement. Also, most maintenance
facilities and yards need to be scaled by their vehicle
capacity
Total number of maintenance vehicles and total number of
support trucks and automobiles
This is the year purchased (for vehicles and other pieces of
equipment) or the mid-point of construction (for civil
structures and other multi-year construction efforts). This
input is required by cost element. These elements are listed
to the left.
Guideway
Trackwork
Special Structures
Yards & Shops
Maintenance Facilities
Admin Facility
Signal System
Electrification
Communications
Revenue Collection
Elevators / Escalators
Stations
Parking
Rev Vehicles (by
procurement)
Utility and other relocations
ROW Acquisition
Soft cost components
Name of metro area where project is to be constructed

6-5
APPENDIX A
Light Rail Capital Cost Database
Appendix A
LIGHT RAIL COST DATABASE
Complete all cells highlighted in white

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

0.03 SERVICE
Track Miles
Stations
Vehicles in Service
Peak
Midday
Headway
Peak
Midday
Ridership
Weekday
Annual
0.04 STAFFING
Administrative
Operators
Maintenance
Vehicle
Non-Vehicle

1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.11
AT GRADE GUIDEWAY
BALLASTED TRACK
EMBEDDED TRACK
SPECIAL TRACKWORK
2.00 YARDS & SHOPS

2.01
2.02
2.03
2.04
2.05
2.06
2.07
2.08
2.09
2.10
2.11

Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork

Units
of
Measure
Sacramento Stage I
Sacramento, CA
Total Cost
Select City:
Quantity
L.F. Guideway
DB / DBB
PE/FD/CON/OPS
111,936
DBB
OPS
Route Miles
Track Miles
Each
Revenue Vehicles
Revenue Vehicles
Revenue Vehicles
Minutes
Minutes
Minutes
Unlinked Trips
Unlinked Trips
Unlinked Trips
Unlinked Trips
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
18
26
26
Year
$180,721,862
1984
23
8
15
30
0
23,920
0
47
15
32
31
15
16
5
L.F. Guideway
111,936
$46,678,400
1985
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
L.F. Guideway
106,920
0
5,016
0
0
0
10,032
144,342
0
154,374
111,936
$32,954,922
$0
$1,752,000
$0
$0
$0
$248,000
$10,011,078
$0
$1,712,400
$0
1985
50
$3,979,000
1985
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
50
0
0
111,936
111,936
111,936
111,936
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3,979,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
A-1
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix A

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

3.00 SYSTEMS
3.01 SIGNAL SYSTEM
Crossing Protection
Substations
Catenary
Third Rail
3.03 COMMUNICATIONS
Elevators
Escalators
4.00 STATIONS
4.01
4.02
4.03
4.04
4.05
4.06
4.07
4.08
4.09
4.10

PARKING LOTS
PARKING GARAGES
SIGNAGE & GRAPHICS
5.00 VEHICLES
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06


6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
DEMOLITIONS
Buildings
Other Removals
Asbestos Abatement
Railroads
6.05
6.06
6.07
6.08
ROADWAY CHANGES
LANDSCAPING
7.00 RIGHT-OF-WAY
Property Management
Agency
Contractor
7.04 RELOCATION
7.05 OTHER

Units
of
Measure
Sacramento Stage I
Sacramento, CA
Total Cost
Select City:
Quantity
Year
111,936
154,374
$180,721,862
$19,514,037
1984
1985
154,374
154,374
0
154,374
90
154,374
154,374
0
154,374
0
154,374
28
0
28
36
111,936
0
0
0
$8,236,632
$6,903,484
$0
$0
$1,333,148
$10,034,456
$4,856,409
$0
$5,178,047
$0
$190,949
$1,052,000
$0
$986,000
$66,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
1985
1985
Station
28
$10,270,000
1985
Station
Station
Station
Station
Station
Station
Spaces
Spaces
Each
Station
0
28
0
0
0
0
3,850
0
0
28
$0
$10,270,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Rev. Vehicle
36
$34,600,000
1985
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
26
10
0
0
36
36
36
36
$20,800,000
$13,800,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
1985
1985
L.F. Guideway
111,936
$12,153,425
1985
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
111,936
111,936
111,936
111,936
111,936
111,936
111,936
111,936
111,936
111,936
111,936
111,936
$4,850,611
$482,480
$0
$333,136
$0
$333,136
$0
$0
$6,487,198
$0
$0
$0
1985
1985
L.F. Guideway
111,936
$17,408,000
1985
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
111,936
111,936
111,936
111,936
111,936
111,936
111,936
111,936
$16,616,000
$0
$792,000
$9,000
$0
$783,000
$0
$0
1985
L.F. Guideway
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Intersections
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Station
Each
Station
Rev. Vehicle
L.F. Guideway
Each
Each
Each
A-2
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
0
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix A

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

8.00 SOFT-COSTS
8.01
8.02
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
FINAL DESIGN
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
PROJECT INITIATION
Insurance
Mobilization

Units
of
Measure
L.F. Guideway
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
A-3
Select City:
Quantity
111,936
$144,602,862
$144,602,862
$144,602,862
$144,602,862
$144,602,862
$144,602,862
$144,602,862
$144,602,862
$144,602,862
$144,602,862
$144,602,862
$144,602,862
$144,602,862
$144,602,862
$144,602,862
$144,602,862
Sacramento Stage I
Sacramento, CA
Total Cost
Year
$180,721,862
$36,119,000
1984
1982
$16,557,000
$0
$0
$9,050,000
$4,199,000
$0
$1,285,000
$1,285,000
$0
$0
$528,000
$4,500,000
$0
$4,500,000
$0
1980
0
0
1983
1984
0
1985
1985
0
0
1984
1985
0
1985
0
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix A

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

0.03 SERVICE
Track Miles
Stations
Vehicles in Service
Peak
Midday
Headway
Peak
Midday
Ridership
Weekday
Annual
0.04 STAFFING
Administrative
Operators
Maintenance
Vehicle
Non-Vehicle

1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.11
AT GRADE GUIDEWAY
BALLASTED TRACK
EMBEDDED TRACK
SPECIAL TRACKWORK
2.00 YARDS & SHOPS

2.01
2.02
2.03
2.04
2.05
2.06
2.07
2.08
2.09
2.10
2.11

Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork

Units
of
Measure

Pittsburgh, PA
Total Cost
Select City:
Quantity
L.F. Guideway
DB / DBB
PE/FD/CON/OPS
82,198
DBB
OPS
Route Miles
Track Miles
Each
Revenue Vehicles
Revenue Vehicles
Revenue Vehicles
Minutes
Minutes
Minutes
Unlinked Trips
Unlinked Trips
Unlinked Trips
Unlinked Trips
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
31
62
13
Year
$555,525,064
1985
70
28
0
0
0
25,000
0
112
0
112
0
0
0
0
L.F. Guideway
82,198
$202,419,030
1985
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
L.F. Guideway
34,933
19,694
5,012
0
10,721
11,838
21,468
103,180
39,746
164,394
82,198
$18,674,638
$16,901,866
$4,915,157
$0
$145,243,891
$6,084,050
$4,610,360
$3,804,559
$2,184,509
$0
$0
1985
1985
1985
97
$37,116,525
1985
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
97
0
0
82,198
82,198
82,198
82,198
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$32,090,648
$0
$0
$5,025,877
$5,025,877
$0
$0
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
A-4
1985
1984
1985
1985
1985
1985
1987
1987
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix A

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

0.01 SYSTEMS
PROCUREMENT TYPE
3.00
3.01 SIGNAL SYSTEM
Crossing Protection
Substations
Catenary
Third Rail
3.03 COMMUNICATIONS
Elevators
Escalators
4.00 STATIONS
4.01
4.02
4.03
4.04
4.05
4.06
4.07
4.08
4.09
4.10

PARKING LOTS
PARKING GARAGES
SIGNAGE & GRAPHICS
5.00 VEHICLES
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06


6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
DEMOLITIONS
Buildings
Other Removals
Asbestos Abatement
Railroads
6.05
6.06
6.07
6.08
ROADWAY CHANGES
LANDSCAPING
7.00 RIGHT-OF-WAY
Property Management
Agency
Contractor
7.04 RELOCATION
7.05 OTHER

Units
of
Measure

Pittsburgh, PA
Total Cost
Select City:
Quantity
Year
L.F. Guideway
DB / DBB
Track
Feet
82,198
164,394
$555,525,064
$59,951,818
1985
1985
Track Feet
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Intersections
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Station
Each
Station
Rev. Vehicle
L.F. Guideway
Each
Each
Each
164,394
164,394
0
164,394
90
164,394
164,394
0
164,394
0
164,394
12
1
12
55
82,198
0
0
0
$22,913,020
$22,913,020
$0
$0
$0
$27,043,907
$12,031,797
$0
$15,012,110
$0
$8,928,230
$1,066,661
$1,066,661
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
1985
1985
Station
12
$34,282,779
1985
Station
Station
Station
Station
Station
Station
Spaces
Spaces
Each
Station
0
9
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
12
$0
$15,733,846
$0
$18,548,933
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Rev. Vehicle
55
$57,399,440
1985
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
55
0
0
0
55
55
55
55
$57,399,440
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
1985
L.F. Guideway
82,198
$10,038,972
1984
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
82,198
82,198
82,198
82,198
82,198
82,198
82,198
82,198
82,198
82,198
82,198
82,198
$4,034,435
$4,939,567
$0
$747,080
$747,080
$0
$0
$0
$0
$317,890
$0
$0
1984
1984
L.F. Guideway
82,198
$21,511,920
1983
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
82,198
82,198
82,198
82,198
82,198
82,198
82,198
82,198
$21,511,920
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
1983
A-5
1984
1984
1984
1985
1984
1984
1985
1985
1983
1983
1985
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix A

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

0.01 SOFT-COSTS
PROCUREMENT TYPE
8.00
8.01
8.02
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
FINAL DESIGN
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
PROJECT INITIATION
Insurance
Mobilization

Units
of
Measure
L.F. Guideway
DBTotal
/ DBB
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
A-6
Select City:
Quantity
82,198
$422,720,484
$422,720,484
$422,720,484
$422,720,484
$422,720,484
$422,720,484
$422,720,484
$422,720,484
$422,720,484
$422,720,484
$422,720,484
$422,720,484
$422,720,484
$422,720,484
$422,720,484
$422,720,484

Pittsburgh, PA
Total Cost
$555,525,064
$132,804,580
$0
$0
$106,746,730
$11,236,750
$14,821,100
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Year
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
0
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix A

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

0.03 SERVICE
Track Miles
Stations
Vehicles in Service
Peak
Midday
Headway
Peak
Midday
Ridership
Weekday
Annual
0.04 STAFFING
Administrative
Operators
Maintenance
Vehicle
Non-Vehicle

1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.11
AT GRADE GUIDEWAY
BALLASTED TRACK
EMBEDDED TRACK
SPECIAL TRACKWORK
2.00 YARDS & SHOPS

2.01
2.02
2.03
2.04
2.05
2.06
2.07
2.08
2.09
2.10
2.11

Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork

Units
of
Measure

Portland, OR
Total Cost
Select City:
Quantity
L.F. Guideway
DB / DBB
PE/FD/CON/OPS
80,179
DBB
OPS
Route Miles
Track Miles
Each
Revenue Vehicles
Revenue Vehicles
Revenue Vehicles
Minutes
Minutes
Minutes
Unlinked Trips
Unlinked Trips
Unlinked Trips
Unlinked Trips
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
30
29
25
Year
$246,797,637
1984
22
12
8
15
0
42,500
0
52
16
36
47
28
19
11
L.F. Guideway
80,179
$94,599,637
1984
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
L.F. Guideway
52,212
0
4,032
23,665
0
270
0
137,194
23,164
160,358
80,179
$41,935,263
$0
$9,599,448
$19,006,221
$0
$1,226,962
$0
$11,481,364
$8,891,742
$2,458,637
$0
1984
100
$11,602,000
1983
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
100
0
0
80,179
80,179
80,179
80,179
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$11,465,000
$0
$0
$137,000
$137,000
$0
$0
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
A-7
1984
1983
1984
1983
1984
1983
1983
1983
1983
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix A

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

0.01 SYSTEMS
PROCUREMENT TYPE
3.00
3.01 SIGNAL SYSTEM
Crossing Protection
Substations
Catenary
Third Rail
3.03 COMMUNICATIONS
Elevators
Escalators
4.00 STATIONS
4.01
4.02
4.03
4.04
4.05
4.06
4.07
4.08
4.09
4.10

PARKING LOTS
PARKING GARAGES
SIGNAGE & GRAPHICS
5.00 VEHICLES
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06


6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
DEMOLITIONS
Buildings
Other Removals
Asbestos Abatement
Railroads
6.05
6.06
6.07
6.08
ROADWAY CHANGES
LANDSCAPING
7.00 RIGHT-OF-WAY
Property Management
Agency
Contractor
7.04 RELOCATION
7.05 OTHER

Units
of
Measure

Portland, OR
Total Cost
Select City:
Quantity
Year
L.F. Guideway
DB / DBB
Track
Feet
80,179
160,358
$246,797,637
$21,167,000
1984
1984
Track Feet
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Intersections
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Station
Each
Station
Rev. Vehicle
L.F. Guideway
Each
Each
Each
160,358
160,358
0
160,358
21
160,358
160,358
0
160,358
0
160,358
25
1
25
26
80,179
0
0
0
$7,456,000
$6,857,000
$0
$0
$599,000
$10,487,000
$3,550,000
$0
$6,937,000
$0
$0
$3,224,000
$801,000
$2,423,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
1984
1984
Station
25
$15,107,000
1985
Station
Station
Station
Station
Station
Station
Spaces
Spaces
Each
Station
5
20
0
0
0
0
1,636
0
0
25
$2,201,000
$9,634,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3,272,000
$0
$0
$0
1985
1985
Rev. Vehicle
26
$25,218,000
1981
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
26
0
0
0
26
26
26
26
$25,097,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$121,000
$21,000
$100,000
1981
L.F. Guideway
80,179
$5,756,000
1984
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
80,179
80,179
80,179
80,179
80,179
80,179
80,179
80,179
80,179
80,179
80,179
80,179
$5,656,000
$0
$0
$100,000
$100,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
1984
L.F. Guideway
80,179
$15,070,000
1983
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
80,179
80,179
80,179
80,179
80,179
80,179
80,179
80,179
$13,439,000
$0
$1,473,000
$243,000
$0
$1,230,000
$158,000
$0
1983
A-8
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1985
1985
1985
1985
1984
1984
1982
1982
1982
1982
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix A

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

0.01 SOFT-COSTS
PROCUREMENT TYPE
8.00
8.01
8.02
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
FINAL DESIGN
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
PROJECT INITIATION
Insurance
Mobilization

Units
of
Measure
L.F. Guideway
DBTotal
/ DBB
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
A-9
Select City:
Quantity
80,179
$188,519,637
$188,519,637
$188,519,637
$188,519,637
$188,519,637
$188,519,637
$188,519,637
$188,519,637
$188,519,637
$188,519,637
$188,519,637
$188,519,637
$188,519,637
$188,519,637
$188,519,637
$188,519,637

Portland, OR
Total Cost
Year
$246,797,637
$58,278,000
1984
1984
$2,535,000
$0
$13,212,000
$17,000,000
$13,172,000
$0
$5,240,000
$5,240,000
$0
$0
$0
$7,119,000
$0
$7,119,000
$0
1980
1982
1984
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix A

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

0.03 SERVICE
Track Miles
Stations
Vehicles in Service
Peak
Midday
Headway
Peak
Midday
Ridership
Weekday
Annual
0.04 STAFFING
Administrative
Operators
Maintenance
Vehicle
Non-Vehicle

1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.11
AT GRADE GUIDEWAY
BALLASTED TRACK
EMBEDDED TRACK
SPECIAL TRACKWORK
2.00 YARDS & SHOPS

2.01
2.02
2.03
2.04
2.05
2.06
2.07
2.08
2.09
2.10
2.11

Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork

Units
of
Measure
Select City:
Quantity

Los Angeles, CA
Total Cost
L.F. Guideway
DB / DBB
PE/FD/CON/OPS
119,283
DBB
OPS
Route Miles
Track Miles
Each
Revenue Vehicles
Revenue Vehicles
Revenue Vehicles
Minutes
Minutes
Minutes
Unlinked Trips
Unlinked Trips
Unlinked Trips
Unlinked Trips
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
45
44
22
Year
$877,269,855
1987
26
13
10
10
0
54,700
0
101
28
73
92
47
45
68
L.F. Guideway
119,283
$148,719,104
1988
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
L.F. Guideway
63,487
32,766
10,785
8,459
3,296
490
26,324
146,710
65,532
238,566
119,283
$26,655,743
$24,067,146
$31,155,410
$5,810,205
$21,647,205
$2,183,688
$4,981,257
$10,407,580
$8,588,412
$13,222,458
$0
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
54
$33,024,821
1988
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
54
0
0
119,283
119,283
119,283
119,283
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$32,290,821
$0
$0
$734,000
$734,000
$0
$0
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
A-10
1988
1988
1988
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix A

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

0.01 SYSTEMS
PROCUREMENT TYPE
3.00
3.01 SIGNAL SYSTEM
Crossing Protection
Substations
Catenary
Third Rail
3.03 COMMUNICATIONS
Elevators
Escalators
4.00 STATIONS
4.01
4.02
4.03
4.04
4.05
4.06
4.07
4.08
4.09
4.10

PARKING LOTS
PARKING GARAGES
SIGNAGE & GRAPHICS
5.00 VEHICLES
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06


6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
DEMOLITIONS
Buildings
Other Removals
Asbestos Abatement
Railroads
6.05
6.06
6.07
6.08
ROADWAY CHANGES
LANDSCAPING
7.00 RIGHT-OF-WAY
Property Management
Agency
Contractor
7.04 RELOCATION
7.05 OTHER

Units
of
Measure
Select City:
Quantity

Los Angeles, CA
Total Cost
Year
L.F. Guideway
DB / DBB
Track
Feet
119,283
238,566
$877,269,855
$126,453,164
1987
1988
Track Feet
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Intersections
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Station
Each
Station
Rev. Vehicle
L.F. Guideway
Each
Each
Each
238,566
238,566
0
238,566
28
238,566
238,566
0
238,566
0
238,566
22
1
22
54
119,283
0
0
0
$40,745,221
$27,715,247
$0
$0
$13,029,974
$49,432,018
$21,059,588
$0
$28,372,430
$0
$19,091,470
$6,004,536
$1,765,229
$4,239,307
$0
$11,179,919
$0
$0
$0
1988
1988
Station
22
$65,893,479
1988
Station
Station
Station
Station
Station
Station
Spaces
Spaces
Each
Station
15
3
0
1
3
0
1,051
0
2
22
$16,191,134
$2,741,608
$0
$27,684,300
$8,786,682
$0
$8,490,533
$0
$1,999,222
$0
1988
1988
Rev. Vehicle
54
$79,939,129
1988
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
54
0
0
0
54
54
54
54
$78,136,129
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,803,000
$1,463,000
$340,000
1988
L.F. Guideway
119,283
$152,349,392
1985
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
119,283
119,283
119,283
119,283
119,283
119,283
119,283
119,283
119,283
119,283
119,283
119,283
$2,553,505
$119,761,634
$0
$967,836
$384,438
$583,398
$0
$0
$12,088,912
$0
$16,977,505
$0
1985
1985
L.F. Guideway
119,283
$60,084,803
1988
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
119,283
119,283
119,283
119,283
119,283
119,283
119,283
119,283
$55,437,402
$0
$4,493,401
$2,241,826
$0
$2,251,575
$154,000
$0
1988
A-11
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
0
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1988
1988
1988
1988
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix A

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

0.01 SOFT-COSTS
PROCUREMENT TYPE
8.00
8.01
8.02
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
FINAL DESIGN
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
PROJECT INITIATION
Insurance
Mobilization

Units
of
Measure
L.F. Guideway
DBTotal
/ DBB
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
A-12
Select City:
Quantity

Los Angeles, CA
Total Cost
119,283
$666,463,892
$666,463,892
$666,463,892
$666,463,892
$666,463,892
$666,463,892
$666,463,892
$666,463,892
$666,463,892
$666,463,892
$666,463,892
$666,463,892
$666,463,892
$666,463,892
$666,463,892
$666,463,892
$877,269,855
$210,805,963
$0
$0
$64,030,705
$79,304,746
$21,374,427
$4,194,136
$32,780,582
$32,780,582
$0
$0
$0
$9,121,366
$0
$9,121,366
$0
Year
1987
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix A

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

0.03 SERVICE
Track Miles
Stations
Vehicles in Service
Peak
Midday
Headway
Peak
Midday
Ridership
Weekday
Annual
0.04 STAFFING
Administrative
Operators
Maintenance
Vehicle
Non-Vehicle

1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.11
AT GRADE GUIDEWAY
BALLASTED TRACK
EMBEDDED TRACK
SPECIAL TRACKWORK
2.00 YARDS & SHOPS

2.01
2.02
2.03
2.04
2.05
2.06
2.07
2.08
2.09
2.10
2.11

Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork

Units
of
Measure

San Jose, CA
Total Cost
Select City:
Quantity
L.F. Guideway
DB / DBB
PE/FD/CON/OPS
82,252
DBB
OPS
Route Miles
Track Miles
Each
Revenue Vehicles
Revenue Vehicles
Revenue Vehicles
Minutes
Minutes
Minutes
Unlinked Trips
Unlinked Trips
Unlinked Trips
Unlinked Trips
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
31
31
22
Year
$380,348,878
1986
15
15
10
10
0
41,200
0
69
11
58
108
55
53
20
L.F. Guideway
82,252
$65,887,000
1987
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
L.F. Guideway
82,252
0
0
0
0
0
0
96,100
68,404
164,504
82,252
$44,381,582
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$8,032,209
$6,402,209
$1,605,000
$5,466,000
1987
50
$21,291,136
1985
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
50
0
0
82,252
82,252
82,252
82,252
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$20,191,136
$0
$0
$1,100,000
$1,100,000
$0
$0
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
A-13
1987
1987
1987
1987
1985
1985
1985
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix A

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

0.01 SYSTEMS
PROCUREMENT TYPE
3.00
3.01 SIGNAL SYSTEM
Crossing Protection
Substations
Catenary
Third Rail
3.03 COMMUNICATIONS
Elevators
Escalators
4.00 STATIONS
4.01
4.02
4.03
4.04
4.05
4.06
4.07
4.08
4.09
4.10

PARKING LOTS
PARKING GARAGES
SIGNAGE & GRAPHICS
5.00 VEHICLES
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06


6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
DEMOLITIONS
Buildings
Other Removals
Asbestos Abatement
Railroads
6.05
6.06
6.07
6.08
ROADWAY CHANGES
LANDSCAPING
7.00 RIGHT-OF-WAY
Property Management
Agency
Contractor
7.04 RELOCATION
7.05 OTHER

Units
of
Measure

San Jose, CA
Total Cost
Select City:
Quantity
Year
L.F. Guideway
DB / DBB
Track
Feet
82,252
164,504
$380,348,878
$33,124,742
1986
1990
Track Feet
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Intersections
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Station
Each
Station
Rev. Vehicle
L.F. Guideway
Each
Each
Each
164,504
164,504
0
164,504
6
164,504
164,504
0
164,504
0
164,504
22
0
22
50
82,252
0
0
0
$7,169,292
$6,999,292
$0
$0
$170,000
$18,694,939
$7,697,679
$0
$10,997,260
$0
$2,935,448
$4,325,063
$289,461
$4,035,602
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
1990
1990
Station
22
$4,914,000
1989
Station
Station
Station
Station
Station
Station
Spaces
Spaces
Each
Station
3
19
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
22
$577,000
$4,337,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
1989
1989
Rev. Vehicle
50
$55,611,000
1983
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
50
0
0
0
50
50
50
50
$55,611,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
1983
L.F. Guideway
82,252
$8,487,000
1986
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
82,252
82,252
82,252
82,252
82,252
82,252
82,252
82,252
82,252
82,252
82,252
82,252
$5,822,000
$0
$0
$513,000
$0
$513,000
$0
$0
$0
$2,152,000
$0
$0
1986
L.F. Guideway
82,252
$54,617,000
1985
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
82,252
82,252
82,252
82,252
82,252
82,252
82,252
82,252
$51,323,000
$0
$2,772,000
$924,000
$924,000
$924,000
$522,000
$0
1985
A-14
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1986
1986
1986
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix A

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

0.01 SOFT-COSTS
PROCUREMENT TYPE
8.00
8.01
8.02
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
FINAL DESIGN
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
PROJECT INITIATION
Insurance
Mobilization

Units
of
Measure
L.F. Guideway
DBTotal
/ DBB
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
A-15
Select City:
Quantity
82,252
$243,931,878
$243,931,878
$243,931,878
$243,931,878
$243,931,878
$243,931,878
$243,931,878
$243,931,878
$243,931,878
$243,931,878
$243,931,878
$243,931,878
$243,931,878
$243,931,878
$243,931,878
$243,931,878

San Jose, CA
Total Cost
Year
$380,348,878
$136,417,000
1986
1986
$41,085,000
$0
$0
$63,260,000
$19,115,000
$1,457,000
$7,500,000
$0
$7,000,000
$500,000
$0
$4,000,000
$0
$4,000,000
$0
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix A

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

0.03 SERVICE
Track Miles
Stations
Vehicles in Service
Peak
Midday
Headway
Peak
Midday
Ridership
Weekday
Annual
0.04 STAFFING
Administrative
Operators
Maintenance
Vehicle
Non-Vehicle

1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.11
AT GRADE GUIDEWAY
BALLASTED TRACK
EMBEDDED TRACK
SPECIAL TRACKWORK
2.00 YARDS & SHOPS

2.01
2.02
2.03
2.04
2.05
2.06
2.07
2.08
2.09
2.10
2.11

Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork

Units
of
Measure
Select City:
Quantity
Hudson-Bergen MOS-I
Newark, NJ
Year
Total Cost
L.F. Guideway
DB / DBB
PE/FD/CON/OPS
45,900
DB
OPS
Route Miles
Track Miles
Each
Revenue Vehicles
Revenue Vehicles
Revenue Vehicles
Minutes
Minutes
Minutes
Unlinked Trips
Unlinked Trips
Unlinked Trips
Unlinked Trips
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
0
0
0
$992,140,000
1999
0
0
0
0
0
31,300
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L.F. Guideway
45,900
$213,937,981
1999
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
L.F. Guideway
42,600
0
3,300
0
0
0
28,600
63,200
0
91,800
45,900
$127,513,057
$0
$50,438,974
$0
$0
$0
$8,821,940
$2,789,010
$0
$6,995,000
$17,380,000
1999
70
$45,367,000
1999
0
0
0
70
70
11,800
0
0
0
0
0
0
70
0
0
45,900
45,900
45,900
45,900
$0
$0
$0
$8,927,000
$5,962,000
$2,965,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$29,047,000
$0
$0
$7,393,000
$6,000,000
$1,393,000
$0
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
A-16
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
0
1999
1999
1999
1999
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix A

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

0.01 SYSTEMS
PROCUREMENT TYPE
3.00
3.01 SIGNAL SYSTEM
Crossing Protection
Substations
Catenary
Third Rail
3.03 COMMUNICATIONS
Elevators
Escalators
4.00 STATIONS
4.01
4.02
4.03
4.04
4.05
4.06
4.07
4.08
4.09
4.10

PARKING LOTS
PARKING GARAGES
SIGNAGE & GRAPHICS
5.00 VEHICLES
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06


6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
DEMOLITIONS
Buildings
Other Removals
Asbestos Abatement
Railroads
6.05
6.06
6.07
6.08
ROADWAY CHANGES
LANDSCAPING
7.00 RIGHT-OF-WAY
Property Management
Agency
Contractor
7.04 RELOCATION
7.05 OTHER

Units
of
Measure
Select City:
Quantity
Hudson-Bergen MOS-I
Newark, NJ
Year
Total Cost
L.F. Guideway
DB / DBB
Track
Feet
45,900
91,800
$992,140,000
$57,835,000
1999
1999
Track Feet
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Intersections
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Station
Each
Station
Rev. Vehicle
L.F. Guideway
Each
Each
Each
91,800
91,800
0
91,800
6
91,800
91,800
0
91,800
0
91,800
14
0
14
29
45,900
14
14
0
$9,413,000
$8,681,000
$0
$0
$732,000
$33,403,000
$16,433,000
$0
$16,970,000
$0
$6,677,000
$5,714,000
$100,000
$5,614,000
$0
$0
$2,628,000
$2,628,000
$0
1999
1999
Station
14
$118,599,991
1999
Station
Station
Station
Station
Station
Station
Spaces
Spaces
Each
Station
8
6
0
0
0
0
2,700
0
2
14
$59,651,598
$48,111,392
$0
$0
$0
$0
$10,123,000
$0
$714,000
$0
1999
1999
Rev. Vehicle
29
$98,559,000
1999
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
29
0
0
0
29
29
29
29
$94,940,000
$0
$0
$0
$3,619,000
$0
$0
$0
1999
L.F. Guideway
45,900
$120,964,991
1999
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
45,900
45,900
45,900
45,900
45,900
45,900
45,900
45,900
45,900
45,900
45,900
45,900
$38,431,000
$0
$0
$16,096,000
$16,096,000
$0
$0
$0
$7,053,000
$59,384,991
$0
$0
1999
L.F. Guideway
45,900
$45,338,038
1999
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
45,900
45,900
45,900
45,900
45,900
45,900
45,900
45,900
$43,523,000
$0
$1,815,038
$1,244,678
$0
$570,360
$0
$0
1999
A-17
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
0
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix A

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

0.01 SOFT-COSTS
PROCUREMENT TYPE
8.00
8.01
8.02
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
FINAL DESIGN
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
PROJECT INITIATION
Insurance
Mobilization

Units
of
Measure
L.F. Guideway
DBTotal
/ DBB
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
A-18
Select City:
Quantity
Hudson-Bergen MOS-I
Newark, NJ
Year
Total Cost
45,900
$700,602,000
$700,602,000
$700,602,000
$700,602,000
$700,602,000
$700,602,000
$700,602,000
$700,602,000
$700,602,000
$700,602,000
$700,602,000
$700,602,000
$700,602,000
$700,602,000
$700,602,000
$700,602,000
$992,140,000
$291,538,000
1999
1999
$5,565,000
$41,707,500
$41,707,500
$10,499,000
$10,684,000
$10,449,000
$45,987,000
$9,387,000
$36,600,000
$0
$124,939,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
0
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix A

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

0.03 SERVICE
Track Miles
Stations
Vehicles in Service
Peak
Midday
Headway
Peak
Midday
Ridership
Weekday
Annual
0.04 STAFFING
Administrative
Operators
Maintenance
Vehicle
Non-Vehicle

1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.11
AT GRADE GUIDEWAY
BALLASTED TRACK
EMBEDDED TRACK
SPECIAL TRACKWORK
2.00 YARDS & SHOPS

2.01
2.02
2.03
2.04
2.05
2.06
2.07
2.08
2.09
2.10
2.11

Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork

Units
of
Measure
Newark, NJ
Total Cost
Select City:
Quantity
L.F. Guideway
DB / DBB
PE/FD/CON/OPS
30,704
DB
OPS
Route Miles
Track Miles
Each
Revenue Vehicles
Revenue Vehicles
Revenue Vehicles
Minutes
Minutes
Minutes
Unlinked Trips
Unlinked Trips
Unlinked Trips
Unlinked Trips
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
0
0
0
Year
$1,218,474,000
2000
0
0
0
0
0
34,900
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L.F. Guideway
30,704
$421,838,000
2000
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
L.F. Guideway
21,119
215
4,867
0
4,503
0
16,218
44,760
215
61,193
30,704
$140,524,847
$1,364,563
$33,239,731
$0
$206,580,219
$0
$680,395
$2,372,795
$39,450
$5,733,000
$31,303,000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
$0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30,704
30,704
30,704
30,704
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
A-19
2000
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix A

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

0.01 SYSTEMS
PROCUREMENT TYPE
3.00
3.01 SIGNAL SYSTEM
Crossing Protection
Substations
Catenary
Third Rail
3.03 COMMUNICATIONS
Elevators
Escalators
4.00 STATIONS
4.01
4.02
4.03
4.04
4.05
4.06
4.07
4.08
4.09
4.10

PARKING LOTS
PARKING GARAGES
SIGNAGE & GRAPHICS
5.00 VEHICLES
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06


6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
DEMOLITIONS
Buildings
Other Removals
Asbestos Abatement
Railroads
6.05
6.06
6.07
6.08
ROADWAY CHANGES
LANDSCAPING
7.00 RIGHT-OF-WAY
Property Management
Agency
Contractor
7.04 RELOCATION
7.05 OTHER

Units
of
Measure
Newark, NJ
Total Cost
Select City:
Quantity
Year
L.F. Guideway
DB / DBB
Track
Feet
30,704
61,193
$1,218,474,000
$74,911,000
2000
2000
Track Feet
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Intersections
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Station
Each
Station
Rev. Vehicle
L.F. Guideway
Each
Each
Each
61,193
61,193
0
61,193
0
61,193
61,193
0
61,193
0
61,193
2
0
2
23
30,704
4
4
0
$20,594,000
$20,594,000
$0
$0
$0
$25,095,000
$14,793,000
$0
$10,302,000
$0
$9,347,000
$2,000,000
$0
$2,000,000
$0
$0
$17,875,000
$17,875,000
$0
2000
2000
Station
$148,973,500
2000
Station
Station
Station
Station
Station
Station
Spaces
Spaces
Each
Station
2
0
0
0
0
0
975
0
0
2
$145,273,500
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3,700,000
$0
$0
$0
2000
Rev. Vehicle
23
$75,882,000
2000
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
0
23
0
0
23
23
23
23
$0
$72,382,000
$0
$0
$3,500,000
$0
$0
$0
L.F. Guideway
30,704
$168,917,500
2000
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
30,704
30,704
30,704
30,704
30,704
30,704
30,704
30,704
30,704
30,704
30,704
30,704
$30,674,000
$13,879,000
$20,762,000
$3,654,000
$3,654,000
$0
$0
$0
$3,703,000
$96,245,500
$0
$0
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
L.F. Guideway
30,704
$39,077,000
2000
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
30,704
30,704
30,704
30,704
30,704
30,704
30,704
30,704
$37,577,000
$0
$1,500,000
$0
$0
$1,500,000
$0
$0
2000
A-20
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
0
2000
2000
2000
2000
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix A

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

0.01 SOFT-COSTS
PROCUREMENT TYPE
8.00
8.01
8.02
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
FINAL DESIGN
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
PROJECT INITIATION
Insurance
Mobilization

Units
of
Measure
L.F. Guideway
DBTotal
/ DBB
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
A-21
Select City:
Quantity
30,704
$929,599,000
$929,599,000
$929,599,000
$929,599,000
$929,599,000
$929,599,000
$929,599,000
$929,599,000
$929,599,000
$929,599,000
$929,599,000
$929,599,000
$929,599,000
$929,599,000
$929,599,000
$929,599,000
Newark, NJ
Total Cost
$1,218,474,000
$288,875,000
$0
$22,932,000
$22,932,000
$25,807,000
$18,999,000
$8,414,000
$16,291,000
$16,291,000
$0
$0
$173,500,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
Year
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
0
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix A

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

0.03 SERVICE
Track Miles
Stations
Vehicles in Service
Peak
Midday
Headway
Peak
Midday
Ridership
Weekday
Annual
0.04 STAFFING
Administrative
Operators
Maintenance
Vehicle
Non-Vehicle

1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.11
AT GRADE GUIDEWAY
BALLASTED TRACK
EMBEDDED TRACK
SPECIAL TRACKWORK
2.00 YARDS & SHOPS

2.01
2.02
2.03
2.04
2.05
2.06
2.07
2.08
2.09
2.10
2.11

Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork

Units
of
Measure
Hiawatha Corridor
Minneapolis, MN
Total Cost
Select City:
Quantity
L.F. Guideway
DB / DBB
PE/FD/CON/OPS
61,248
DB
CON
Route Miles
Track Miles
Each
Revenue Vehicles
Revenue Vehicles
Revenue Vehicles
Minutes
Minutes
Minutes
Unlinked Trips
Unlinked Trips
Unlinked Trips
Unlinked Trips
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
0
0
0
Year
$675,430,000
2002
0
0
0
0
0
19,300
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L.F. Guideway
61,248
$280,857,379
2002
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
L.F. Guideway
44,248
0
0
0
17,000
0
34,000
76,996
11,500
122,496
61,248
$117,305,809
$0
$0
$0
$117,748,272
$0
$7,117,340
$33,658,742
$5,027,216
$0
$0
2002
26
$36,647,066
2002
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
26
0
0
61,248
61,248
61,248
61,248
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$33,359,066
$0
$0
$3,288,000
$3,288,000
$0
$0
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
A-22
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix A

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

0.01 SYSTEMS
PROCUREMENT TYPE
3.00
3.01 SIGNAL SYSTEM
Crossing Protection
Substations
Catenary
Third Rail
3.03 COMMUNICATIONS
Elevators
Escalators
4.00 STATIONS
4.01
4.02
4.03
4.04
4.05
4.06
4.07
4.08
4.09
4.10

PARKING LOTS
PARKING GARAGES
SIGNAGE & GRAPHICS
5.00 VEHICLES
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06


6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
DEMOLITIONS
Buildings
Other Removals
Asbestos Abatement
Railroads
6.05
6.06
6.07
6.08
ROADWAY CHANGES
LANDSCAPING
7.00 RIGHT-OF-WAY
Property Management
Agency
Contractor
7.04 RELOCATION
7.05 OTHER

Units
of
Measure
Hiawatha Corridor
Minneapolis, MN
Total Cost
Select City:
Quantity
Year
L.F. Guideway
DB / DBB
Track
Feet
61,248
122,496
$675,430,000
$103,707,649
2002
2002
Track Feet
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Intersections
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Station
Each
Station
Rev. Vehicle
L.F. Guideway
Each
Each
Each
122,496
122,496
0
122,496
0
122,496
122,496
0
122,496
0
122,496
17
0
17
26
61,248
0
0
0
$29,923,930
$29,923,930
$0
$0
$0
$48,231,792
$20,518,177
$0
$27,713,614
$0
$21,973,927
$3,578,000
$0
$3,578,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2002
2002
Station
17
$46,050,906
2002
Station
Station
Station
Station
Station
Station
Spaces
Spaces
Each
Station
16
0
1
0
0
0
1,100
0
1
17
$20,761,794
$0
$18,677,389
$0
$0
$0
$3,632,140
$0
$979,584
$2,000,000
2002
Rev. Vehicle
26
$74,711,000
2002
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
26
0
0
0
26
26
26
26
$74,711,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2002
L.F. Guideway
61,248
$11,243,000
2002
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
61,248
61,248
61,248
61,248
61,248
61,248
61,248
61,248
61,248
61,248
61,248
61,248
$11,243,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2002
L.F. Guideway
61,248
$49,026,000
2002
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
61,248
61,248
61,248
61,248
61,248
61,248
61,248
61,248
$21,299,000
$27,727,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2002
2002
0
A-23
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix A

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

0.01 SOFT-COSTS
PROCUREMENT TYPE
8.00
8.01
8.02
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
FINAL DESIGN
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
PROJECT INITIATION
Insurance
Mobilization

Units
of
Measure
L.F. Guideway
DBTotal
/ DBB
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
A-24
Select City:
Quantity
61,248
$602,243,000
$602,243,000
$602,243,000
$602,243,000
$602,243,000
$602,243,000
$602,243,000
$602,243,000
$602,243,000
$602,243,000
$602,243,000
$602,243,000
$602,243,000
$602,243,000
$602,243,000
$602,243,000
Hiawatha Corridor
Minneapolis, MN
Total Cost
$675,430,000
$73,187,000
$0
$0
$17,297,000
$0
$42,935,000
$0
$6,115,000
$6,115,000
$0
$0
$3,100,000
$2,740,000
$0
$2,740,000
$1,000,000
Year
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix A

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

0.03 SERVICE
Track Miles
Stations
Vehicles in Service
Peak
Midday
Headway
Peak
Midday
Ridership
Weekday
Annual
0.04 STAFFING
Administrative
Operators
Maintenance
Vehicle
Non-Vehicle

1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.11
AT GRADE GUIDEWAY
BALLASTED TRACK
EMBEDDED TRACK
SPECIAL TRACKWORK
2.00 YARDS & SHOPS

2.01
2.02
2.03
2.04
2.05
2.06
2.07
2.08
2.09
2.10
2.11

Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork

Units
of
Measure

Portland, OR
Total Cost
Select City:
Quantity
L.F. Guideway
DB / DBB
PE/FD/CON/OPS
30,408
DBB
OPS
Route Miles
Track Miles
Each
Revenue Vehicles
Revenue Vehicles
Revenue Vehicles
Minutes
Minutes
Minutes
Unlinked Trips
Unlinked Trips
Unlinked Trips
Unlinked Trips
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
0
0
0
2002
2002
0
0
0
0
0
18,100
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L.F. Guideway
30,408
$119,609,651
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
L.F. Guideway
0
26,448
3,960
0
0
0
7,920
20,466
32,430
60,816
30,408
$0
$63,988,925
$25,483,760
$0
$0
$0
$3,586,691
$5,040,368
$16,917,687
$4,592,219
$0
24
$14,194,955
0
0
0
22
22
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
24
0
0
30,408
30,408
30,408
30,408
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$14,194,955
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
A-25
Year
$349,375,072
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix A

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

0.01 SYSTEMS
PROCUREMENT TYPE
3.00
3.01 SIGNAL SYSTEM
Crossing Protection
Substations
Catenary
Third Rail
3.03 COMMUNICATIONS
Elevators
Escalators
4.00 STATIONS
4.01
4.02
4.03
4.04
4.05
4.06
4.07
4.08
4.09
4.10

PARKING LOTS
PARKING GARAGES
SIGNAGE & GRAPHICS
5.00 VEHICLES
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06


6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
DEMOLITIONS
Buildings
Other Removals
Asbestos Abatement
Railroads
6.05
6.06
6.07
6.08
ROADWAY CHANGES
LANDSCAPING
7.00 RIGHT-OF-WAY
Property Management
Agency
Contractor
7.04 RELOCATION
7.05 OTHER

Units
of
Measure

Portland, OR
Total Cost
Select City:
Quantity
Year
L.F. Guideway
DB / DBB
Track
Feet
30,408
60,816
$349,375,072
$36,104,512
2002
2003
Track Feet
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Intersections
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Station
Each
Station
Rev. Vehicle
L.F. Guideway
Each
Each
Each
60,816
60,816
0
60,816
0
60,816
60,816
0
60,816
0
60,816
10
0
10
24
30,408
0
0
0
$11,472,500
$11,472,500
$0
$0
$0
$10,508,067
$0
$0
$0
$0
$12,664,285
$1,459,660
$0
$1,459,660
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2003
2003
Station
10
$11,408,179
2002
Station
Station
Station
Station
Station
Station
Spaces
Spaces
Each
Station
10
0
0
0
0
0
600
0
1
10
$8,227,892
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,756,287
$0
$1,424,000
$0
2002
Rev. Vehicle
24
$73,189,604
2002
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
0
17
7
0
24
24
24
24
$0
$48,988,283
$18,600,308
$0
$5,601,013
$0
$0
$0
L.F. Guideway
30,408
$19,493,599
2001
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
30,408
30,408
30,408
30,408
30,408
30,408
30,408
30,408
30,408
30,408
30,408
30,408
$7,947,805
$0
$0
$86,000
$0
$86,000
$0
$0
$0
$9,582,997
$1,876,797
$0
2001
L.F. Guideway
30,408
$6,473,336
2002
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
30,408
30,408
30,408
30,408
30,408
30,408
30,408
30,408
$2,262,018
$0
$334,700
$0
$0
$334,700
$315,000
$3,561,618
2002
A-26
2002
2003
2003
2003
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
0
2001
2001
2001
2001
2002
2002
2002
2002
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix A

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

0.01 SOFT-COSTS
PROCUREMENT TYPE
8.00
8.01
8.02
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
FINAL DESIGN
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
PROJECT INITIATION
Insurance
Mobilization

Units
of
Measure
L.F. Guideway
DBTotal
/ DBB
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
A-27
Select City:
Quantity
30,408
$280,473,836
$280,473,836
$280,473,836
$280,473,836
$280,473,836
$280,473,836
$280,473,836
$280,473,836
$280,473,836
$280,473,836
$280,473,836
$280,473,836
$280,473,836
$280,473,836
$280,473,836
$280,473,836

Portland, OR
Total Cost
$349,375,072
$68,901,236
$0
$0
$18,677,500
$17,046,868
$17,046,868
$0
$4,230,000
$4,230,000
$0
$0
$7,595,000
$4,305,000
$0
$0
$0
Year
2002
2002
2001
2002
2002
2001
2001
2003
2004
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix A

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

0.03 SERVICE
Track Miles
Stations
Vehicles in Service
Peak
Midday
Headway
Peak
Midday
Ridership
Weekday
Annual
0.04 STAFFING
Administrative
Operators
Maintenance
Vehicle
Non-Vehicle

1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.11
AT GRADE GUIDEWAY
BALLASTED TRACK
EMBEDDED TRACK
SPECIAL TRACKWORK
2.00 YARDS & SHOPS

2.01
2.02
2.03
2.04
2.05
2.06
2.07
2.08
2.09
2.10
2.11

Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork

Units
of
Measure

San Diego, CA
Select City:
Year
Quantity
Total Cost
L.F. Guideway
DB / DBB
PE/FD/CON/OPS
28,969
DBB
CON
Route Miles
Track Miles
Each
Revenue Vehicles
Revenue Vehicles
Revenue Vehicles
Minutes
Minutes
Minutes
Unlinked Trips
Unlinked Trips
Unlinked Trips
Unlinked Trips
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
0
0
0
$475,843,877
2003
2003
0
0
0
0
0
10,800
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L.F. Guideway
28,969
$144,602,103
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
L.F. Guideway
0
0
12,896
5,253
3,279
7,541
47,432
10,506
0
57,938
28,969
$0
$0
$37,158,222
$16,649,471
$37,958,146
$25,125,015
$9,243,536
$4,452,520
$0
$14,015,192
$0
$0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
28,969
28,969
28,969
28,969
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
A-28
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix A

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

0.01 SYSTEMS
PROCUREMENT TYPE
3.00
3.01 SIGNAL SYSTEM
Crossing Protection
Substations
Catenary
Third Rail
3.03 COMMUNICATIONS
Elevators
Escalators
4.00 STATIONS
4.01
4.02
4.03
4.04
4.05
4.06
4.07
4.08
4.09
4.10

PARKING LOTS
PARKING GARAGES
SIGNAGE & GRAPHICS
5.00 VEHICLES
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06


6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
DEMOLITIONS
Buildings
Other Removals
Asbestos Abatement
Railroads
6.05
6.06
6.07
6.08
ROADWAY CHANGES
LANDSCAPING
7.00 RIGHT-OF-WAY
Property Management
Agency
Contractor
7.04 RELOCATION
7.05 OTHER

Units
of
Measure

Select City:
San Diego, CA
Year
Quantity
Total Cost
L.F. Guideway
DB / DBB
Track
Feet
28,969
57,938
$475,843,877
$27,516,730
2003
2003
Track Feet
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Intersections
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Station
Each
Station
Rev. Vehicle
L.F. Guideway
Each
Each
Each
57,938
57,938
0
57,938
1
57,938
57,938
0
57,938
0
57,938
4
0
4
11
28,969
0
0
0
$14,250,531
$10,289,749
$0
$3,940,782
$20,000
$10,467,757
$4,388,423
$0
$6,079,334
$0
$1,698,442
$1,100,000
$0
$1,100,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2003
2003
Station
$60,253,996
Station
Station
Station
Station
Station
Station
Spaces
Spaces
Each
Station
0
0
0
1
0
3
370
0
0
4
$0
$0
$0
$46,868,372
$0
$13,385,624
$0
$0
$0
$0
Rev. Vehicle
11
$38,100,000
2003
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
11
0
0
0
11
11
11
11
$38,100,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2003
L.F. Guideway
28,969
$20,575,510
2003
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
28,969
28,969
28,969
28,969
28,969
28,969
28,969
28,969
28,969
28,969
28,969
28,969
$14,365,902
$0
$0
$1,747,137
$845,000
$902,137
$0
$0
$3,205,081
$1,257,390
$0
$0
2003
L.F. Guideway
28,969
$46,200,000
2003
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
28,969
28,969
28,969
28,969
28,969
28,969
28,969
28,969
$31,200,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$15,000,000
2003
A-29
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix A

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

0.01 SOFT-COSTS
PROCUREMENT TYPE
8.00
8.01
8.02
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
FINAL DESIGN
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
PROJECT INITIATION
Insurance
Mobilization

Units
of
Measure
L.F. Guideway
DBTotal
/ DBB
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
A-30

Select City:
San Diego, CA
Year
Quantity
Total Cost
28,969
$337,248,339
$337,248,339
$337,248,339
$337,248,339
$337,248,339
$337,248,339
$337,248,339
$337,248,339
$337,248,339
$337,248,339
$337,248,339
$337,248,339
$337,248,339
$337,248,339
$337,248,339
$337,248,339
$475,843,877
$138,595,538
$0
$7,000,000
$40,150,350
$44,062,447
$18,800,000
$0
$26,158,831
$0
$22,546,954
$3,611,877
$0
$2,423,910
$0
$0
$0
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix A

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

0.03 SERVICE
Track Miles
Stations
Vehicles in Service
Peak
Midday
Headway
Peak
Midday
Ridership
Weekday
Annual
0.04 STAFFING
Administrative
Operators
Maintenance
Vehicle
Non-Vehicle

1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.11
AT GRADE GUIDEWAY
BALLASTED TRACK
EMBEDDED TRACK
SPECIAL TRACKWORK
2.00 YARDS & SHOPS

2.01
2.02
2.03
2.04
2.05
2.06
2.07
2.08
2.09
2.10
2.11

Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork

Units
of
Measure

St. Louis, MO
Select City:
Year
Quantity
Total Cost
L.F. Guideway
DB / DBB
PE/FD/CON/OPS
91,872
DBB
OPS
Route Miles
Track Miles
Each
Revenue Vehicles
Revenue Vehicles
Revenue Vehicles
Minutes
Minutes
Minutes
Unlinked Trips
Unlinked Trips
Unlinked Trips
Unlinked Trips
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
0
0
0
$329,494,296
1999
0
0
0
0
0
15,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L.F. Guideway
91,872
$106,693,929
1999
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
L.F. Guideway
91,872
0
0
0
0
0
0
183,744
0
183,744
91,872
$81,994,541
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$24,699,388
$0
$0
$0
1999
24
$13,203,257
1999
0
0
0
24
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
24
0
0
91,872
91,872
91,872
91,872
$0
$0
$0
$737,604
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$12,465,653
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
A-31
1999
1999
1999
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix A

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

0.01 SYSTEMS
PROCUREMENT TYPE
3.00
3.01 SIGNAL SYSTEM
Crossing Protection
Substations
Catenary
Third Rail
3.03 COMMUNICATIONS
Elevators
Escalators
4.00 STATIONS
4.01
4.02
4.03
4.04
4.05
4.06
4.07
4.08
4.09
4.10

PARKING LOTS
PARKING GARAGES
SIGNAGE & GRAPHICS
5.00 VEHICLES
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06


6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
DEMOLITIONS
Buildings
Other Removals
Asbestos Abatement
Railroads
6.05
6.06
6.07
6.08
ROADWAY CHANGES
LANDSCAPING
7.00 RIGHT-OF-WAY
Property Management
Agency
Contractor
7.04 RELOCATION
7.05 OTHER

Units
of
Measure

Select City:
St. Louis, MO
Year
Quantity
Total Cost
L.F. Guideway
DB / DBB
Track
Feet
91,872
183,744
$329,494,296
$44,559,729
1999
1999
Track Feet
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Intersections
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Station
Each
Station
Rev. Vehicle
L.F. Guideway
Each
Each
Each
183,744
183,744
0
183,744
0
183,744
183,744
0
183,744
0
183,744
8
0
8
24
91,872
0
0
0
$16,787,026
$16,787,026
$0
$0
$0
$16,250,944
$0
$0
$0
$0
$9,577,756
$1,944,003
$0
$1,944,003
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
1999
1999
Station
$10,077,816
1999
Station
Station
Station
Station
Station
Station
Spaces
Spaces
Each
Station
8
0
0
0
0
0
4,000
0
0
8
$10,077,816
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
1999
Rev. Vehicle
24
$60,617,537
1999
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
24
0
0
0
24
24
24
24
$60,617,537
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
1999
L.F. Guideway
91,872
$7,572,009
1999
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
91,872
91,872
91,872
91,872
91,872
91,872
91,872
91,872
91,872
91,872
91,872
91,872
$4,493,656
$0
$0
$881,457
$881,457
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,196,897
$0
$0
1999
L.F. Guideway
91,872
$21,349,279
1999
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
91,872
91,872
91,872
91,872
91,872
91,872
91,872
91,872
$16,704,282
$946,498
$1,472,649
$0
$0
$1,472,649
$2,225,850
$0
1999
1999
1999
A-32
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix A

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

0.01 SOFT-COSTS
PROCUREMENT TYPE
8.00
8.01
8.02
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
FINAL DESIGN
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
PROJECT INITIATION
Insurance
Mobilization

Units
of
Measure
L.F. Guideway
DBTotal
/ DBB
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
A-33

Select City:
St. Louis, MO
Year
Quantity
Total Cost
91,872
$264,073,556
$264,073,556
$264,073,556
$264,073,556
$264,073,556
$264,073,556
$264,073,556
$264,073,556
$264,073,556
$264,073,556
$264,073,556
$264,073,556
$264,073,556
$264,073,556
$264,073,556
$264,073,556
$329,494,296
$65,420,740
$0
$0
$23,519,814
$18,758,352
$12,009,715
$2,510,092
$4,403,053
$4,403,053
$0
$0
$0
$4,019,714
$0
$0
$200,000
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix A

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

0.03 SERVICE
Track Miles
Stations
Vehicles in Service
Peak
Midday
Headway
Peak
Midday
Ridership
Weekday
Annual
0.04 STAFFING
Administrative
Operators
Maintenance
Vehicle
Non-Vehicle

1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.11
AT GRADE GUIDEWAY
BALLASTED TRACK
EMBEDDED TRACK
SPECIAL TRACKWORK
2.00 YARDS & SHOPS

2.01
2.02
2.03
2.04
2.05
2.06
2.07
2.08
2.09
2.10
2.11

Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork

Units
of
Measure

Salt Lake City, UT
Select City:
Year
Quantity
Total Cost
L.F. Guideway
DB / DBB
PE/FD/CON/OPS
79,200
DBB
OPS
Route Miles
Track Miles
Each
Revenue Vehicles
Revenue Vehicles
Revenue Vehicles
Minutes
Minutes
Minutes
Unlinked Trips
Unlinked Trips
Unlinked Trips
Unlinked Trips
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
0
0
0
$311,800,187
1998
0
0
0
0
0
23,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L.F. Guideway
79,200
$43,199,327
1998
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
L.F. Guideway
65,208
13,992
0
0
0
0
0
130,416
27,984
158,400
79,200
$27,280,231
$5,624,696
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$8,287,215
$2,007,185
$0
$0
1998
1998
23
$22,118,327
1998
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
23
0
0
79,200
79,200
79,200
79,200
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$22,118,327
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
A-34
1998
1998
1998
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix A

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

0.01 SYSTEMS
PROCUREMENT TYPE
3.00
3.01 SIGNAL SYSTEM
Crossing Protection
Substations
Catenary
Third Rail
3.03 COMMUNICATIONS
Elevators
Escalators
4.00 STATIONS
4.01
4.02
4.03
4.04
4.05
4.06
4.07
4.08
4.09
4.10

PARKING LOTS
PARKING GARAGES
SIGNAGE & GRAPHICS
5.00 VEHICLES
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06


6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
DEMOLITIONS
Buildings
Other Removals
Asbestos Abatement
Railroads
6.05
6.06
6.07
6.08
ROADWAY CHANGES
LANDSCAPING
7.00 RIGHT-OF-WAY
Property Management
Agency
Contractor
7.04 RELOCATION
7.05 OTHER

Units
of
Measure

Select City:
Salt Lake City, UT
Year
Quantity
Total Cost
L.F. Guideway
DB / DBB
Track
Feet
79,200
158,400
$311,800,187
$65,772,667
1998
1998
Track Feet
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Intersections
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Station
Each
Station
Rev. Vehicle
L.F. Guideway
Each
Each
Each
158,400
158,400
0
158,400
0
158,400
158,400
0
158,400
0
158,400
16
0
16
23
79,200
0
0
0
$22,637,947
$0
$0
$0
$0
$36,710,486
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,682,935
$4,741,299
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
1998
Station
16
$13,045,531
1998
Station
Station
Station
Station
Station
Station
Spaces
Spaces
Each
Station
16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
$13,045,531
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
1998
Rev. Vehicle
23
$68,712,893
1998
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
23
0
0
0
23
23
23
23
$68,712,893
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
1998
L.F. Guideway
79,200
$8,598,856
1998
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
79,200
79,200
79,200
79,200
79,200
79,200
79,200
79,200
79,200
79,200
79,200
79,200
$8,598,856
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
1998
L.F. Guideway
79,200
$42,497,770
1998
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
79,200
79,200
79,200
79,200
79,200
79,200
79,200
79,200
$42,497,770
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
1998
A-35
1998
1998
1998
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix A

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

0.01 SOFT-COSTS
PROCUREMENT TYPE
8.00
8.01
8.02
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
FINAL DESIGN
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
PROJECT INITIATION
Insurance
Mobilization

Units
of
Measure
L.F. Guideway
DBTotal
/ DBB
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
A-36

Select City:
Salt Lake City, UT
Year
Quantity
Total Cost
79,200
$263,945,371
$263,945,371
$263,945,371
$263,945,371
$263,945,371
$263,945,371
$263,945,371
$263,945,371
$263,945,371
$263,945,371
$263,945,371
$263,945,371
$263,945,371
$263,945,371
$263,945,371
$263,945,371
$311,800,187
$47,854,816
$0
$0
$0
$0
$22,857,356
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$24,997,460
$0
$0
$0
$0
1998
1998
1998
0
1998
0
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix A

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

0.03 SERVICE
Track Miles
Stations
Vehicles in Service
Peak
Midday
Headway
Peak
Midday
Ridership
Weekday
Annual
0.04 STAFFING
Administrative
Operators
Maintenance
Vehicle
Non-Vehicle

1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.11
AT GRADE GUIDEWAY
BALLASTED TRACK
EMBEDDED TRACK
SPECIAL TRACKWORK
2.00 YARDS & SHOPS

2.01
2.02
2.03
2.04
2.05
2.06
2.07
2.08
2.09
2.10
2.11

Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork

Units
of
Measure

Trenton, NJ
Select City:
Year
Quantity
Total Cost
L.F. Guideway
DB / DBB
PE/FD/CON/OPS
139,958
DB
CON
Route Miles
Track Miles
Each
Revenue Vehicles
Revenue Vehicles
Revenue Vehicles
Minutes
Minutes
Minutes
Unlinked Trips
Unlinked Trips
Unlinked Trips
Unlinked Trips
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
0
0
0
$1,007,045,859
2002
0
0
0
0
0
16,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L.F. Guideway
139,958
$218,795,747
2002
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
L.F. Guideway
139,958
0
0
0
0
0
0
279,915
15,840
295,755
139,958
$112,332,723
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$32,171,006
$2,294,824
$0
$71,997,194
2002
20
$45,330,570
2002
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
0
0
139,958
139,958
139,958
139,958
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$45,330,570
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
A-37
2002
2002
2002
2002
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix A

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

0.01 SYSTEMS
PROCUREMENT TYPE
3.00
3.01 SIGNAL SYSTEM
Crossing Protection
Substations
Catenary
Third Rail
3.03 COMMUNICATIONS
Elevators
Escalators
4.00 STATIONS
4.01
4.02
4.03
4.04
4.05
4.06
4.07
4.08
4.09
4.10

PARKING LOTS
PARKING GARAGES
SIGNAGE & GRAPHICS
5.00 VEHICLES
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06


6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
DEMOLITIONS
Buildings
Other Removals
Asbestos Abatement
Railroads
6.05
6.06
6.07
6.08
ROADWAY CHANGES
LANDSCAPING
7.00 RIGHT-OF-WAY
Property Management
Agency
Contractor
7.04 RELOCATION
7.05 OTHER

Units
of
Measure

Select City:
Trenton, NJ
Year
Quantity
Total Cost
L.F. Guideway
DB / DBB
Track
Feet
139,958
295,755
$1,007,045,859
$57,555,962
2002
2002
Track Feet
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Intersections
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Station
Each
Station
Rev. Vehicle
L.F. Guideway
Each
Each
Each
295,755
295,755
0
295,755
0
295,755
295,755
0
295,755
0
295,755
20
0
20
20
139,958
0
0
0
$37,135,590
$27,367,333
$0
$0
$9,768,257
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$7,326,374
$4,636,300
$0
$4,636,300
$0
$8,457,698
$0
$0
$0
2002
2002
Station
20
$48,743,551
2002
Station
Station
Station
Station
Station
Station
Spaces
Spaces
Each
Station
1
19
0
0
0
0
3,620
0
0
20
$1,600,475
$29,007,121
$0
$0
$0
$0
$17,830,955
$0
$305,000
$0
2002
2002
Rev. Vehicle
20
$73,943,650
2002
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
20
0
0
0
20
20
20
20
$73,943,650
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2002
L.F. Guideway
139,958
$49,960,495
2002
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
139,958
139,958
139,958
139,958
139,958
139,958
139,958
139,958
139,958
139,958
139,958
139,958
$18,300,000
$10,200,000
$4,200,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$10,763,876
$2,673,470
$3,823,149
$0
2002
2002
2002
0
L.F. Guideway
139,958
$84,302,000
2002
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
139,958
139,958
139,958
139,958
139,958
139,958
139,958
139,958
$84,302,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2002
A-38
2002
0
2002
2002
2002
2002
0
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix A

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

0.01 SOFT-COSTS
PROCUREMENT TYPE
8.00
8.01
8.02
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
FINAL DESIGN
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
PROJECT INITIATION
Insurance
Mobilization

Units
of
Measure
L.F. Guideway
DBTotal
/ DBB
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
A-39

Select City:
Trenton, NJ
Year
Quantity
Total Cost
139,958
$578,631,974
$578,631,974
$578,631,974
$578,631,974
$578,631,974
$578,631,974
$578,631,974
$578,631,974
$578,631,974
$578,631,974
$578,631,974
$578,631,974
$578,631,974
$578,631,974
$578,631,974
$578,631,974
$1,007,045,859
$428,413,885
2002
2002
$13,047,850
$19,566,160
$35,700,000
$44,474,480
$28,200,395
$0
$8,925,000
$8,925,000
$0
$0
$268,000,000
$1,800,000
$0
$0
$8,700,000
1999
1999
2000
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix A

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

0.03 SERVICE
Track Miles
Stations
Vehicles in Service
Peak
Midday
Headway
Peak
Midday
Ridership
Weekday
Annual
0.04 STAFFING
Administrative
Operators
Maintenance
Vehicle
Non-Vehicle

1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.11
AT GRADE GUIDEWAY
BALLASTED TRACK
EMBEDDED TRACK
SPECIAL TRACKWORK
2.00 YARDS & SHOPS

2.01
2.02
2.03
2.04
2.05
2.06
2.07
2.08
2.09
2.10
2.11

Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork

Units
of
Measure

Portland, OR
Select City:
Year
Quantity
Total Cost
L.F. Guideway
DB / DBB
PE/FD/CON/OPS
92,126
DBB
OPS
Route Miles
Track Miles
Each
Revenue Vehicles
Revenue Vehicles
Revenue Vehicles
Minutes
Minutes
Minutes
Unlinked Trips
Unlinked Trips
Unlinked Trips
Unlinked Trips
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
0
0
0
$963,267,843
1996
0
0
0
0
0
27,100
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L.F. Guideway
92,126
$357,388,524
1996
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
L.F. Guideway
65,154
9,653
1,869
0
15,450
0
6,778
127,208
19,306
153,292
92,126
$75,416,973
$32,942,979
$13,741,812
$0
$166,887,812
$0
$12,907,577
$22,165,549
$11,755,771
$21,570,051
$0
1996
1996
1996
36
$19,540,459
1996
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
36
0
0
92,126
92,126
92,126
92,126
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$19,540,459
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
A-40
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix A

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

0.01 SYSTEMS
PROCUREMENT TYPE
3.00
3.01 SIGNAL SYSTEM
Crossing Protection
Substations
Catenary
Third Rail
3.03 COMMUNICATIONS
Elevators
Escalators
4.00 STATIONS
4.01
4.02
4.03
4.04
4.05
4.06
4.07
4.08
4.09
4.10

PARKING LOTS
PARKING GARAGES
SIGNAGE & GRAPHICS
5.00 VEHICLES
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06


6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
DEMOLITIONS
Buildings
Other Removals
Asbestos Abatement
Railroads
6.05
6.06
6.07
6.08
ROADWAY CHANGES
LANDSCAPING
7.00 RIGHT-OF-WAY
Property Management
Agency
Contractor
7.04 RELOCATION
7.05 OTHER

Units
of
Measure

Select City:
Portland, OR
Year
Quantity
Total Cost
L.F. Guideway
DB / DBB
Track
Feet
92,126
153,292
$963,267,843
$71,555,861
1996
1996
Track Feet
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Intersections
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Station
Each
Station
Rev. Vehicle
L.F. Guideway
Each
Each
Each
153,292
153,292
0
153,292
0
153,292
153,292
0
153,292
0
153,292
20
0
20
36
92,126
0
0
0
$25,603,599
$25,603,599
$0
$0
$0
$26,143,705
$0
$0
$0
$0
$14,753,114
$5,055,443
$0
$5,055,443
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
1996
1996
Station
20
$100,259,433
1996
Station
Station
Station
Station
Station
Station
Spaces
Spaces
Each
Station
19
0
1
0
0
0
2,733
880
0
20
$34,165,962
$0
$44,841,563
$0
$0
$0
$7,481,332
$13,770,576
$0
$0
1996
Rev. Vehicle
36
$108,280,886
1996
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
36
0
0
0
36
36
36
36
$108,280,886
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
1996
L.F. Guideway
92,126
$27,762,340
1996
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
92,126
92,126
92,126
92,126
92,126
92,126
92,126
92,126
92,126
92,126
92,126
92,126
$10,291,816
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$17,470,524
$0
$0
1996
L.F. Guideway
92,126
$64,199,462
1996
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
92,126
92,126
92,126
92,126
92,126
92,126
92,126
92,126
$64,199,462
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
1996
A-41
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix A

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

0.01 SOFT-COSTS
PROCUREMENT TYPE
8.00
8.01
8.02
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
FINAL DESIGN
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
PROJECT INITIATION
Insurance
Mobilization

Units
of
Measure
L.F. Guideway
DBTotal
/ DBB
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
A-42

Select City:
Portland, OR
Year
Quantity
Total Cost
92,126
$748,986,965
$748,986,965
$748,986,965
$748,986,965
$748,986,965
$748,986,965
$748,986,965
$748,986,965
$748,986,965
$748,986,965
$748,986,965
$748,986,965
$748,986,965
$748,986,965
$748,986,965
$748,986,965
$963,267,843
$214,280,878
$0
$0
$95,138,864
$0
$93,897,518
$0
$15,438,722
$15,438,722
$0
$0
$1,397,973
$8,407,801
$0
$0
$0
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix A

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

0.03 SERVICE
Track Miles
Stations
Vehicles in Service
Peak
Midday
Headway
Peak
Midday
Ridership
Weekday
Annual
0.04 STAFFING
Administrative
Operators
Maintenance
Vehicle
Non-Vehicle

1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.11
AT GRADE GUIDEWAY
BALLASTED TRACK
EMBEDDED TRACK
SPECIAL TRACKWORK
2.00 YARDS & SHOPS

2.01
2.02
2.03
2.04
2.05
2.06
2.07
2.08
2.09
2.10
2.11

Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork

Units
of
Measure

Sacramento, CA
Select City:
Year
Quantity
Total Cost
L.F. Guideway
DB / DBB
PE/FD/CON/OPS
33,264
DBB
OPS
Route Miles
Track Miles
Each
Revenue Vehicles
Revenue Vehicles
Revenue Vehicles
Minutes
Minutes
Minutes
Unlinked Trips
Unlinked Trips
Unlinked Trips
Unlinked Trips
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
6
13
7
$230,650,644
2002
16
16
15
15
0
15,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L.F. Guideway
33,264
$45,383,025
2002
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
L.F. Guideway
32,614
0
650
0
0
0
1,300
65,228
0
66,528
33,264
$30,007,683
$0
$4,771,138
$0
$0
$0
$675,367
$9,115,763
$0
$813,074
$0
2002
$0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
33,264
33,264
33,264
33,264
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
A-43
2002
2002
2002
2002
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix A

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

0.01 SYSTEMS
PROCUREMENT TYPE
3.00
3.01 SIGNAL SYSTEM
Crossing Protection
Substations
Catenary
Third Rail
3.03 COMMUNICATIONS
Elevators
Escalators
4.00 STATIONS
4.01
4.02
4.03
4.04
4.05
4.06
4.07
4.08
4.09
4.10

PARKING LOTS
PARKING GARAGES
SIGNAGE & GRAPHICS
5.00 VEHICLES
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06


6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
DEMOLITIONS
Buildings
Other Removals
Asbestos Abatement
Railroads
6.05
6.06
6.07
6.08
ROADWAY CHANGES
LANDSCAPING
7.00 RIGHT-OF-WAY
Property Management
Agency
Contractor
7.04 RELOCATION
7.05 OTHER

Units
of
Measure

Select City:
Sacramento, CA
Year
Quantity
Total Cost
L.F. Guideway
DB / DBB
Track
Feet
33,264
66,528
$230,650,644
$28,230,274
2002
2002
Track Feet
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Intersections
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Station
Each
Station
Rev. Vehicle
L.F. Guideway
Each
Each
Each
66,528
66,528
0
66,528
0
66,528
66,528
0
66,528
0
66,528
6
0
6
24
33,264
0
0
0
$16,518,394
$14,534,876
$0
$0
$1,983,518
$10,812,037
$6,188,197
$1,615,040
$3,008,800
$0
$0
$899,843
$0
$899,843
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2002
2002
Station
$22,454,518
2002
Station
Station
Station
Station
Station
Station
Spaces
Spaces
Each
Station
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
$22,454,518
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2002
Rev. Vehicle
24
$60,908,467
2002
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
24
0
0
0
24
24
24
24
$60,908,467
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2002
L.F. Guideway
33,264
$7,878,469
2002
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
33,264
33,264
33,264
33,264
33,264
33,264
33,264
33,264
33,264
33,264
33,264
33,264
$7,586,004
$0
$0
$292,465
$292,465
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2002
L.F. Guideway
33,264
$28,596,906
2002
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
33,264
33,264
33,264
33,264
33,264
33,264
33,264
33,264
$28,325,447
$0
$271,459
$0
$271,459
$0
$0
$0
2002
A-44
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2003
2003
2002
2002
2002
2002
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix A

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

0.01 SOFT-COSTS
PROCUREMENT TYPE
8.00
8.01
8.02
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
FINAL DESIGN
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
PROJECT INITIATION
Insurance
Mobilization

Units
of
Measure
L.F. Guideway
DBTotal
/ DBB
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
A-45

Select City:
Sacramento, CA
Year
Quantity
Total Cost
33,264
$193,451,659
$193,451,659
$193,451,659
$193,451,659
$193,451,659
$193,451,659
$193,451,659
$193,451,659
$193,451,659
$193,451,659
$193,451,659
$193,451,659
$193,451,659
$193,451,659
$193,451,659
$193,451,659
$230,650,644
$37,198,985
$0
$0
$15,134,754
$7,757,783
$12,887,194
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$576,960
$0
$0
$842,294
2002
2002
2001
2002
2002
0
2002
2002
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix A

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

0.03 SERVICE
Track Miles
Stations
Vehicles in Service
Peak
Midday
Headway
Peak
Midday
Ridership
Weekday
Annual
0.04 STAFFING
Administrative
Operators
Maintenance
Vehicle
Non-Vehicle

1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.11
AT GRADE GUIDEWAY
BALLASTED TRACK
EMBEDDED TRACK
SPECIAL TRACKWORK
2.00 YARDS & SHOPS

2.01
2.02
2.03
2.04
2.05
2.06
2.07
2.08
2.09
2.10
2.11

Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork

Units
of
Measure

Sacramento, CA
Select City:
Year
Quantity
Total Cost
L.F. Guideway
DB / DBB
PE/FD/CON/OPS
68,070
DBB
OPS
Route Miles
Track Miles
Each
Revenue Vehicles
Revenue Vehicles
Revenue Vehicles
Minutes
Minutes
Minutes
Unlinked Trips
Unlinked Trips
Unlinked Trips
Unlinked Trips
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
11
18
10
$230,560,000
2002
12
12
15
30
0
15,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L.F. Guideway
68,070
$60,103,859
2002
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
L.F. Guideway
59,928
7,392
750
0
0
0
1,500
78,978
14,784
95,262
68,070
$37,088,543
$4,269,713
$2,973,366
$0
$0
$0
$420,887
$11,266,793
$1,523,656
$2,560,901
$0
2002
2002
2002
$0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
68,070
68,070
68,070
68,070
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
A-46
2002
2002
2002
2002
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix A

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

0.01 SYSTEMS
PROCUREMENT TYPE
3.00
3.01 SIGNAL SYSTEM
Crossing Protection
Substations
Catenary
Third Rail
3.03 COMMUNICATIONS
Elevators
Escalators
4.00 STATIONS
4.01
4.02
4.03
4.04
4.05
4.06
4.07
4.08
4.09
4.10

PARKING LOTS
PARKING GARAGES
SIGNAGE & GRAPHICS
5.00 VEHICLES
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06


6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
DEMOLITIONS
Buildings
Other Removals
Asbestos Abatement
Railroads
6.05
6.06
6.07
6.08
ROADWAY CHANGES
LANDSCAPING
7.00 RIGHT-OF-WAY
Property Management
Agency
Contractor
7.04 RELOCATION
7.05 OTHER

Units
of
Measure

Select City:
Sacramento, CA
Year
Quantity
Total Cost
L.F. Guideway
DB / DBB
Track
Feet
68,070
95,262
$230,560,000
$56,594,643
2002
2002
Track Feet
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Intersections
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Station
Each
Station
Rev. Vehicle
L.F. Guideway
Each
Each
Each
95,262
95,262
0
95,262
0
95,262
95,262
0
95,262
0
95,262
10
0
10
14
68,070
0
0
0
$24,897,129
$24,659,129
$238,000
$0
$0
$29,521,129
$5,322,000
$0
$24,199,129
$0
$924,825
$1,251,560
$0
$1,251,560
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2002
2002
2002
Station
10
$18,652,818
2002
Station
Station
Station
Station
Station
Station
Spaces
Spaces
Each
Station
4
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
$9,154,189
$8,654,189
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$844,440
2002
2002
Rev. Vehicle
14
$35,687,292
2002
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
0
14
0
0
14
14
14
14
$0
$35,687,292
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
L.F. Guideway
68,070
$11,159,388
2002
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
68,070
68,070
68,070
68,070
68,070
68,070
68,070
68,070
68,070
68,070
68,070
68,070
$7,496,000
$0
$0
$34,060
$34,060
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3,379,328
$0
$250,000
2002
L.F. Guideway
68,070
$5,311,529
2002
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
68,070
68,070
68,070
68,070
68,070
68,070
68,070
68,070
$3,715,677
$0
$1,040,852
$0
$236,274
$804,578
$555,000
$0
2002
A-47
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2003
2003
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix A

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

0.01 SOFT-COSTS
PROCUREMENT TYPE
8.00
8.01
8.02
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
FINAL DESIGN
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
PROJECT INITIATION
Insurance
Mobilization

Units
of
Measure
L.F. Guideway
DBTotal
/ DBB
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
A-48

Select City:
Sacramento, CA
Year
Quantity
Total Cost
68,070
$187,509,529
$187,509,529
$187,509,529
$187,509,529
$187,509,529
$187,509,529
$187,509,529
$187,509,529
$187,509,529
$187,509,529
$187,509,529
$187,509,529
$187,509,529
$187,509,529
$187,509,529
$187,509,529
$230,560,000
$43,050,471
$0
$1,513,672
$14,085,877
$10,385,042
$10,930,435
$0
$779,564
$0
$779,564
$0
$0
$4,167,636
$0
$0
$1,188,245
2002
2002
2000
2001
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix A

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

0.03 SERVICE
Track Miles
Stations
Vehicles in Service
Peak
Midday
Headway
Peak
Midday
Ridership
Weekday
Annual
0.04 STAFFING
Administrative
Operators
Maintenance
Vehicle
Non-Vehicle

1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.11
AT GRADE GUIDEWAY
BALLASTED TRACK
EMBEDDED TRACK
SPECIAL TRACKWORK
2.00 YARDS & SHOPS

2.01
2.02
2.03
2.04
2.05
2.06
2.07
2.08
2.09
2.10
2.11

Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork

Units
of
Measure
Select City:
Quantity
Pasadena Gold Line

Pasadena, CA
Year
Total Cost
L.F. Guideway
DB / DBB
PE/FD/CON/OPS
73,730
DB
CON
Route Miles
Track Miles
Each
Revenue Vehicles
Revenue Vehicles
Revenue Vehicles
Minutes
Minutes
Minutes
Unlinked Trips
Unlinked Trips
Unlinked Trips
Unlinked Trips
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
14
28
13
25
20
12
$403,618,310
2002
8
10
1,859
68,000
31,500
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L.F. Guideway
73,730
$89,154,842
2002
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
L.F. Guideway
49,098
3,557
7,070
3,895
2,222
7,888
18,527
121,526
7,113
147,166
73,730
$5,506,595
$11,945
$4,146,563
$893,810
$21,769,499
$10,568,640
$4,388,945
$14,257,475
$5,568,225
$83,147
$21,960,000
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
25
$16,647,970
2002
25
0
0
25
25
5,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
73,730
73,730
73,730
73,730
$14,316,600
$0
$0
$2,083,160
$0
$2,083,160
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$248,210
2002
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
A-49
2002
2002
0
2002
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix A

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

0.01 SYSTEMS
PROCUREMENT TYPE
3.00
3.01 SIGNAL SYSTEM
Crossing Protection
Substations
Catenary
Third Rail
3.03 COMMUNICATIONS
Elevators
Escalators
4.00 STATIONS
4.01
4.02
4.03
4.04
4.05
4.06
4.07
4.08
4.09
4.10

PARKING LOTS
PARKING GARAGES
SIGNAGE & GRAPHICS
5.00 VEHICLES
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06


6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
DEMOLITIONS
Buildings
Other Removals
Asbestos Abatement
Railroads
6.05
6.06
6.07
6.08
ROADWAY CHANGES
LANDSCAPING
7.00 RIGHT-OF-WAY
Property Management
Agency
Contractor
7.04 RELOCATION
7.05 OTHER

Units
of
Measure
Select City:
Quantity
Pasadena Gold Line

Pasadena, CA
Year
Total Cost
L.F. Guideway
DB / DBB
Track
Feet
73,730
147,166
$403,618,310
$55,815,978
2002
2002
Track Feet
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Intersections
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Station
Each
Station
Rev. Vehicle
L.F. Guideway
Each
Each
Each
147,166
147,166
0
147,166
26
147,166
147,166
0
147,166
0
147,166
13
0
13
25
73,730
15
13
2
$18,213,777
$16,471,644
$0
$0
$1,742,133
$22,969,661
$9,821,863
$297,495
$12,850,303
$0
$6,495,337
$3,863,068
$0
$0
$0
$0
$4,274,135
$4,072,010
$202,125
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
Station
13
$51,941,011
2002
Station
Station
Station
Station
Station
Station
Spaces
Spaces
Each
Station
7
3
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
13
$18,222,152
$5,665,886
$0
$7,525,701
$3,005,440
$3,284,013
$481,198
$10,415,000
$1,337,913
$2,003,707
2002
2002
Rev. Vehicle
25
$528,933
2002
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
0
0
0
0
25
25
25
25
$0
$0
$0
$0
$13,270
$515,663
$515,663
$0
L.F. Guideway
73,730
$68,108,837
2002
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
73,730
73,730
73,730
73,730
73,730
73,730
73,730
73,730
73,730
73,730
73,730
73,730
$13,038,627
$41,287
$6,257,077
$1,316,348
$881,572
$59,094
$87,569
$288,113
$11,662,797
$14,606,239
$3,940,462
$17,246,000
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
L.F. Guideway
73,730
$10,101,841
2002
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
73,730
73,730
73,730
73,730
73,730
73,730
73,730
73,730
$2,672,000
$0
$4,026,466
$1,000,000
$3,026,466
$0
$20,000
$3,383,375
2002
A-50
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix A

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

0.01 SOFT-COSTS
PROCUREMENT TYPE
8.00
8.01
8.02
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
FINAL DESIGN
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
PROJECT INITIATION
Insurance
Mobilization

Units
of
Measure
L.F. Guideway
DBTotal
/ DBB
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
A-51
Select City:
Quantity
Pasadena Gold Line

Pasadena, CA
Year
Total Cost
73,730
$292,299,412
$292,299,412
$292,299,412
$292,299,412
$292,299,412
$292,299,412
$292,299,412
$292,299,412
$292,299,412
$292,299,412
$292,299,412
$292,299,412
$292,299,412
$292,299,412
$292,299,412
$292,299,412
$403,618,310
$111,318,897
$0
$13,481,788
$24,009,723
$546,058
$21,430,000
$2,200,000
$18,872,000
$8,472,000
$10,400,000
$0
$0
$6,287,560
$6,287,560
$0
$24,491,768
2002
2001
2000
2001
2002
2002
2002
2001
2002
2000
2003
2003
2002
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix A

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

0.03 SERVICE
Track Miles
Stations
Vehicles in Service
Peak
Midday
Headway
Peak
Midday
Ridership
Weekday
Annual
0.04 STAFFING
Administrative
Operators
Maintenance
Vehicle
Non-Vehicle

1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.11
AT GRADE GUIDEWAY
BALLASTED TRACK
EMBEDDED TRACK
SPECIAL TRACKWORK
2.00 YARDS & SHOPS

2.01
2.02
2.03
2.04
2.05
2.06
2.07
2.08
2.09
2.10
2.11

Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork

Units
of
Measure

Denver, CO
Select City:
Year
Quantity
Total Cost
L.F. Guideway
DB / DBB
PE/FD/CON/OPS
44,687
DB
OPS
Route Miles
Track Miles
Each
Revenue Vehicles
Revenue Vehicles
Revenue Vehicles
Minutes
Minutes
Minutes
Unlinked Trips
Unlinked Trips
Unlinked Trips
Unlinked Trips
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
0
0
0
$177,100,000
1999
0
0
0
0
0
22,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L.F. Guideway
44,687
$40,300,000
1999
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
L.F. Guideway
37,149
0
858
5,094
0
1,586
1,456
91,090
0
92,546
44,687
$20,842,628
$0
$1,469,462
$4,216,906
$0
$4,126,913
$327,331
$8,716,761
$0
$600,000
$0
1999
18
$400,000
0
0
0
18
18
1,600
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
44,687
44,687
44,687
44,687
$0
$0
$0
$400,000
$0
$400,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
A-52
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
0
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix A

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

0.01 SYSTEMS
PROCUREMENT TYPE
3.00
3.01 SIGNAL SYSTEM
Crossing Protection
Substations
Catenary
Third Rail
3.03 COMMUNICATIONS
Elevators
Escalators
4.00 STATIONS
4.01
4.02
4.03
4.04
4.05
4.06
4.07
4.08
4.09
4.10

PARKING LOTS
PARKING GARAGES
SIGNAGE & GRAPHICS
5.00 VEHICLES
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06


6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
DEMOLITIONS
Buildings
Other Removals
Asbestos Abatement
Railroads
6.05
6.06
6.07
6.08
ROADWAY CHANGES
LANDSCAPING
7.00 RIGHT-OF-WAY
Property Management
Agency
Contractor
7.04 RELOCATION
7.05 OTHER

Units
of
Measure

Select City:
Denver, CO
Year
Quantity
Total Cost
L.F. Guideway
DB / DBB
Track
Feet
44,687
92,546
$177,100,000
$11,600,000
1999
1999
Track Feet
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Intersections
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Station
Each
Station
Rev. Vehicle
L.F. Guideway
Each
Each
Each
92,546
92,546
0
92,546
0
92,546
92,546
0
92,546
0
92,546
5
0
5
18
44,687
0
0
0
$3,700,000
$3,700,000
$0
$0
$0
$7,100,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$800,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
1999
1999
Station
$19,000,000
1999
Station
Station
Station
Station
Station
Station
Spaces
Spaces
Each
Station
3
2
0
0
0
0
2,335
262
1
5
$11,400,000
$7,600,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
1999
1999
Rev. Vehicle
18
$32,700,000
1999
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
16
2
0
0
18
18
18
18
$29,066,667
$3,633,333
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
1999
1999
L.F. Guideway
44,687
$1,400,000
1999
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
44,687
44,687
44,687
44,687
44,687
44,687
44,687
44,687
44,687
44,687
44,687
44,687
$800,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$600,000
$0
$0
1999
L.F. Guideway
44,687
$38,600,000
1999
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
44,687
44,687
44,687
44,687
44,687
44,687
44,687
44,687
$8,600,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$30,000,000
1999
A-53
1999
1999
1999
1999
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix A

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

0.01 SOFT-COSTS
PROCUREMENT TYPE
8.00
8.01
8.02
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
FINAL DESIGN
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
PROJECT INITIATION
Insurance
Mobilization

Units
of
Measure
L.F. Guideway
DBTotal
/ DBB
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
A-54

Select City:
Denver, CO
Year
Quantity
Total Cost
44,687
$144,000,000
$144,000,000
$144,000,000
$144,000,000
$144,000,000
$144,000,000
$144,000,000
$144,000,000
$144,000,000
$144,000,000
$144,000,000
$144,000,000
$144,000,000
$144,000,000
$144,000,000
$144,000,000
$177,100,000
$33,100,000
$0
$0
$21,600,000
$11,500,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
1999
1999
1999
1999
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix A

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

0.03 SERVICE
Track Miles
Stations
Vehicles in Service
Peak
Midday
Headway
Peak
Midday
Ridership
Weekday
Annual
0.04 STAFFING
Administrative
Operators
Maintenance
Vehicle
Non-Vehicle

1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.11
AT GRADE GUIDEWAY
BALLASTED TRACK
EMBEDDED TRACK
SPECIAL TRACKWORK
2.00 YARDS & SHOPS

2.01
2.02
2.03
2.04
2.05
2.06
2.07
2.08
2.09
2.10
2.11

Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork

Units
of
Measure

Pittsburgh, PA
Select City:
Year
Quantity
Total Cost
L.F. Guideway
DB / DBB
PE/FD/CON/OPS
28,763
Route Miles
Track Miles
Each
Revenue Vehicles
Revenue Vehicles
Revenue Vehicles
Minutes
Minutes
Minutes
Unlinked Trips
Unlinked Trips
Unlinked Trips
Unlinked Trips
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
FTE's
0
0
0
$386,458,341
2003
0
0
0
0
0
24,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L.F. Guideway
28,763
$94,133,841
2002
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
L.F. Guideway
7,588
978
3,032
6,204
0
10,961
4,462
49,501
335
54,298
28,763
$10,239,448
$485,500
$16,640,660
$21,117,016
$0
$32,216,144
$1,798,100
$8,047,204
$55,000
$3,534,769
$0
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
28
$3,875,595
2000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
28,763
28,763
28,763
28,763
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,820,703
$1,820,703
$0
$2,054,892
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
A-55
2000
2000
2000
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix A

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

0.01 SYSTEMS
PROCUREMENT TYPE
3.00
3.01 SIGNAL SYSTEM
Crossing Protection
Substations
Catenary
Third Rail
3.03 COMMUNICATIONS
Elevators
Escalators
4.00 STATIONS
4.01
4.02
4.03
4.04
4.05
4.06
4.07
4.08
4.09
4.10

PARKING LOTS
PARKING GARAGES
SIGNAGE & GRAPHICS
5.00 VEHICLES
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06


6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
DEMOLITIONS
Buildings
Other Removals
Asbestos Abatement
Railroads
6.05
6.06
6.07
6.08
ROADWAY CHANGES
LANDSCAPING
7.00 RIGHT-OF-WAY
Property Management
Agency
Contractor
7.04 RELOCATION
7.05 OTHER

Units
of
Measure

Select City:
Pittsburgh, PA
Year
Quantity
Total Cost
L.F. Guideway
DB / DBB
Track
Feet
28,763
54,298
$386,458,341
$61,009,982
2003
2003
Track Feet
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Intersections
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Station
Each
Station
Rev. Vehicle
L.F. Guideway
Each
Each
Each
54,298
54,298
83
54,298
4
54,298
54,298
0
54,298
0
54,298
11
0
11
28
28,763
0
0
0
$20,886,124
$14,365,169
$5,732,584
$0
$788,371
$21,912,171
$12,240,806
$961,084
$8,710,281
$0
$4,837,329
$0
$0
$0
$0
$13,374,358
$0
$0
$0
2003
2003
2003
Station
11
$41,348,161
2003
Station
Station
Station
Station
Station
Station
Spaces
Spaces
Each
Station
0
11
0
0
0
0
433
1,538
2
11
$0
$14,740,981
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3,100,000
$22,950,000
$190,000
$367,180
Rev. Vehicle
28
$68,400,544
2004
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
28
0
0
0
28
28
28
28
$68,203,410
$0
$0
$0
$0
$197,134
$197,134
$0
2004
L.F. Guideway
28,763
$17,520,479
2002
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
28,763
28,763
28,763
28,763
28,763
28,763
28,763
28,763
28,763
28,763
28,763
28,763
$3,631,852
$0
$431,244
$387,521
$387,521
$0
$0
$0
$12,185,253
$0
$884,609
$0
2002
L.F. Guideway
28,763
$2,950,000
2002
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
28,763
28,763
28,763
28,763
28,763
28,763
28,763
28,763
$2,707,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$226,000
$17,000
2002
A-56
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
0
2003
0
2002
2002
2004
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix A

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

0.01 SOFT-COSTS
PROCUREMENT TYPE
8.00
8.01
8.02
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
FINAL DESIGN
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
PROJECT INITIATION
Insurance
Mobilization

Units
of
Measure
L.F. Guideway
DBTotal
/ DBB
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
A-57

Select City:
Pittsburgh, PA
Year
Quantity
Total Cost
28,763
$289,238,602
$289,238,602
$289,238,602
$289,238,602
$289,238,602
$289,238,602
$289,238,602
$289,238,602
$289,238,602
$289,238,602
$289,238,602
$289,238,602
$289,238,602
$289,238,602
$289,238,602
$289,238,602
$386,458,341
$97,219,739
2003
2002
$300,845
$11,600,789
$35,198,539
$20,338,449
$13,683,245
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$16,097,872
1999
1999
2002
2002
2002
0
2002
Booz Allen Hamilton
APPENDIX B
Cost Adjustment Worksheet
Appendix B
Cost Adjustment Factors
Model Base Year =
2003
Source: 2003 Means Heavy Construction Cost Data
Estimated
Year
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016

Inflation
Index
% Increase
28.7
32.1
11.8%
34.8
8.4%
37.7
8.3%
41.4
9.8%
44.8
8.2%
46.9
4.7%
49.5
5.5%
53.5
8.1%
57.8
8.0%
62.9
8.8%
70.0
11.3%
76.1
8.7%
80.2
5.4%
82.0
2.2%
82.6
0.7%
84.2
1.9%
87.7
4.2%
89.9
2.5%
92.1
2.4%
94.3
2.4%
96.8
2.7%
99.4
2.7%
101.7
2.3%
104.4
2.7%
107.6
3.1%
110.2
2.4%
112.8
2.4%
115.1
2.0%
117.6
2.2%
120.9
2.8%
125.1
3.5%
128.7
2.9%
132.1
2.7%
135.8
2.8%
139.8
2.9%
143.9
3.0%
148.0
2.8%
152.2
2.8%
156.6
2.9%
161.1
2.9%
165.8
2.9%
170.5
2.9%
175.4
2.9%
180.5
2.9%
185.6
2.9%
191.0
2.9%
B-1
City To National Conversion

City
Factor
Akron, OH
99.4
Albany, NY
95.7
Albuquerque, NM
89.7
Allentown, PA
100.7
Anaheim, CA
107.6
Anchorage, AK
125.9
Ann Arbor, MI
103.2
Annapolis, MD
89.2
Arlington, VA
89.8
Atlanta, GA
89.6
Atlantic City, NJ
106.3
Austin, TX
79.7
Bakersfield, CA
105.7
Baltimore, MD
91.2
Bangor, ME
90.6
Baton Rouge, LA
80.1
Berkeley, CA
117.6
Billings, MT
89.8
Birmingham, AL
87.7
Bismarck, ND
85.1
Boise, ID
93.0
Boston, MA
115.0
Boulder, CO
84.6
Bronx, NY
128.3
Brooklyn, NY
129.9
Buffalo, NY
101.8
Burlington, VT
85.5
Cedar Rapids, IA
91.9
Champaign, IL
102.0
Charleston, SC
74.3
Charleston, WV
94.5
Charlotte, NC
74.4
Chattanooga, TN
79.8
Cheyenne, WY
79.6
Chicago, IL
113.6
Cincinnati, OH
94.4
Cleveland, OH
102.7
College Park, MD
89.9
Colorado Springs, CO
93.0
Columbia, SC
74.1
Columbus, GA
76.8
Columbus, OH
95.8
Dallas, TX
84.6
Davenport, IA
96.9
Dayton, OH
92.3
Dearborn, MI
107.4
Denver, CO
95.9
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix B
Cost Adjustment Factors
Model Base Year =
2003
Source: 2003 Means Heavy Construction Cost Data
Year
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050

Inflation
Index
% Increase
196.5
2.9%
202.1
2.9%
207.9
2.9%
213.9
2.9%
220.0
2.9%
226.3
2.9%
232.8
2.9%
239.5
2.9%
246.4
2.9%
253.5
2.9%
260.8
2.9%
268.3
2.9%
276.0
2.9%
283.9
2.9%
292.1
2.9%
300.4
2.9%
309.1
2.9%
318.0
2.9%
327.1
2.9%
336.5
2.9%
346.1
2.9%
356.1
2.9%
366.3
2.9%
376.8
2.9%
387.7
2.9%
398.8
2.9%
410.3
2.9%
422.0
2.9%
434.2
2.9%
446.6
2.9%
459.5
2.9%
472.7
2.9%
486.2
2.9%
500.2
2.9%
B-2
City To National Conversion

City
Factor
Des Moines, IA
91.8
Detroit, MI
107.6
Dubuque, IA
89.3
Durham, NC
75.5
East St. Louis, IL
100.0
Elizabeth, NJ
106.3
Eugene, OR
103.5
Everett, WA
101.4
Fairbanks, AK
125.1
Fairfax, VA
89.9
Flint, MI
98.8
Fort Collins, CO
91.3
Fort Lauderdale, FL
84.3
Fort Myers, FL
78.0
Fort Wayne, IN
91.7
Fort Worth, TX
81.7
Fresno, CA
107.7
Galveston, TX
85.6
Gary, IN
101.6
Grand Forks, ND
80.6
Green Bay, WI
96.9
Greensboro, NC
75.6
Harrisburg, PA
94.6
Hartford, CT
105.4
Honolulu, HI
123.2
Houston, TX
87.5
Huntsville, AL
85.9
Idaho Falls, ID
80.8
Indianapolis, IN
94.6
Jackson, MS
75.0
Jacksonville, FL
81.7
Jamaica, NY
129.5
Kansas City, KS
97.2
Kansas City, MO
101.7
Booz Allen Hamilton
APPENDIX C
Cost Normalization and Adjustment Worksheet
Light Rail Capital Cost
Appendix C
PROJECT COST NORMALIZATION

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.11
AT GRADE GUIDEWAY
BALLASTED TRACK
EMBEDDED TRACK
SPECIAL TRACKWORK
2.00 YARDS & SHOPS

2.01
2.02
2.03
2.04
2.05
2.06
2.07
2.08
2.09
2.10
2.11

Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
3.00 SYSTEMS
3.01 SIGNAL SYSTEM
Crossing Protection
Substations
Catenary
Third Rail
3.03 COMMUNICATIONS
Elevators
Escalators

Units
of
Measure
$YOE
Sacramento Stage I
Unit Costs
$City
$National
L.F. Guideway
$1,615
$417
$2,602
$667
$2,344
$601
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
L.F. Guideway
$308
$0
$349
$0
$0
$0
$25
$69
$0
$11
$0
$493
$0
$559
$0
$0
$0
$40
$111
$0
$18
$0
$444
$0
$503
$0
$0
$0
$36
$100
$0
$16
$0
L.F. Guideway
$79,580
$127,310
$114,694
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$79,580
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$127,310
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$114,694
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Track Feet
$126
$202
$182
$53
$85
$77
$45
$0
$0
$14,813
$72
$0
$0
$23,697
$64
$0
$0
$21,349
$65
$104
$94
$31
$0
$34
$0
$1
$50
$0
$54
$0
$2
$45
$0
$48
$0
$2
$37,571
$60,106
$54,149
$0
$35,214
$1,833
$0
$0
$56,335
$2,933
$0
$0
$50,752
$2,642
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Intersections
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Station
Each
Station
Rev. Vehicle
L.F. Guideway
Each
Each
Each
C-1
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix C

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

4.00 STATIONS
4.01
4.02
4.03
4.04
4.05
4.06
4.07
4.08
4.09
4.10

PARKING LOTS
PARKING GARAGES
SIGNAGE & GRAPHICS
5.00 VEHICLES
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06


6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
DEMOLITIONS
Buildings
Other Removals
Asbestos Abatement
Railroads
6.05
6.06
6.07
6.08
ROADWAY CHANGES
LANDSCAPING
7.00 RIGHT-OF-WAY
Property Management
Agency
Contractor
7.04 RELOCATION
7.05 OTHER

Units
of
Measure
$YOE
Sacramento Stage I
Unit Costs
$City
$National
$1,615
$2,602
$2,344
Station
$366,786
$586,773
$528,625
Station
Station
Station
Station
Station
Station
Spaces
Spaces
Each
Station
$0
$366,786
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$586,773
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$528,625
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Rev. Vehicle
$961,111
$1,537,558
$1,385,188
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
$800,000
$1,380,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,279,817
$2,207,685
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,152,988
$1,988,905
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
L.F. Guideway
$109
$174
$156
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
$43
$4
$0
$3
$0
$3
$0
$0
$58
$0
$0
$0
$69
$7
$0
$5
$0
$5
$0
$0
$93
$0
$0
$0
$62
$6
$0
$4
$0
$4
$0
$0
$84
$0
$0
$0
L.F. Guideway
$156
$249
$224
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
$148
$0
$7
$0
$0
$7
$0
$0
$237
$0
$11
$0
$0
$11
$0
$0
$214
$0
$10
$0
$0
$10
$0
$0
L.F. Guideway
C-2
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix C

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

8.00 SOFT-COSTS (Total Costs $)
8.01
8.02
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
FINAL DESIGN
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
PROJECT INITIATION
Insurance
Mobilization
8.00 SOFT-COSTS (Percent of Total Hard-Costs)

8.01
8.02
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
FINAL DESIGN
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
PROJECT INITIATION
Insurance
Mobilization

Units
of
Measure
$YOE
Sacramento Stage I
Unit Costs
$City
$National
$1,615
$2,602
$2,344
Total
$36,119,000
$62,717,548
$56,502,296
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
$16,557,000
$0
$0
$9,050,000
$4,199,000
$0
$1,285,000
$1,285,000
$0
$0
$528,000
$4,500,000
$0
$4,500,000
$0
$34,783,158
$0
$0
$14,911,187
$6,766,593
$0
$2,055,706
$2,055,706
$0
$0
$850,860
$7,198,972
$0
$7,198,972
$0
$31,336,179
$0
$0
$13,433,502
$6,096,029
$0
$1,851,988
$1,851,988
$0
$0
$766,540
$6,485,560
$0
$6,485,560
$0
Total
25.0%
25.0%
25.0%
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
11.4%
0.0%
0.0%
6.3%
2.9%
0.0%
0.9%
0.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.4%
3.1%
0.0%
3.1%
0.0%
11.4%
0.0%
0.0%
6.3%
2.9%
0.0%
0.9%
0.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.4%
3.1%
0.0%
3.1%
0.0%
11.4%
0.0%
0.0%
6.3%
2.9%
0.0%
0.9%
0.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.4%
3.1%
0.0%
3.1%
0.0%
L.F. Guideway
C-3
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix C

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.11
AT GRADE GUIDEWAY
BALLASTED TRACK
EMBEDDED TRACK
SPECIAL TRACKWORK
2.00 YARDS & SHOPS

2.01
2.02
2.03
2.04
2.05
2.06
2.07
2.08
2.09
2.10
2.11

Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
3.00 SYSTEMS
3.01 SIGNAL SYSTEM
Crossing Protection
Substations
Catenary
Third Rail
3.03 COMMUNICATIONS
Elevators
Escalators

Units
of
Measure

Unit Costs
$YOE
$City
$National
L.F. Guideway
$6,758
$2,463
$10,812
$3,940
$10,790
$3,932
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
L.F. Guideway
$535
$858
$981
$0
$13,548
$514
$215
$37
$55
$0
$0
$855
$1,373
$1,569
$0
$21,673
$828
$344
$59
$88
$0
$0
$854
$1,370
$1,566
$0
$21,630
$827
$343
$59
$88
$0
$0
$382,645
$612,144
$610,922
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$330,831
$0
$0
$61
$61
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$529,255
$0
$0
$92
$92
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$528,198
$0
$0
$92
$92
$0
$0
Track Feet
$365
$583
$582
Track Feet
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Intersections
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Station
Each
Station
Rev. Vehicle
L.F. Guideway
Each
Each
Each
$139
$223
$223
$139
$0
$0
$0
$223
$0
$0
$0
$223
$0
$0
$0
$165
$265
$265
$73
$0
$91
$0
$54
$118
$0
$147
$0
$87
$118
$0
$147
$0
$87
L.F. Guideway
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
C-4
$88,888
$143,242
$142,956
$1,066,661
$0
$0
$0
$1,718,900
$0
$0
$0
$1,715,469
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix C

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

1.00 STATIONS
GUIDEWAY ELEMENTS
4.00
4.01
4.02
4.03
4.04
4.05
4.06
4.07
4.08
4.09
4.10

PARKING LOTS
PARKING GARAGES
SIGNAGE & GRAPHICS
5.00 VEHICLES
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06


6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
DEMOLITIONS
Buildings
Other Removals
Asbestos Abatement
Railroads
6.05
6.06
6.07
6.08
ROADWAY CHANGES
LANDSCAPING
7.00 RIGHT-OF-WAY
Property Management
Agency
Contractor
7.04 RELOCATION
7.05 OTHER

Units
of
Measure

Unit Costs
$YOE
$City
$National
$6,758
$10,812
$10,790
Station
$2,856,898
$4,570,384
$4,561,262
Station
Station
Station
Station
Station
Station
Spaces
Spaces
Each
Station
$0
$1,748,205
$0
$6,182,978
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,796,729
$0
$9,891,352
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,791,146
$0
$9,871,608
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Rev. Vehicle
$1,043,626
$1,669,563
$1,666,231
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
$1,043,626
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,669,563
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,666,231
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
L.F. Guideway
$122
$197
$196
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
$49
$60
$0
$9
$9
$0
$0
$0
$0
$4
$0
$0
$79
$97
$0
$15
$15
$0
$0
$0
$0
$6
$0
$0
$79
$97
$0
$15
$15
$0
$0
$0
$0
$6
$0
$0
L.F. Guideway
$262
$431
$430
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
$262
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$431
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$430
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
L.F. Guideway
C-5
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix C

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

8.00
(Total Costs $)
1.00 SOFT-COSTS
GUIDEWAY ELEMENTS
8.01
8.02
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
FINAL DESIGN
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
PROJECT INITIATION
Insurance
Mobilization

8.01
8.02
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
FINAL DESIGN
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
PROJECT INITIATION
Insurance
Mobilization

Units
of
Measure

Unit Costs
$YOE
$City
$National
$6,758
$10,812
$10,790
Total
$132,804,580
$212,456,986
$212,032,920
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
$0
$0
$106,746,730
$11,236,750
$14,821,100
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$170,770,380
$17,976,233
$23,710,374
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$170,429,521
$17,940,352
$23,663,048
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Total
31.4%
31.4%
31.4%
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
0.0%
0.0%
25.3%
2.7%
3.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
25.3%
2.7%
3.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
25.3%
2.7%
3.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
L.F. Guideway
C-6
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix C

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.11
AT GRADE GUIDEWAY
BALLASTED TRACK
EMBEDDED TRACK
SPECIAL TRACKWORK
2.00 YARDS & SHOPS

2.01
2.02
2.03
2.04
2.05
2.06
2.07
2.08
2.09
2.10
2.11

Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
3.00 SYSTEMS
3.01 SIGNAL SYSTEM
Crossing Protection
Substations
Catenary
Third Rail
3.03 COMMUNICATIONS
Elevators
Escalators

Units
of
Measure

Unit Costs
$YOE
$City
$National
L.F. Guideway
$3,078
$1,180
$4,960
$1,901
$4,733
$1,814
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
L.F. Guideway
$803
$0
$2,381
$803
$0
$4,544
$0
$84
$384
$15
$0
$1,294
$0
$3,837
$1,323
$0
$7,323
$0
$138
$619
$25
$0
$1,235
$0
$3,661
$1,263
$0
$6,988
$0
$132
$590
$24
$0
$116,020
$191,160
$182,404
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$114,650
$0
$0
$2
$2
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$188,902
$0
$0
$3
$3
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$180,250
$0
$0
$3
$3
$0
$0
$132
$213
$203
$46
$75
$71
$43
$0
$0
$28,524
$69
$0
$0
$45,965
$66
$0
$0
$43,860
$65
$105
$101
$22
$0
$43
$0
$0
$36
$0
$70
$0
$0
$34
$0
$67
$0
$0
L.F. Guideway
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Intersections
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Station
Each
Station
Rev. Vehicle
L.F. Guideway
Each
Each
Each
C-7
$128,960
$207,816
$198,298
$801,000
$96,920
$0
$0
$1,290,793
$156,184
$0
$0
$1,231,673
$149,031
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix C

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

1.00 STATIONS
GUIDEWAY ELEMENTS
4.00
4.01
4.02
4.03
4.04
4.05
4.06
4.07
4.08
4.09
4.10

PARKING LOTS
PARKING GARAGES
SIGNAGE & GRAPHICS
5.00 VEHICLES
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06


6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
DEMOLITIONS
Buildings
Other Removals
Asbestos Abatement
Railroads
6.05
6.06
6.07
6.08
ROADWAY CHANGES
LANDSCAPING
7.00 RIGHT-OF-WAY
Property Management
Agency
Contractor
7.04 RELOCATION
7.05 OTHER

Units
of
Measure

Unit Costs
$YOE
$City
$National
$3,078
$4,960
$4,733
Station
$604,280
$966,710
$922,433
Station
Station
Station
Station
Station
Station
Spaces
Spaces
Each
Station
$440,200
$481,700
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,000
$0
$0
$0
$704,219
$770,610
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3,200
$0
$0
$0
$671,965
$735,315
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3,053
$0
$0
$0
Rev. Vehicle
$969,923
$1,830,953
$1,747,093
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
$965,269
$0
$0
$0
$0
$4,654
$808
$3,846
$1,822,168
$0
$0
$0
$0
$7,445
$1,292
$6,153
$1,738,710
$0
$0
$0
$0
$7,104
$1,233
$5,871
L.F. Guideway
$72
$116
$110
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
$71
$0
$0
$1
$1
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$114
$0
$0
$2
$2
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$108
$0
$0
$2
$2
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
L.F. Guideway
$188
$310
$295
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
$168
$0
$18
$3
$0
$15
$2
$0
$276
$0
$32
$5
$0
$27
$3
$0
$264
$0
$30
$5
$0
$25
$3
$0
L.F. Guideway
C-8
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix C

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

8.00
(Total Costs $)
1.00 SOFT-COSTS
GUIDEWAY ELEMENTS
8.01
8.02
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
FINAL DESIGN
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
PROJECT INITIATION
Insurance
Mobilization

8.01
8.02
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
FINAL DESIGN
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
PROJECT INITIATION
Insurance
Mobilization

Units
of
Measure

Unit Costs
$YOE
$City
$National
$3,078
$4,960
$4,733
Total
$58,278,000
$93,913,667
$89,612,278
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
$2,535,000
$0
$13,212,000
$17,000,000
$13,172,000
$0
$5,240,000
$5,240,000
$0
$0
$0
$7,119,000
$0
$7,119,000
$0
$5,325,561
$0
$22,941,506
$27,395,112
$21,072,191
$0
$8,382,803
$8,382,803
$0
$0
$0
$11,388,774
$0
$11,388,774
$0
$5,081,642
$0
$21,890,750
$26,140,374
$20,107,052
$0
$7,998,858
$7,998,858
$0
$0
$0
$10,867,150
$0
$10,867,150
$0
Total
30.9%
30.9%
30.9%
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
1.3%
0.0%
7.0%
9.0%
7.0%
0.0%
2.8%
2.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
3.8%
0.0%
3.8%
0.0%
1.3%
0.0%
7.0%
9.0%
7.0%
0.0%
2.8%
2.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
3.8%
0.0%
3.8%
0.0%
1.3%
0.0%
7.0%
9.0%
7.0%
0.0%
2.8%
2.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
3.8%
0.0%
3.8%
0.0%
L.F. Guideway
C-9
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix C

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.11
AT GRADE GUIDEWAY
BALLASTED TRACK
EMBEDDED TRACK
SPECIAL TRACKWORK
2.00 YARDS & SHOPS

2.01
2.02
2.03
2.04
2.05
2.06
2.07
2.08
2.09
2.10
2.11

Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
3.00 SYSTEMS
3.01 SIGNAL SYSTEM
Crossing Protection
Substations
Catenary
Third Rail
3.03 COMMUNICATIONS
Elevators
Escalators

Units
of
Measure

Unit Costs
$YOE
$City
$National
L.F. Guideway
$7,355
$1,247
$11,081
$1,833
$10,308
$1,705
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
L.F. Guideway
$420
$735
$2,889
$687
$6,568
$4,457
$189
$71
$131
$55
$0
$617
$1,080
$4,246
$1,010
$9,654
$6,550
$278
$104
$193
$81
$0
$574
$1,004
$3,950
$939
$8,980
$6,093
$259
$97
$179
$76
$0
$611,571
$898,928
$836,212
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$597,978
$0
$0
$6
$6
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$878,949
$0
$0
$9
$9
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$817,627
$0
$0
$8
$8
$0
$0
Track Feet
$530
$779
$725
Track Feet
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Intersections
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Station
Each
Station
Rev. Vehicle
L.F. Guideway
Each
Each
Each
$171
$251
$234
$116
$0
$0
$465,356
$171
$0
$0
$684,012
$159
$0
$0
$636,290
$207
$305
$283
$88
$0
$119
$0
$80
$130
$0
$175
$0
$118
$121
$0
$163
$0
$109
L.F. Guideway
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
C-10
$272,933
$401,176
$373,187
$1,765,229
$192,696
$0
$94
$2,594,654
$283,237
$0
$138
$2,413,631
$263,477
$0
$128
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix C

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

1.00 STATIONS
GUIDEWAY ELEMENTS
4.00
4.01
4.02
4.03
4.04
4.05
4.06
4.07
4.08
4.09
4.10

PARKING LOTS
PARKING GARAGES
SIGNAGE & GRAPHICS
5.00 VEHICLES
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06


6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
DEMOLITIONS
Buildings
Other Removals
Asbestos Abatement
Railroads
6.05
6.06
6.07
6.08
ROADWAY CHANGES
LANDSCAPING
7.00 RIGHT-OF-WAY
Property Management
Agency
Contractor
7.04 RELOCATION
7.05 OTHER

Units
of
Measure

Unit Costs
$YOE
$City
$National
$7,355
$11,081
$10,308
Station
$2,995,158
$4,402,487
$4,095,337
Station
Station
Station
Station
Station
Station
Spaces
Spaces
Each
Station
$1,079,409
$913,869
$0
$27,684,300
$2,928,894
$0
$8,079
$0
$999,611
$0
$1,586,589
$1,343,267
$0
$40,692,265
$4,305,087
$0
$11,874
$0
$1,469,296
$0
$1,475,896
$1,249,551
$0
$37,853,270
$4,004,732
$0
$11,046
$0
$1,366,787
$0
Rev. Vehicle
$1,480,354
$2,175,925
$2,024,117
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
$1,446,965
$0
$0
$0
$0
$33,389
$27,093
$6,296
$2,126,848
$0
$0
$0
$0
$49,077
$39,823
$9,255
$1,978,463
$0
$0
$0
$0
$45,653
$37,044
$8,609
L.F. Guideway
$1,277
$2,043
$1,901
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
$21
$1,004
$0
$8
$3
$5
$0
$0
$101
$0
$142
$0
$34
$1,606
$0
$13
$5
$8
$0
$0
$162
$0
$228
$0
$32
$1,494
$0
$12
$5
$7
$0
$0
$151
$0
$212
$0
L.F. Guideway
$504
$740
$689
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
$465
$0
$38
$19
$0
$19
$1
$0
$683
$0
$55
$28
$0
$28
$2
$0
$635
$0
$52
$26
$0
$26
$2
$0
L.F. Guideway
C-11
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix C

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

8.00
(Total Costs $)
1.00 SOFT-COSTS
GUIDEWAY ELEMENTS
8.01
8.02
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
FINAL DESIGN
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
PROJECT INITIATION
Insurance
Mobilization

8.01
8.02
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
FINAL DESIGN
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
PROJECT INITIATION
Insurance
Mobilization

Units
of
Measure

Unit Costs
$YOE
$City
$National
$7,355
$11,081
$10,308
Total
$210,805,963
$337,241,378
$313,712,910
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
$0
$0
$64,030,705
$79,304,746
$21,374,427
$4,194,136
$32,780,582
$32,780,582
$0
$0
$0
$9,121,366
$0
$9,121,366
$0
$0
$0
$102,434,500
$126,869,475
$34,194,200
$6,709,660
$52,441,442
$52,441,442
$0
$0
$0
$14,592,101
$0
$14,592,101
$0
$0
$0
$95,287,907
$118,018,116
$31,808,559
$6,241,544
$48,782,737
$48,782,737
$0
$0
$0
$13,574,048
$0
$13,574,048
$0
Total
31.6%
31.6%
31.6%
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
0.0%
0.0%
9.6%
11.9%
3.2%
0.6%
4.9%
4.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.4%
0.0%
1.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
9.6%
11.9%
3.2%
0.6%
4.9%
4.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.4%
0.0%
1.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
9.6%
11.9%
3.2%
0.6%
4.9%
4.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.4%
0.0%
1.4%
0.0%
L.F. Guideway
C-12
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix C

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.11
AT GRADE GUIDEWAY
BALLASTED TRACK
EMBEDDED TRACK
SPECIAL TRACKWORK
2.00 YARDS & SHOPS

2.01
2.02
2.03
2.04
2.05
2.06
2.07
2.08
2.09
2.10
2.11

Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
3.00 SYSTEMS
3.01 SIGNAL SYSTEM
Crossing Protection
Substations
Catenary
Third Rail
3.03 COMMUNICATIONS
Elevators
Escalators

Units
of
Measure
$YOE

Unit Costs
$City
$National
L.F. Guideway
$4,624
$801
$7,257
$1,207
$6,063
$1,008
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
L.F. Guideway
$540
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$84
$94
$10
$66
$813
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$126
$141
$15
$100
$679
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$105
$118
$12
$84
$425,823
$681,219
$569,105
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$403,823
$0
$0
$13
$13
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$646,024
$0
$0
$21
$21
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$539,703
$0
$0
$18
$18
$0
$0
$201
$282
$236
$44
$61
$51
$43
$0
$0
$28,333
$60
$0
$0
$39,703
$50
$0
$0
$33,169
$114
$159
$133
$47
$0
$67
$0
$18
$66
$0
$94
$0
$25
$55
$0
$78
$0
$21
$196,594
$275,484
$230,145
$0
$183,436
$0
$0
$0
$257,047
$0
$0
$0
$214,742
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
L.F. Guideway
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Intersections
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Station
Each
Station
Rev. Vehicle
L.F. Guideway
Each
Each
Each
C-13
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix C

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

1.00 STATIONS
GUIDEWAY ELEMENTS
4.00
4.01
4.02
4.03
4.04
4.05
4.06
4.07
4.08
4.09
4.10

PARKING LOTS
PARKING GARAGES
SIGNAGE & GRAPHICS
5.00 VEHICLES
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06


6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
DEMOLITIONS
Buildings
Other Removals
Asbestos Abatement
Railroads
6.05
6.06
6.07
6.08
ROADWAY CHANGES
LANDSCAPING
7.00 RIGHT-OF-WAY
Property Management
Agency
Contractor
7.04 RELOCATION
7.05 OTHER

Units
of
Measure
$YOE

Unit Costs
$City
$National
$4,624
$7,257
$6,063
Station
$223,364
$320,473
$267,730
Station
Station
Station
Station
Station
Station
Spaces
Spaces
Each
Station
$192,333
$228,263
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$275,952
$327,502
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$230,536
$273,602
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Rev. Vehicle
$1,112,220
$1,832,544
$1,530,947
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
$1,112,220
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,832,544
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,530,947
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
L.F. Guideway
$103
$162
$135
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
$71
$0
$0
$6
$0
$6
$0
$0
$0
$26
$0
$0
$111
$0
$0
$10
$0
$10
$0
$0
$0
$41
$0
$0
$93
$0
$0
$8
$0
$8
$0
$0
$0
$34
$0
$0
L.F. Guideway
$664
$1,062
$887
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
$624
$0
$34
$11
$11
$11
$6
$0
$998
$0
$54
$18
$18
$18
$10
$0
$834
$0
$45
$15
$15
$15
$8
$0
L.F. Guideway
C-14
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix C

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

8.00
(Total Costs $)
1.00 SOFT-COSTS
GUIDEWAY ELEMENTS
8.01
8.02
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
FINAL DESIGN
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
PROJECT INITIATION
Insurance
Mobilization

8.01
8.02
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
FINAL DESIGN
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
PROJECT INITIATION
Insurance
Mobilization

Units
of
Measure
$YOE

Unit Costs
$City
$National
$4,624
$7,257
$6,063
Total
$136,417,000
$214,089,030
$178,854,661
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
$41,085,000
$0
$0
$63,260,000
$19,115,000
$1,457,000
$7,500,000
$0
$7,000,000
$500,000
$0
$4,000,000
$0
$4,000,000
$0
$64,477,652
$0
$0
$99,278,477
$29,998,547
$2,286,575
$11,770,291
$0
$10,985,604
$784,686
$0
$6,277,488
$0
$6,277,488
$0
$53,866,041
$0
$0
$82,939,413
$25,061,443
$1,910,255
$9,833,158
$0
$9,177,614
$655,544
$0
$5,244,351
$0
$5,244,351
$0
Total
55.9%
55.9%
55.9%
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
16.8%
0.0%
0.0%
25.9%
7.8%
0.6%
3.1%
0.0%
2.9%
0.2%
0.0%
1.6%
0.0%
1.6%
0.0%
16.8%
0.0%
0.0%
25.9%
7.8%
0.6%
3.1%
0.0%
2.9%
0.2%
0.0%
1.6%
0.0%
1.6%
0.0%
16.8%
0.0%
0.0%
25.9%
7.8%
0.6%
3.1%
0.0%
2.9%
0.2%
0.0%
1.6%
0.0%
1.6%
0.0%
L.F. Guideway
C-15
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix C

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.11
AT GRADE GUIDEWAY
BALLASTED TRACK
EMBEDDED TRACK
SPECIAL TRACKWORK
2.00 YARDS & SHOPS

2.01
2.02
2.03
2.04
2.05
2.06
2.07
2.08
2.09
2.10
2.11

Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
3.00 SYSTEMS
3.01 SIGNAL SYSTEM
Crossing Protection
Substations
Catenary
Third Rail
3.03 COMMUNICATIONS
Elevators
Escalators

Units
of
Measure
$YOE
Hudson-Bergen MOS-I
Unit Costs
$City
$National
L.F. Guideway
$21,615
$4,661
$24,288
$5,237
$22,181
$4,783
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
L.F. Guideway
$2,993
$0
$15,285
$0
$0
$0
$308
$44
$0
$76
$379
$3,363
$0
$17,174
$0
$0
$0
$347
$50
$0
$86
$425
$3,072
$0
$15,684
$0
$0
$0
$317
$45
$0
$78
$389
$648,100
$728,237
$665,057
$0
$0
$0
$127,529
$85,171
$251
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$414,957
$0
$0
$161
$131
$30
$0
$0
$0
$0
$143,297
$95,703
$282
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$466,266
$0
$0
$181
$147
$34
$0
$0
$0
$0
$130,865
$87,400
$258
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$425,814
$0
$0
$165
$134
$31
$0
Track Feet
$630
$708
$646
Track Feet
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Intersections
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Station
Each
Station
Rev. Vehicle
L.F. Guideway
Each
Each
Each
$103
$115
$105
$95
$0
$0
$122,000
$106
$0
$0
$137,085
$97
$0
$0
$125,192
$364
$409
$373
$179
$0
$185
$0
$73
$201
$0
$208
$0
$82
$184
$0
$190
$0
$75
$408,143
$458,609
$418,821
$0
$401,000
$0
$0
$0
$450,583
$0
$0
$0
$411,492
$0
$0
$187,714
$210,925
$192,626
$187,714
$0
$210,925
$0
$192,626
$0
L.F. Guideway
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
C-16
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix C

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

1.00 STATIONS
GUIDEWAY ELEMENTS
4.00
4.01
4.02
4.03
4.04
4.05
4.06
4.07
4.08
4.09
4.10

PARKING LOTS
PARKING GARAGES
SIGNAGE & GRAPHICS
5.00 VEHICLES
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06


6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
DEMOLITIONS
Buildings
Other Removals
Asbestos Abatement
Railroads
6.05
6.06
6.07
6.08
ROADWAY CHANGES
LANDSCAPING
7.00 RIGHT-OF-WAY
Property Management
Agency
Contractor
7.04 RELOCATION
7.05 OTHER

Units
of
Measure
$YOE
Hudson-Bergen MOS-I
Unit Costs
$City
$National
$21,615
$24,288
$22,181
Station
$8,471,428
$9,518,912
$8,693,070
Station
Station
Station
Station
Station
Station
Spaces
Spaces
Each
Station
$7,456,450
$8,018,565
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3,749
$0
$357,000
$0
$8,378,433
$9,010,053
$0
$0
$0
$0
$4,213
$0
$401,143
$0
$7,651,537
$8,228,359
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3,847
$0
$366,340
$0
Rev. Vehicle
$3,398,586
$3,818,818
$3,487,505
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
$3,273,793
$0
$0
$0
$124,793
$0
$0
$0
$3,678,595
$0
$0
$0
$140,224
$0
$0
$0
$3,359,447
$0
$0
$0
$128,058
$0
$0
$0
L.F. Guideway
$2,635
$2,961
$2,704
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
$837
$0
$0
$351
$351
$0
$0
$0
$154
$1,294
$0
$0
$941
$0
$0
$394
$394
$0
$0
$0
$173
$1,454
$0
$0
$859
$0
$0
$360
$360
$0
$0
$0
$158
$1,328
$0
$0
L.F. Guideway
$988
$1,110
$1,014
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
$948
$0
$40
$27
$0
$12
$0
$0
$1,065
$0
$44
$30
$0
$14
$0
$0
$973
$0
$41
$28
$0
$13
$0
$0
L.F. Guideway
C-17
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix C

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

8.00
(Total Costs $)
1.00 SOFT-COSTS
GUIDEWAY ELEMENTS
8.01
8.02
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
FINAL DESIGN
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
PROJECT INITIATION
Insurance
Mobilization

8.01
8.02
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
FINAL DESIGN
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
PROJECT INITIATION
Insurance
Mobilization

Units
of
Measure
$YOE
Hudson-Bergen MOS-I
Unit Costs
$City
$National
$21,615
$24,288
$22,181
Total
$291,538,000
$327,586,397
$299,165,659
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
$5,565,000
$41,707,500
$41,707,500
$10,499,000
$10,684,000
$10,449,000
$45,987,000
$9,387,000
$36,600,000
$0
$124,939,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$6,253,107
$46,864,593
$46,864,593
$11,797,191
$12,005,066
$11,741,009
$51,673,249
$10,547,694
$41,125,555
$0
$140,387,589
$0
$0
$0
$0
$5,710,600
$42,798,715
$42,798,715
$10,773,691
$10,963,531
$10,722,383
$47,190,182
$9,632,597
$37,557,585
$0
$128,207,844
$0
$0
$0
$0
Total
41.6%
41.6%
41.6%
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
0.8%
6.0%
6.0%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
6.6%
1.3%
5.2%
0.0%
17.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.8%
6.0%
6.0%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
6.6%
1.3%
5.2%
0.0%
17.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.8%
6.0%
6.0%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
6.6%
1.3%
5.2%
0.0%
17.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
L.F. Guideway
C-18
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix C

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.11
AT GRADE GUIDEWAY
BALLASTED TRACK
EMBEDDED TRACK
SPECIAL TRACKWORK
2.00 YARDS & SHOPS

2.01
2.02
2.03
2.04
2.05
2.06
2.07
2.08
2.09
2.10
2.11

Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
3.00 SYSTEMS
3.01 SIGNAL SYSTEM
Crossing Protection
Substations
Catenary
Third Rail
3.03 COMMUNICATIONS
Elevators
Escalators

Units
of
Measure
$YOE
Unit Costs
$City
$National
L.F. Guideway
$39,685
$13,739
$43,374
$15,016
$39,611
$13,714
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
L.F. Guideway
$6,654
$6,347
$6,830
$0
$45,876
$0
$42
$53
$183
$94
$1,020
$7,273
$6,937
$7,465
$0
$50,142
$0
$46
$58
$201
$102
$1,114
$6,642
$6,335
$6,817
$0
$45,791
$0
$42
$53
$183
$94
$1,018
Rev. Vehicle
$0
$0
$0
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,224
$1,338
$1,222
$337
$368
$336
$337
$0
$0
$0
$368
$0
$0
$0
$336
$0
$0
$0
$410
$448
$409
$242
$0
$168
$0
$153
$264
$0
$184
$0
$167
$241
$0
$168
$0
$152
$1,000,000
$1,092,979
$998,154
$0
$1,000,000
$0
$0
$0
$1,092,979
$0
$0
$0
$998,154
$0
$0
$4,468,750
$4,884,249
$4,460,501
$4,468,750
$0
$4,884,249
$0
$4,460,501
$0
L.F. Guideway
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Intersections
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Station
Each
Station
Rev. Vehicle
L.F. Guideway
Each
Each
Each
C-19
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix C

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

1.00 STATIONS
GUIDEWAY ELEMENTS
4.00
4.01
4.02
4.03
4.04
4.05
4.06
4.07
4.08
4.09
4.10

PARKING LOTS
PARKING GARAGES
SIGNAGE & GRAPHICS
5.00 VEHICLES
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06


6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
DEMOLITIONS
Buildings
Other Removals
Asbestos Abatement
Railroads
6.05
6.06
6.07
6.08
ROADWAY CHANGES
LANDSCAPING
7.00 RIGHT-OF-WAY
Property Management
Agency
Contractor
7.04 RELOCATION
7.05 OTHER

Units
of
Measure
$YOE
Unit Costs
$City
$National
$39,685
$43,374
$39,611
Station
$74,486,750
$81,412,433
$74,349,254
Station
Station
Station
Station
Station
Station
Spaces
Spaces
Each
Station
$72,636,750
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3,795
$0
$0
$0
$79,390,423
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$4,148
$0
$0
$0
$72,502,669
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3,788
$0
$0
$0
Rev. Vehicle
$3,299,217
$3,605,974
$3,293,127
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
$0
$3,147,043
$0
$0
$152,174
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3,439,652
$0
$0
$166,323
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3,141,234
$0
$0
$151,893
$0
$0
$0
L.F. Guideway
$5,501
$6,013
$5,491
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
$999
$452
$676
$119
$119
$0
$0
$0
$121
$3,135
$0
$0
$1,092
$494
$739
$130
$130
$0
$0
$0
$132
$3,426
$0
$0
$997
$451
$675
$119
$119
$0
$0
$0
$120
$3,129
$0
$0
L.F. Guideway
$1,273
$1,391
$1,270
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
$1,224
$0
$49
$0
$0
$49
$0
$0
$1,338
$0
$53
$0
$0
$53
$0
$0
$1,222
$0
$49
$0
$0
$49
$0
$0
L.F. Guideway
C-20
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix C

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

8.00
(Total Costs $)
1.00 SOFT-COSTS
GUIDEWAY ELEMENTS
8.01
8.02
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
FINAL DESIGN
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
PROJECT INITIATION
Insurance
Mobilization

8.01
8.02
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
FINAL DESIGN
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
PROJECT INITIATION
Insurance
Mobilization

Units
of
Measure
$YOE
Unit Costs
$City
$National
$39,685
$43,374
$39,611
Total
$288,875,000
$315,734,230
$288,341,763
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
$0
$22,932,000
$22,932,000
$25,807,000
$18,999,000
$8,414,000
$16,291,000
$16,291,000
$0
$0
$173,500,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$25,064,188
$25,064,188
$28,206,502
$20,765,503
$9,196,323
$17,805,716
$17,805,716
$0
$0
$189,631,810
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$22,889,670
$22,889,670
$25,759,363
$18,963,930
$8,398,469
$16,260,928
$16,260,928
$0
$0
$173,179,735
$0
$0
$0
$0
Total
31.1%
31.1%
31.1%
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
0.0%
2.5%
2.5%
2.8%
2.0%
0.9%
1.8%
1.8%
0.0%
0.0%
18.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.5%
2.5%
2.8%
2.0%
0.9%
1.8%
1.8%
0.0%
0.0%
18.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.5%
2.5%
2.8%
2.0%
0.9%
1.8%
1.8%
0.0%
0.0%
18.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
L.F. Guideway
C-21
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix C

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.11
AT GRADE GUIDEWAY
BALLASTED TRACK
EMBEDDED TRACK
SPECIAL TRACKWORK
2.00 YARDS & SHOPS

2.01
2.02
2.03
2.04
2.05
2.06
2.07
2.08
2.09
2.10
2.11

Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
3.00 SYSTEMS
3.01 SIGNAL SYSTEM
Crossing Protection
Substations
Catenary
Third Rail
3.03 COMMUNICATIONS
Elevators
Escalators

Units
of
Measure
$YOE
Hiawatha Corridor
Unit Costs
$City
$National
L.F. Guideway
$11,028
$4,586
$11,323
$4,708
$10,002
$4,159
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
L.F. Guideway
$2,651
$0
$0
$0
$6,926
$0
$209
$437
$437
$0
$0
$2,722
$0
$0
$0
$7,112
$0
$215
$449
$449
$0
$0
$2,405
$0
$0
$0
$6,282
$0
$190
$396
$396
$0
$0
$1,409,503
$1,447,189
$1,278,436
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,283,041
$0
$0
$54
$54
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,317,346
$0
$0
$55
$55
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,163,734
$0
$0
$49
$49
$0
$0
Track Feet
$847
$869
$768
Track Feet
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Intersections
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Station
Each
Station
Rev. Vehicle
L.F. Guideway
Each
Each
Each
$244
$251
$222
$244
$0
$0
$0
$251
$0
$0
$0
$222
$0
$0
$0
$394
$404
$357
$168
$0
$226
$0
$179
$172
$0
$232
$0
$184
$152
$0
$205
$0
$163
$210,471
$216,098
$190,899
$0
$210,471
$0
$0
$0
$216,098
$0
$0
$0
$190,899
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
L.F. Guideway
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
C-22
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix C

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

1.00 STATIONS
GUIDEWAY ELEMENTS
4.00
4.01
4.02
4.03
4.04
4.05
4.06
4.07
4.08
4.09
4.10

PARKING LOTS
PARKING GARAGES
SIGNAGE & GRAPHICS
5.00 VEHICLES
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06


6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
DEMOLITIONS
Buildings
Other Removals
Asbestos Abatement
Railroads
6.05
6.06
6.07
6.08
ROADWAY CHANGES
LANDSCAPING
7.00 RIGHT-OF-WAY
Property Management
Agency
Contractor
7.04 RELOCATION
7.05 OTHER

Units
of
Measure
$YOE
Hiawatha Corridor
Unit Costs
$City
$National
$11,028
$11,323
$10,002
Station
$2,708,877
$2,781,306
$2,456,984
Station
Station
Station
Station
Station
Station
Spaces
Spaces
Each
Station
$1,297,612
$0
$18,677,389
$0
$0
$0
$3,302
$0
$979,584
$117,647
$1,332,307
$0
$19,176,777
$0
$0
$0
$3,390
$0
$1,005,776
$120,793
$1,176,950
$0
$16,940,616
$0
$0
$0
$2,995
$0
$888,494
$106,707
Rev. Vehicle
$2,873,500
$2,950,330
$2,606,299
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
$2,873,500
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,950,330
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,606,299
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
L.F. Guideway
$184
$188
$166
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
$184
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$188
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$166
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
L.F. Guideway
$800
$822
$726
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
$348
$453
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$357
$465
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$315
$411
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
L.F. Guideway
C-23
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix C

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

8.00
(Total Costs $)
1.00 SOFT-COSTS
GUIDEWAY ELEMENTS
8.01
8.02
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
FINAL DESIGN
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
PROJECT INITIATION
Insurance
Mobilization

8.01
8.02
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
FINAL DESIGN
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
PROJECT INITIATION
Insurance
Mobilization

Units
of
Measure
$YOE
Hiawatha Corridor
Unit Costs
$City
$National
$11,028
$11,323
$10,002
Total
$73,187,000
$75,143,844
$66,381,488
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
$0
$0
$17,297,000
$0
$42,935,000
$0
$6,115,000
$6,115,000
$0
$0
$3,100,000
$2,740,000
$0
$2,740,000
$1,000,000
$0
$0
$17,759,480
$0
$44,082,979
$0
$6,278,500
$6,278,500
$0
$0
$3,182,887
$2,813,261
$0
$2,813,261
$1,026,738
$0
$0
$15,688,587
$0
$38,942,561
$0
$5,546,378
$5,546,378
$0
$0
$2,811,737
$2,485,213
$0
$2,485,213
$907,012
Total
12.2%
12.2%
12.2%
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
0.0%
0.0%
2.9%
0.0%
7.1%
0.0%
1.0%
1.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.5%
0.5%
0.0%
0.5%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
2.9%
0.0%
7.1%
0.0%
1.0%
1.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.5%
0.5%
0.0%
0.5%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
2.9%
0.0%
7.1%
0.0%
1.0%
1.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.5%
0.5%
0.0%
0.5%
0.2%
L.F. Guideway
C-24
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix C

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.11
AT GRADE GUIDEWAY
BALLASTED TRACK
EMBEDDED TRACK
SPECIAL TRACKWORK
2.00 YARDS & SHOPS

2.01
2.02
2.03
2.04
2.05
2.06
2.07
2.08
2.09
2.10
2.11

Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
3.00 SYSTEMS
3.01 SIGNAL SYSTEM
Crossing Protection
Substations
Catenary
Third Rail
3.03 COMMUNICATIONS
Elevators
Escalators

Units
of
Measure

Unit Costs
$YOE
$City
$National
L.F. Guideway
$11,490
$3,933
$11,797
$4,039
$11,256
$3,854
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
L.F. Guideway
$0
$2,419
$6,435
$0
$0
$0
$453
$246
$522
$76
$0
$0
$2,484
$6,607
$0
$0
$0
$465
$253
$536
$78
$0
$0
$2,370
$6,305
$0
$0
$0
$444
$241
$511
$74
$0
$591,456
$607,271
$579,457
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$591,456
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$607,271
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$579,457
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Track Feet
$594
$594
$566
Track Feet
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Intersections
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Station
Each
Station
Rev. Vehicle
L.F. Guideway
Each
Each
Each
$189
$189
$180
$189
$0
$0
$0
$189
$0
$0
$0
$180
$0
$0
$0
$173
$177
$169
$0
$0
$0
$0
$208
$0
$0
$0
$0
$208
$0
$0
$0
$0
$199
$145,966
$145,966
$139,281
$0
$145,966
$0
$0
$0
$145,966
$0
$0
$0
$139,281
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
L.F. Guideway
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
C-25
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix C

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

1.00 STATIONS
GUIDEWAY ELEMENTS
4.00
4.01
4.02
4.03
4.04
4.05
4.06
4.07
4.08
4.09
4.10

PARKING LOTS
PARKING GARAGES
SIGNAGE & GRAPHICS
5.00 VEHICLES
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06


6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
DEMOLITIONS
Buildings
Other Removals
Asbestos Abatement
Railroads
6.05
6.06
6.07
6.08
ROADWAY CHANGES
LANDSCAPING
7.00 RIGHT-OF-WAY
Property Management
Agency
Contractor
7.04 RELOCATION
7.05 OTHER

Units
of
Measure

Unit Costs
$YOE
$City
$National
$11,490
$11,797
$11,256
Station
$1,140,818
$1,171,321
$1,117,672
Station
Station
Station
Station
Station
Station
Spaces
Spaces
Each
Station
$822,789
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,927
$0
$1,424,000
$0
$844,789
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3,005
$0
$1,462,074
$0
$806,096
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,868
$0
$1,395,109
$0
Rev. Vehicle
$3,049,567
$3,131,105
$2,987,696
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
$0
$2,881,664
$2,657,187
$0
$233,376
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,958,712
$2,728,234
$0
$239,615
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,823,199
$2,603,276
$0
$228,641
$0
$0
$0
L.F. Guideway
$641
$677
$646
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
$261
$0
$0
$3
$0
$3
$0
$0
$0
$315
$62
$0
$276
$0
$0
$3
$0
$3
$0
$0
$0
$333
$65
$0
$263
$0
$0
$3
$0
$3
$0
$0
$0
$318
$62
$0
L.F. Guideway
$213
$219
$209
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
$74
$0
$11
$0
$0
$11
$10
$117
$76
$0
$11
$0
$0
$11
$11
$120
$73
$0
$11
$0
$0
$11
$10
$115
L.F. Guideway
C-26
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix C

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

8.00
(Total Costs $)
1.00 SOFT-COSTS
GUIDEWAY ELEMENTS
8.01
8.02
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
FINAL DESIGN
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
PROJECT INITIATION
Insurance
Mobilization

8.01
8.02
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
FINAL DESIGN
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
PROJECT INITIATION
Insurance
Mobilization

Units
of
Measure

Unit Costs
$YOE
$City
$National
$11,490
$11,797
$11,256
Total
$68,901,236
$70,743,489
$67,503,329
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
$0
$0
$18,677,500
$17,046,868
$17,046,868
$0
$4,230,000
$4,230,000
$0
$0
$7,595,000
$4,305,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$19,728,744
$17,502,660
$17,502,660
$0
$4,468,081
$4,468,081
$0
$0
$7,595,000
$4,187,714
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$18,825,138
$16,701,012
$16,701,012
$0
$4,263,436
$4,263,436
$0
$0
$7,247,137
$3,995,911
$0
$0
$0
Total
24.6%
24.6%
24.6%
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
0.0%
0.0%
6.7%
6.1%
6.1%
0.0%
1.5%
1.5%
0.0%
0.0%
2.7%
1.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
6.7%
6.1%
6.1%
0.0%
1.5%
1.5%
0.0%
0.0%
2.7%
1.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
6.7%
6.1%
6.1%
0.0%
1.5%
1.5%
0.0%
0.0%
2.7%
1.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
L.F. Guideway
C-27
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix C

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.11
AT GRADE GUIDEWAY
BALLASTED TRACK
EMBEDDED TRACK
SPECIAL TRACKWORK
2.00 YARDS & SHOPS

2.01
2.02
2.03
2.04
2.05
2.06
2.07
2.08
2.09
2.10
2.11

Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
3.00 SYSTEMS
3.01 SIGNAL SYSTEM
Crossing Protection
Substations
Catenary
Third Rail
3.03 COMMUNICATIONS
Elevators
Escalators

Units
of
Measure

Unit Costs
$YOE
$City
$National
L.F. Guideway
$16,426
$4,992
$16,426
$4,992
$15,570
$4,731
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
L.F. Guideway
$0
$0
$2,881
$3,170
$11,576
$3,332
$195
$424
$0
$242
$0
$0
$0
$2,881
$3,170
$11,576
$3,332
$195
$424
$0
$242
$0
$0
$0
$2,731
$3,004
$10,973
$3,158
$185
$402
$0
$229
$0
Rev. Vehicle
$0
$0
$0
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Track Feet
$475
$475
$450
Track Feet
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Intersections
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Station
Each
Station
Rev. Vehicle
L.F. Guideway
Each
Each
Each
$246
$246
$233
$178
$0
$68
$20,000
$178
$0
$68
$20,000
$168
$0
$64
$18,957
$181
$181
$171
$76
$0
$105
$0
$29
$76
$0
$105
$0
$29
$72
$0
$99
$0
$28
$275,000
$275,000
$260,664
$0
$275,000
$0
$0
$0
$275,000
$0
$0
$0
$260,664
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
L.F. Guideway
C-28
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix C

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

1.00 STATIONS
GUIDEWAY ELEMENTS
4.00
4.01
4.02
4.03
4.04
4.05
4.06
4.07
4.08
4.09
4.10

PARKING LOTS
PARKING GARAGES
SIGNAGE & GRAPHICS
5.00 VEHICLES
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06


6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
DEMOLITIONS
Buildings
Other Removals
Asbestos Abatement
Railroads
6.05
6.06
6.07
6.08
ROADWAY CHANGES
LANDSCAPING
7.00 RIGHT-OF-WAY
Property Management
Agency
Contractor
7.04 RELOCATION
7.05 OTHER

Units
of
Measure

Unit Costs
$YOE
$City
$National
$16,426
$16,426
$15,570
Station
$15,063,499
$15,063,499
$14,278,198
Station
Station
Station
Station
Station
Station
Spaces
Spaces
Each
Station
$0
$0
$0
$46,868,372
$0
$4,461,875
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$46,868,372
$0
$4,461,875
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$44,424,997
$0
$4,229,265
$0
$0
$0
$0
Rev. Vehicle
$3,463,636
$3,463,636
$3,283,068
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
$3,463,636
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3,463,636
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3,283,068
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
L.F. Guideway
$710
$710
$673
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
$496
$0
$0
$60
$29
$31
$0
$0
$111
$43
$0
$0
$496
$0
$0
$60
$29
$31
$0
$0
$111
$43
$0
$0
$470
$0
$0
$57
$28
$30
$0
$0
$105
$41
$0
$0
L.F. Guideway
$1,595
$1,595
$1,512
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
$1,077
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$518
$1,077
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$518
$1,021
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$491
L.F. Guideway
C-29
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix C

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

8.00
(Total Costs $)
1.00 SOFT-COSTS
GUIDEWAY ELEMENTS
8.01
8.02
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
FINAL DESIGN
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
PROJECT INITIATION
Insurance
Mobilization

8.01
8.02
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
FINAL DESIGN
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
PROJECT INITIATION
Insurance
Mobilization

Units
of
Measure

Unit Costs
$YOE
$City
$National
$16,426
$16,426
$15,570
Total
$138,595,538
$138,595,538
$131,370,178
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
$0
$7,000,000
$40,150,350
$44,062,447
$18,800,000
$0
$26,158,831
$0
$22,546,954
$3,611,877
$0
$2,423,910
$0
$0
$0
$0
$7,000,000
$40,150,350
$44,062,447
$18,800,000
$0
$26,158,831
$0
$22,546,954
$3,611,877
$0
$2,423,910
$0
$0
$0
$0
$6,635,071
$38,057,204
$41,765,353
$17,819,905
$0
$24,795,100
$0
$21,371,520
$3,423,580
$0
$2,297,545
$0
$0
$0
Total
41.1%
41.1%
41.1%
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
0.0%
2.1%
11.9%
13.1%
5.6%
0.0%
7.8%
0.0%
6.7%
1.1%
0.0%
0.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.1%
11.9%
13.1%
5.6%
0.0%
7.8%
0.0%
6.7%
1.1%
0.0%
0.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.1%
11.9%
13.1%
5.6%
0.0%
7.8%
0.0%
6.7%
1.1%
0.0%
0.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
L.F. Guideway
C-30
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix C

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.11
AT GRADE GUIDEWAY
BALLASTED TRACK
EMBEDDED TRACK
SPECIAL TRACKWORK
2.00 YARDS & SHOPS

2.01
2.02
2.03
2.04
2.05
2.06
2.07
2.08
2.09
2.10
2.11

Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
3.00 SYSTEMS
3.01 SIGNAL SYSTEM
Crossing Protection
Substations
Catenary
Third Rail
3.03 COMMUNICATIONS
Elevators
Escalators

Units
of
Measure

Unit Costs
$YOE
$City
$National
L.F. Guideway
$3,586
$1,161
$4,030
$1,305
$3,939
$1,276
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
L.F. Guideway
$892
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$134
$0
$0
$0
$1,003
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$151
$0
$0
$0
$980
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$148
$0
$0
$0
$550,136
$618,159
$604,261
$0
$0
$0
$30,734
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$519,402
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$34,534
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$583,626
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$33,757
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$570,504
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$243
$272
$266
$91
$103
$100
$91
$0
$0
$0
$103
$0
$0
$0
$100
$0
$0
$0
$88
$99
$97
$0
$0
$0
$0
$52
$0
$0
$0
$0
$59
$0
$0
$0
$0
$57
$243,000
$273,047
$266,908
$0
$243,000
$0
$0
$0
$273,047
$0
$0
$0
$266,908
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
L.F. Guideway
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Intersections
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Station
Each
Station
Rev. Vehicle
L.F. Guideway
Each
Each
Each
C-31
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix C

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

1.00 STATIONS
GUIDEWAY ELEMENTS
4.00
4.01
4.02
4.03
4.04
4.05
4.06
4.07
4.08
4.09
4.10

PARKING LOTS
PARKING GARAGES
SIGNAGE & GRAPHICS
5.00 VEHICLES
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06


6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
DEMOLITIONS
Buildings
Other Removals
Asbestos Abatement
Railroads
6.05
6.06
6.07
6.08
ROADWAY CHANGES
LANDSCAPING
7.00 RIGHT-OF-WAY
Property Management
Agency
Contractor
7.04 RELOCATION
7.05 OTHER

Units
of
Measure

Unit Costs
$YOE
$City
$National
$3,586
$4,030
$3,939
Station
$1,259,727
$1,415,491
$1,383,667
Station
Station
Station
Station
Station
Station
Spaces
Spaces
Each
Station
$1,259,727
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,415,491
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,383,667
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Rev. Vehicle
$2,525,731
$2,838,035
$2,774,228
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
$2,525,731
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,838,035
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,774,228
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
L.F. Guideway
$82
$93
$91
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
$49
$0
$0
$10
$10
$0
$0
$0
$0
$24
$0
$0
$55
$0
$0
$11
$11
$0
$0
$0
$0
$27
$0
$0
$54
$0
$0
$11
$11
$0
$0
$0
$0
$26
$0
$0
L.F. Guideway
$232
$261
$255
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
$182
$10
$16
$0
$0
$16
$24
$0
$204
$12
$18
$0
$0
$18
$27
$0
$200
$11
$18
$0
$0
$18
$27
$0
L.F. Guideway
C-32
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix C

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

8.00
(Total Costs $)
1.00 SOFT-COSTS
GUIDEWAY ELEMENTS
8.01
8.02
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
FINAL DESIGN
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
PROJECT INITIATION
Insurance
Mobilization

8.01
8.02
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
FINAL DESIGN
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
PROJECT INITIATION
Insurance
Mobilization

Units
of
Measure

Unit Costs
$YOE
$City
$National
$3,586
$4,030
$3,939
Total
$65,420,740
$73,509,952
$71,857,236
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
$0
$0
$23,519,814
$18,758,352
$12,009,715
$2,510,092
$4,403,053
$4,403,053
$0
$0
$0
$4,019,714
$0
$0
$200,000
$0
$0
$26,428,017
$21,077,804
$13,494,705
$2,820,462
$4,947,486
$4,947,486
$0
$0
$0
$4,516,748
$0
$0
$224,730
$0
$0
$25,833,838
$20,603,914
$13,191,305
$2,757,050
$4,836,253
$4,836,253
$0
$0
$0
$4,415,198
$0
$0
$219,677
Total
24.8%
24.8%
24.8%
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
0.0%
0.0%
8.9%
7.1%
4.5%
1.0%
1.7%
1.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
8.9%
7.1%
4.5%
1.0%
1.7%
1.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
8.9%
7.1%
4.5%
1.0%
1.7%
1.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
L.F. Guideway
C-33
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix C

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.11
AT GRADE GUIDEWAY
BALLASTED TRACK
EMBEDDED TRACK
SPECIAL TRACKWORK
2.00 YARDS & SHOPS

2.01
2.02
2.03
2.04
2.05
2.06
2.07
2.08
2.09
2.10
2.11

Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
3.00 SYSTEMS
3.01 SIGNAL SYSTEM
Crossing Protection
Substations
Catenary
Third Rail
3.03 COMMUNICATIONS
Elevators
Escalators

Units
of
Measure

Unit Costs
$YOE
$City
$National
L.F. Guideway
$3,937
$545
$4,520
$626
$5,016
$695
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
L.F. Guideway
$418
$402
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$64
$72
$0
$0
$480
$462
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$73
$82
$0
$0
$533
$512
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$81
$91
$0
$0
$961,666
$1,104,046
$1,225,356
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$961,666
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,104,046
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,225,356
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Track Feet
$415
$477
$529
Track Feet
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Intersections
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Station
Each
Station
Rev. Vehicle
L.F. Guideway
Each
Each
Each
$143
$164
$182
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$232
$266
$295
$0
$0
$0
$0
$11
$0
$0
$0
$0
$12
$0
$0
$0
$0
$14
$296,331
$340,204
$377,585
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
L.F. Guideway
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
C-34
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix C

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

1.00 STATIONS
GUIDEWAY ELEMENTS
4.00
4.01
4.02
4.03
4.04
4.05
4.06
4.07
4.08
4.09
4.10

PARKING LOTS
PARKING GARAGES
SIGNAGE & GRAPHICS
5.00 VEHICLES
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06


6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
DEMOLITIONS
Buildings
Other Removals
Asbestos Abatement
Railroads
6.05
6.06
6.07
6.08
ROADWAY CHANGES
LANDSCAPING
7.00 RIGHT-OF-WAY
Property Management
Agency
Contractor
7.04 RELOCATION
7.05 OTHER

Units
of
Measure

Unit Costs
$YOE
$City
$National
$3,937
$4,520
$5,016
Station
$815,346
$936,062
$1,038,914
Station
Station
Station
Station
Station
Station
Spaces
Spaces
Each
Station
$815,346
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$936,062
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,038,914
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Rev. Vehicle
$2,987,517
$3,429,834
$3,806,697
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
$2,987,517
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3,429,834
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3,806,697
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
L.F. Guideway
$109
$125
$138
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
$109
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$125
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$138
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
L.F. Guideway
$537
$616
$684
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
$537
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$616
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$684
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
L.F. Guideway
C-35
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix C

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

8.00
(Total Costs $)
1.00 SOFT-COSTS
GUIDEWAY ELEMENTS
8.01
8.02
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
FINAL DESIGN
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
PROJECT INITIATION
Insurance
Mobilization

8.01
8.02
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
FINAL DESIGN
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
PROJECT INITIATION
Insurance
Mobilization

Units
of
Measure

Unit Costs
$YOE
$City
$National
$3,937
$4,520
$5,016
Total
$47,854,816
$54,939,960
$60,976,648
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
$0
$0
$0
$0
$22,857,356
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$24,997,460
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$26,241,501
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$28,698,458
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$29,124,863
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$31,851,785
$0
$0
$0
$0
Total
18.1%
18.1%
18.1%
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
8.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
9.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
8.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
9.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
8.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
9.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
L.F. Guideway
C-36
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix C

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.11
AT GRADE GUIDEWAY
BALLASTED TRACK
EMBEDDED TRACK
SPECIAL TRACKWORK
2.00 YARDS & SHOPS

2.01
2.02
2.03
2.04
2.05
2.06
2.07
2.08
2.09
2.10
2.11

Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
3.00 SYSTEMS
3.01 SIGNAL SYSTEM
Crossing Protection
Substations
Catenary
Third Rail
3.03 COMMUNICATIONS
Elevators
Escalators

Units
of
Measure

Unit Costs
$YOE
$City
$National
L.F. Guideway
$7,195
$1,563
$7,388
$1,605
$6,872
$1,493
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
L.F. Guideway
$803
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$115
$145
$0
$514
$824
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$118
$149
$0
$528
$767
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$110
$138
$0
$491
$2,266,528
$2,327,130
$2,164,772
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,266,528
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,327,130
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,164,772
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Track Feet
$195
$200
$186
Track Feet
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Intersections
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Station
Each
Station
Rev. Vehicle
L.F. Guideway
Each
Each
Each
$126
$129
$120
$93
$0
$0
$0
$95
$0
$0
$0
$88
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$25
$0
$0
$0
$0
$25
$0
$0
$0
$0
$24
$231,815
$238,013
$221,408
$0
$231,815
$0
$60
$0
$238,013
$0
$62
$0
$221,408
$0
$58
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
L.F. Guideway
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
C-37
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix C

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

1.00 STATIONS
GUIDEWAY ELEMENTS
4.00
4.01
4.02
4.03
4.04
4.05
4.06
4.07
4.08
4.09
4.10

PARKING LOTS
PARKING GARAGES
SIGNAGE & GRAPHICS
5.00 VEHICLES
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06


6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
DEMOLITIONS
Buildings
Other Removals
Asbestos Abatement
Railroads
6.05
6.06
6.07
6.08
ROADWAY CHANGES
LANDSCAPING
7.00 RIGHT-OF-WAY
Property Management
Agency
Contractor
7.04 RELOCATION
7.05 OTHER

Units
of
Measure

Unit Costs
$YOE
$City
$National
$7,195
$7,388
$6,872
Station
$2,437,178
$2,502,342
$2,327,760
Station
Station
Station
Station
Station
Station
Spaces
Spaces
Each
Station
$1,600,475
$1,526,691
$0
$0
$0
$0
$4,926
$0
$0
$0
$1,643,268
$1,567,511
$0
$0
$0
$0
$5,057
$0
$0
$0
$1,528,621
$1,458,149
$0
$0
$0
$0
$4,705
$0
$0
$0
Rev. Vehicle
$3,697,183
$3,796,036
$3,531,197
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
$3,697,183
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3,796,036
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3,531,197
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
L.F. Guideway
$357
$367
$341
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
$131
$73
$30
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$77
$19
$27
$0
$134
$75
$31
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$79
$20
$28
$0
$125
$70
$29
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$73
$18
$26
$0
L.F. Guideway
$602
$618
$575
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
$602
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$618
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$575
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
L.F. Guideway
C-38
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix C

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

8.00
(Total Costs $)
1.00 SOFT-COSTS
GUIDEWAY ELEMENTS
8.01
8.02
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
FINAL DESIGN
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
PROJECT INITIATION
Insurance
Mobilization

8.01
8.02
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
FINAL DESIGN
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
PROJECT INITIATION
Insurance
Mobilization

Units
of
Measure

Unit Costs
$YOE
$City
$National
$7,195
$7,388
$6,872
Total
$428,413,885
$439,868,642
$409,180,132
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
$13,047,850
$19,566,160
$35,700,000
$44,474,480
$28,200,395
$0
$8,925,000
$8,925,000
$0
$0
$268,000,000
$1,800,000
$0
$0
$8,700,000
$14,661,204
$21,985,497
$39,019,341
$45,663,621
$28,954,406
$0
$9,163,633
$9,163,633
$0
$0
$275,165,675
$1,848,128
$0
$0
$8,932,617
$13,638,330
$20,451,625
$36,297,061
$42,477,787
$26,934,331
$0
$8,524,310
$8,524,310
$0
$0
$255,968,070
$1,719,189
$0
$0
$8,309,411
Total
74.0%
74.0%
74.0%
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
2.3%
3.4%
6.2%
7.7%
4.9%
0.0%
1.5%
1.5%
0.0%
0.0%
46.3%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
1.5%
2.3%
3.4%
6.2%
7.7%
4.9%
0.0%
1.5%
1.5%
0.0%
0.0%
46.3%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
1.5%
2.3%
3.4%
6.2%
7.7%
4.9%
0.0%
1.5%
1.5%
0.0%
0.0%
46.3%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
1.5%
L.F. Guideway
C-39
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix C

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.11
AT GRADE GUIDEWAY
BALLASTED TRACK
EMBEDDED TRACK
SPECIAL TRACKWORK
2.00 YARDS & SHOPS

2.01
2.02
2.03
2.04
2.05
2.06
2.07
2.08
2.09
2.10
2.11

Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
3.00 SYSTEMS
3.01 SIGNAL SYSTEM
Crossing Protection
Substations
Catenary
Third Rail
3.03 COMMUNICATIONS
Elevators
Escalators

Units
of
Measure

Unit Costs
$YOE
$City
$National
L.F. Guideway
$10,456
$3,879
$12,538
$4,652
$11,964
$4,439
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
L.F. Guideway
$1,158
$3,413
$7,352
$0
$10,802
$0
$1,904
$174
$609
$141
$0
$1,388
$4,092
$8,816
$0
$12,952
$0
$2,283
$209
$730
$169
$0
$1,324
$3,905
$8,413
$0
$12,359
$0
$2,179
$199
$697
$161
$0
$542,791
$650,862
$621,051
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$542,791
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$650,862
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$621,051
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Track Feet
$467
$560
$534
Track Feet
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Intersections
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Station
Each
Station
Rev. Vehicle
L.F. Guideway
Each
Each
Each
$167
$200
$191
$167
$0
$0
$0
$200
$0
$0
$0
$191
$0
$0
$0
$171
$205
$195
$0
$0
$0
$0
$96
$0
$0
$0
$0
$115
$0
$0
$0
$0
$110
$252,772
$303,100
$289,217
$0
$252,772
$0
$0
$0
$303,100
$0
$0
$0
$289,217
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
L.F. Guideway
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
C-40
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix C

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

1.00 STATIONS
GUIDEWAY ELEMENTS
4.00
4.01
4.02
4.03
4.04
4.05
4.06
4.07
4.08
4.09
4.10

PARKING LOTS
PARKING GARAGES
SIGNAGE & GRAPHICS
5.00 VEHICLES
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06


6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
DEMOLITIONS
Buildings
Other Removals
Asbestos Abatement
Railroads
6.05
6.06
6.07
6.08
ROADWAY CHANGES
LANDSCAPING
7.00 RIGHT-OF-WAY
Property Management
Agency
Contractor
7.04 RELOCATION
7.05 OTHER

Units
of
Measure

Unit Costs
$YOE
$City
$National
$10,456
$12,538
$11,964
Station
$5,012,972
$6,011,068
$5,735,752
Station
Station
Station
Station
Station
Station
Spaces
Spaces
Each
Station
$1,798,209
$0
$44,841,563
$0
$0
$0
$2,737
$15,648
$0
$0
$2,156,237
$0
$53,769,644
$0
$0
$0
$3,282
$18,764
$0
$0
$2,057,478
$0
$51,306,912
$0
$0
$0
$3,132
$17,905
$0
$0
Rev. Vehicle
$3,007,802
$3,606,664
$3,441,474
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
$3,007,802
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3,606,664
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3,441,474
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
L.F. Guideway
$301
$361
$345
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
$112
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$190
$0
$0
$134
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$227
$0
$0
$128
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$217
$0
$0
L.F. Guideway
$697
$836
$797
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
$697
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$836
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$797
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
L.F. Guideway
C-41
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix C

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

8.00
(Total Costs $)
1.00 SOFT-COSTS
GUIDEWAY ELEMENTS
8.01
8.02
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
FINAL DESIGN
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
PROJECT INITIATION
Insurance
Mobilization

8.01
8.02
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
FINAL DESIGN
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
PROJECT INITIATION
Insurance
Mobilization

Units
of
Measure

Unit Costs
$YOE
$City
$National
$10,456
$12,538
$11,964
Total
$214,280,878
$256,944,800
$245,176,336
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
$0
$0
$95,138,864
$0
$93,897,518
$0
$15,438,722
$15,438,722
$0
$0
$1,397,973
$8,407,801
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$114,081,278
$0
$112,592,777
$0
$18,512,615
$18,512,615
$0
$0
$1,676,313
$10,081,818
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$108,856,181
$0
$107,435,856
$0
$17,664,709
$17,664,709
$0
$0
$1,599,536
$9,620,055
$0
$0
$0
Total
28.6%
28.6%
28.6%
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
0.0%
0.0%
12.7%
0.0%
12.5%
0.0%
2.1%
2.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
1.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
12.7%
0.0%
12.5%
0.0%
2.1%
2.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
1.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
12.7%
0.0%
12.5%
0.0%
2.1%
2.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
1.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
L.F. Guideway
C-42
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix C

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.11
AT GRADE GUIDEWAY
BALLASTED TRACK
EMBEDDED TRACK
SPECIAL TRACKWORK
2.00 YARDS & SHOPS

2.01
2.02
2.03
2.04
2.05
2.06
2.07
2.08
2.09
2.10
2.11

Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
3.00 SYSTEMS
3.01 SIGNAL SYSTEM
Crossing Protection
Substations
Catenary
Third Rail
3.03 COMMUNICATIONS
Elevators
Escalators

Units
of
Measure

Unit Costs
$YOE
$City
$National
L.F. Guideway
$6,934
$1,364
$7,119
$1,401
$6,414
$1,262
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
L.F. Guideway
$920
$0
$7,340
$0
$0
$0
$520
$140
$0
$12
$0
$945
$0
$7,536
$0
$0
$0
$533
$143
$0
$13
$0
$851
$0
$6,790
$0
$0
$0
$481
$129
$0
$11
$0
Rev. Vehicle
$0
$0
$0
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Track Feet
$424
$436
$393
Track Feet
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Intersections
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Station
Each
Station
Rev. Vehicle
L.F. Guideway
Each
Each
Each
$248
$255
$230
$218
$0
$0
$0
$224
$0
$0
$0
$202
$0
$0
$0
$163
$167
$150
$93
$0
$45
$0
$0
$96
$0
$46
$0
$0
$86
$0
$42
$0
$0
$149,974
$149,974
$135,112
$0
$149,974
$0
$0
$0
$149,974
$0
$0
$0
$135,112
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
L.F. Guideway
C-43
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix C

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

1.00 STATIONS
GUIDEWAY ELEMENTS
4.00
4.01
4.02
4.03
4.04
4.05
4.06
4.07
4.08
4.09
4.10

PARKING LOTS
PARKING GARAGES
SIGNAGE & GRAPHICS
5.00 VEHICLES
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06


6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
DEMOLITIONS
Buildings
Other Removals
Asbestos Abatement
Railroads
6.05
6.06
6.07
6.08
ROADWAY CHANGES
LANDSCAPING
7.00 RIGHT-OF-WAY
Property Management
Agency
Contractor
7.04 RELOCATION
7.05 OTHER

Units
of
Measure

Unit Costs
$YOE
$City
$National
$6,934
$7,119
$6,414
Station
$3,742,420
$3,842,483
$3,461,696
Station
Station
Station
Station
Station
Station
Spaces
Spaces
Each
Station
$3,742,420
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3,842,483
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3,461,696
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Rev. Vehicle
$2,537,853
$2,605,709
$2,347,485
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
$2,537,853
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,605,709
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,347,485
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
L.F. Guideway
$237
$243
$219
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
$228
$0
$0
$9
$9
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$234
$0
$0
$9
$9
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$211
$0
$0
$8
$8
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
L.F. Guideway
$860
$883
$795
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
$852
$0
$8
$0
$8
$0
$0
$0
$874
$0
$8
$0
$8
$0
$0
$0
$788
$0
$8
$0
$8
$0
$0
$0
L.F. Guideway
C-44
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix C

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

8.00
(Total Costs $)
1.00 SOFT-COSTS
GUIDEWAY ELEMENTS
8.01
8.02
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
FINAL DESIGN
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
PROJECT INITIATION
Insurance
Mobilization

8.01
8.02
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
FINAL DESIGN
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
PROJECT INITIATION
Insurance
Mobilization

Units
of
Measure

Unit Costs
$YOE
$City
$National
$6,934
$7,119
$6,414
Total
$37,198,985
$38,193,596
$34,408,645
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
$0
$0
$15,134,754
$7,757,783
$12,887,194
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$576,960
$0
$0
$842,294
$0
$0
$15,986,598
$7,965,207
$13,231,767
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$592,387
$0
$0
$864,815
$0
$0
$14,402,341
$7,175,863
$11,920,510
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$533,682
$0
$0
$779,113
Total
19.2%
19.2%
19.2%
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
0.0%
0.0%
7.8%
4.0%
6.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
7.8%
4.0%
6.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
7.8%
4.0%
6.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.4%
L.F. Guideway
C-45
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix C

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.11
AT GRADE GUIDEWAY
BALLASTED TRACK
EMBEDDED TRACK
SPECIAL TRACKWORK
2.00 YARDS & SHOPS

2.01
2.02
2.03
2.04
2.05
2.06
2.07
2.08
2.09
2.10
2.11

Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
3.00 SYSTEMS
3.01 SIGNAL SYSTEM
Crossing Protection
Substations
Catenary
Third Rail
3.03 COMMUNICATIONS
Elevators
Escalators

Units
of
Measure

Unit Costs
$YOE
$City
$National
L.F. Guideway
$3,387
$883
$3,478
$907
$3,133
$817
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
L.F. Guideway
$619
$578
$3,964
$0
$0
$0
$281
$143
$103
$27
$0
$635
$593
$4,070
$0
$0
$0
$288
$146
$106
$28
$0
$572
$534
$3,667
$0
$0
$0
$260
$132
$95
$25
$0
Rev. Vehicle
$0
$0
$0
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Track Feet
$594
$610
$550
Track Feet
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Intersections
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Station
Each
Station
Rev. Vehicle
L.F. Guideway
Each
Each
Each
$261
$268
$242
$259
$0
$0
$0
$266
$0
$0
$0
$239
$0
$0
$0
$310
$318
$287
$56
$0
$254
$0
$10
$57
$0
$261
$0
$10
$52
$0
$235
$0
$9
$125,156
$125,156
$112,753
$0
$125,156
$0
$0
$0
$125,156
$0
$0
$0
$112,753
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
L.F. Guideway
C-46
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix C

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

1.00 STATIONS
GUIDEWAY ELEMENTS
4.00
4.01
4.02
4.03
4.04
4.05
4.06
4.07
4.08
4.09
4.10

PARKING LOTS
PARKING GARAGES
SIGNAGE & GRAPHICS
5.00 VEHICLES
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06


6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
DEMOLITIONS
Buildings
Other Removals
Asbestos Abatement
Railroads
6.05
6.06
6.07
6.08
ROADWAY CHANGES
LANDSCAPING
7.00 RIGHT-OF-WAY
Property Management
Agency
Contractor
7.04 RELOCATION
7.05 OTHER

Units
of
Measure

Unit Costs
$YOE
$City
$National
$3,387
$3,478
$3,133
Station
$1,865,282
$1,915,155
$1,725,365
Station
Station
Station
Station
Station
Station
Spaces
Spaces
Each
Station
$2,288,547
$1,442,365
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$84,444
$2,349,737
$1,480,930
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$86,702
$2,116,881
$1,334,171
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$78,110
Rev. Vehicle
$2,549,092
$2,617,249
$2,357,882
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
$0
$2,549,092
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,617,249
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,357,882
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
L.F. Guideway
$164
$168
$152
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
$110
$0
$0
$1
$1
$0
$0
$0
$0
$50
$0
$4
$113
$0
$0
$1
$1
$0
$0
$0
$0
$51
$0
$4
$102
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$46
$0
$3
L.F. Guideway
$78
$80
$72
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
$55
$0
$15
$0
$3
$12
$8
$0
$56
$0
$16
$0
$4
$12
$8
$0
$50
$0
$14
$0
$3
$11
$8
$0
L.F. Guideway
C-47
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix C

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

8.00
(Total Costs $)
1.00 SOFT-COSTS
GUIDEWAY ELEMENTS
8.01
8.02
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
FINAL DESIGN
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
PROJECT INITIATION
Insurance
Mobilization

8.01
8.02
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
FINAL DESIGN
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
PROJECT INITIATION
Insurance
Mobilization

Units
of
Measure

Unit Costs
$YOE
$City
$National
$3,387
$3,478
$3,133
Total
$43,050,471
$44,201,537
$39,821,205
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
$0
$1,513,672
$14,085,877
$10,385,042
$10,930,435
$0
$779,564
$0
$779,564
$0
$0
$4,167,636
$0
$0
$1,188,245
$0
$1,654,411
$14,878,686
$10,662,713
$11,222,689
$0
$800,408
$0
$800,408
$0
$0
$4,279,069
$0
$0
$1,220,016
$0
$1,490,461
$13,404,222
$9,606,048
$10,110,530
$0
$721,088
$0
$721,088
$0
$0
$3,855,017
$0
$0
$1,099,113
Total
23.0%
23.0%
23.0%
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
0.0%
0.8%
7.5%
5.5%
5.8%
0.0%
0.4%
0.0%
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
2.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.6%
0.0%
0.8%
7.5%
5.5%
5.8%
0.0%
0.4%
0.0%
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
2.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.6%
0.0%
0.8%
7.5%
5.5%
5.8%
0.0%
0.4%
0.0%
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
2.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.6%
L.F. Guideway
C-48
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix C

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.11
AT GRADE GUIDEWAY
BALLASTED TRACK
EMBEDDED TRACK
SPECIAL TRACKWORK
2.00 YARDS & SHOPS

2.01
2.02
2.03
2.04
2.05
2.06
2.07
2.08
2.09
2.10
2.11

Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
3.00 SYSTEMS
3.01 SIGNAL SYSTEM
Crossing Protection
Substations
Catenary
Third Rail
3.03 COMMUNICATIONS
Elevators
Escalators

Units
of
Measure
Pasadena Gold Line

Unit Costs
$City
$YOE
$National
L.F. Guideway
$5,474
$1,209
$5,621
$1,242
$5,343
$1,180
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
L.F. Guideway
$112
$3
$586
$229
$9,798
$1,340
$237
$117
$783
$1
$298
$115
$3
$602
$236
$10,060
$1,376
$243
$120
$804
$1
$306
$109
$3
$572
$224
$9,563
$1,308
$231
$115
$764
$1
$291
$665,919
$683,724
$649,928
$572,664
$0
$0
$83,326
$0
$417
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3
$587,976
$0
$0
$85,554
$0
$428
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3
$558,912
$0
$0
$81,325
$0
$407
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3
Track Feet
$379
$389
$370
Track Feet
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Intersections
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Station
Each
Station
Rev. Vehicle
L.F. Guideway
Each
Each
Each
$124
$127
$121
$112
$0
$0
$67,005
$115
$0
$0
$68,797
$109
$0
$0
$65,396
$156
$160
$152
$67
$0
$87
$0
$44
$69
$0
$90
$0
$45
$65
$0
$85
$0
$43
$297,159
$305,104
$290,023
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$284,942
$292,561
$278,100
$313,232
$101,063
$321,607
$103,765
$305,710
$98,636
L.F. Guideway
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
C-49
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix C

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

1.00 STATIONS
GUIDEWAY ELEMENTS
4.00
4.01
4.02
4.03
4.04
4.05
4.06
4.07
4.08
4.09
4.10

PARKING LOTS
PARKING GARAGES
SIGNAGE & GRAPHICS
5.00 VEHICLES
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06


6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
DEMOLITIONS
Buildings
Other Removals
Asbestos Abatement
Railroads
6.05
6.06
6.07
6.08
ROADWAY CHANGES
LANDSCAPING
7.00 RIGHT-OF-WAY
Property Management
Agency
Contractor
7.04 RELOCATION
7.05 OTHER

Units
of
Measure
Pasadena Gold Line

Unit Costs
$City
$YOE
$National
$5,474
$5,621
$5,343
Station
$3,995,462
$4,102,291
$3,899,517
Station
Station
Station
Station
Station
Station
Spaces
Spaces
Each
Station
$2,603,165
$1,888,629
$0
$7,525,701
$3,005,440
$3,284,013
$0
$0
$1,337,913
$154,131
$2,672,767
$1,939,126
$0
$7,726,921
$3,085,799
$3,371,820
$0
$0
$1,373,685
$158,252
$2,540,653
$1,843,276
$0
$7,344,982
$2,933,269
$3,205,152
$0
$0
$1,305,785
$150,430
L.F. Guideway
Rev. Vehicle
$21,157
$21,723
$20,649
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
$0
$0
$0
$0
$531
$20,627
$20,627
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$545
$21,178
$21,178
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$518
$20,131
$20,131
$0
L.F. Guideway
$924
$948
$902
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
$177
$1
$85
$18
$12
$1
$1
$4
$158
$198
$53
$234
$182
$1
$87
$18
$12
$1
$1
$4
$162
$203
$55
$240
$173
$1
$83
$17
$12
$1
$1
$4
$154
$193
$52
$228
L.F. Guideway
$137
$141
$134
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
$36
$0
$55
$14
$41
$0
$0
$46
$37
$0
$56
$14
$42
$0
$0
$47
$35
$0
$53
$13
$40
$0
$0
$45
C-50
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix C

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

8.00
(Total Costs $)
1.00 SOFT-COSTS
GUIDEWAY ELEMENTS
8.01
8.02
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
FINAL DESIGN
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
PROJECT INITIATION
Insurance
Mobilization

8.01
8.02
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
FINAL DESIGN
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
PROJECT INITIATION
Insurance
Mobilization

Units
of
Measure
Pasadena Gold Line

Unit Costs
$City
$YOE
$National
$5,474
$5,621
$5,343
Total
$111,318,897
$117,584,370
$111,772,215
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
$0
$13,481,788
$24,009,723
$546,058
$21,430,000
$2,200,000
$18,872,000
$8,472,000
$10,400,000
$0
$0
$6,287,560
$6,287,560
$0
$24,491,768
$0
$14,735,308
$25,361,087
$560,658
$22,002,987
$2,258,823
$19,934,192
$8,698,521
$11,366,979
$0
$0
$6,287,560
$6,287,560
$0
$25,146,619
$0
$14,006,946
$24,107,497
$532,945
$20,915,387
$2,147,170
$18,948,851
$8,268,556
$10,805,113
$0
$0
$5,976,768
$5,976,768
$0
$23,903,630
Total
38.1%
38.1%
38.1%
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
0.0%
4.6%
8.2%
0.2%
7.3%
0.8%
6.5%
2.9%
3.6%
0.0%
0.0%
2.2%
2.2%
0.0%
8.4%
0.0%
4.6%
8.2%
0.2%
7.3%
0.8%
6.5%
2.9%
3.6%
0.0%
0.0%
2.2%
2.2%
0.0%
8.4%
0.0%
4.6%
8.2%
0.2%
7.3%
0.8%
6.5%
2.9%
3.6%
0.0%
0.0%
2.2%
2.2%
0.0%
8.4%
L.F. Guideway
C-51
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix C

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.11
AT GRADE GUIDEWAY
BALLASTED TRACK
EMBEDDED TRACK
SPECIAL TRACKWORK
2.00 YARDS & SHOPS

2.01
2.02
2.03
2.04
2.05
2.06
2.07
2.08
2.09
2.10
2.11

Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
3.00 SYSTEMS
3.01 SIGNAL SYSTEM
Crossing Protection
Substations
Catenary
Third Rail
3.03 COMMUNICATIONS
Elevators
Escalators

Units
of
Measure

Unit Costs
$YOE
$City
$National
L.F. Guideway
$3,963
$902
$4,453
$1,013
$4,644
$1,057
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
L.F. Guideway
$561
$0
$1,713
$828
$0
$2,602
$225
$96
$0
$6
$0
$630
$0
$1,924
$930
$0
$2,924
$253
$108
$0
$7
$0
$657
$0
$2,007
$970
$0
$3,049
$263
$112
$0
$8
$0
L.F. Guideway
$22,222
$24,970
$26,038
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
$0
$0
$0
$22,222
$0
$250
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$24,970
$0
$281
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$26,038
$0
$293
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Track Feet
$125
$141
$147
$40
$45
$47
$40
$0
$0
$0
$45
$0
$0
$0
$47
$0
$0
$0
$77
$86
$90
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$160,000
$179,784
$187,470
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Intersections
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Station
Each
Station
Rev. Vehicle
L.F. Guideway
Each
Each
Each
C-52
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix C

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

1.00 STATIONS
GUIDEWAY ELEMENTS
4.00
4.01
4.02
4.03
4.04
4.05
4.06
4.07
4.08
4.09
4.10

PARKING LOTS
PARKING GARAGES
SIGNAGE & GRAPHICS
5.00 VEHICLES
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06


6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
DEMOLITIONS
Buildings
Other Removals
Asbestos Abatement
Railroads
6.05
6.06
6.07
6.08
ROADWAY CHANGES
LANDSCAPING
7.00 RIGHT-OF-WAY
Property Management
Agency
Contractor
7.04 RELOCATION
7.05 OTHER

Units
of
Measure

Unit Costs
$YOE
$City
$National
$3,963
$4,453
$4,644
Station
$3,800,000
$4,269,866
$4,452,415
Station
Station
Station
Station
Station
Station
Spaces
Spaces
Each
Station
$3,800,000
$3,800,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$4,269,866
$4,269,866
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$4,452,415
$4,452,415
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Rev. Vehicle
$1,816,667
$2,041,296
$2,128,567
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
$1,816,667
$1,816,667
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,041,296
$2,041,296
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,128,567
$2,128,567
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
L.F. Guideway
$31
$35
$37
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
$18
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$13
$0
$0
$20
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$15
$0
$0
$21
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$16
$0
$0
L.F. Guideway
$864
$971
$1,012
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
$192
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$671
$216
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$754
$225
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$787
L.F. Guideway
C-53
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix C

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

8.00
(Total Costs $)
1.00 SOFT-COSTS
GUIDEWAY ELEMENTS
8.01
8.02
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
FINAL DESIGN
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
PROJECT INITIATION
Insurance
Mobilization

8.01
8.02
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
FINAL DESIGN
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
PROJECT INITIATION
Insurance
Mobilization

Units
of
Measure

Unit Costs
$YOE
$City
$National
$3,963
$4,453
$4,644
Total
$33,100,000
$37,192,784
$38,782,882
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
$0
$0
$21,600,000
$11,500,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$24,270,819
$12,921,964
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$25,308,467
$13,474,415
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Total
23.0%
23.0%
23.0%
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
0.0%
0.0%
15.0%
8.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
15.0%
8.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
15.0%
8.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
L.F. Guideway
C-54
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix C

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.11
AT GRADE GUIDEWAY
BALLASTED TRACK
EMBEDDED TRACK
SPECIAL TRACKWORK
2.00 YARDS & SHOPS

2.01
2.02
2.03
2.04
2.05
2.06
2.07
2.08
2.09
2.10
2.11

Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
3.00 SYSTEMS
3.01 SIGNAL SYSTEM
Crossing Protection
Substations
Catenary
Third Rail
3.03 COMMUNICATIONS
Elevators
Escalators

Units
of
Measure

Unit Costs
$YOE
$City
$National
L.F. Guideway
$13,436
$3,273
$13,436
$3,360
$13,409
$3,354
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
L.F. Guideway
$1,349
$496
$5,488
$3,404
$0
$2,939
$403
$163
$164
$65
$0
$1,386
$510
$5,635
$3,495
$0
$3,018
$414
$167
$169
$67
$0
$1,383
$509
$5,624
$3,488
$0
$3,012
$413
$167
$168
$67
$0
$138,414
$151,284
$150,982
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$63
$63
$0
$71
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$69
$69
$0
$78
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$69
$69
$0
$78
$1,124
$1,124
$1,121
$385
$385
$384
$265
$69,067
$0
$197,093
$265
$69,067
$0
$197,093
$264
$68,929
$0
$196,699
$404
$404
$403
$225
$0
$160
$0
$89
$225
$0
$160
$0
$89
$225
$0
$160
$0
$89
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$465
$0
$0
$0
$465
$0
$0
$0
$464
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
L.F. Guideway
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Intersections
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Station
Each
Station
Rev. Vehicle
L.F. Guideway
Each
Each
Each
C-55
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix C

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

1.00 STATIONS
GUIDEWAY ELEMENTS
4.00
4.01
4.02
4.03
4.04
4.05
4.06
4.07
4.08
4.09
4.10

PARKING LOTS
PARKING GARAGES
SIGNAGE & GRAPHICS
5.00 VEHICLES
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06


6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
DEMOLITIONS
Buildings
Other Removals
Asbestos Abatement
Railroads
6.05
6.06
6.07
6.08
ROADWAY CHANGES
LANDSCAPING
7.00 RIGHT-OF-WAY
Property Management
Agency
Contractor
7.04 RELOCATION
7.05 OTHER

Units
of
Measure

Unit Costs
$YOE
$City
$National
$13,436
$13,436
$13,409
Station
$3,758,924
$3,758,924
$3,751,421
Station
Station
Station
Station
Station
Station
Spaces
Spaces
Each
Station
$0
$1,340,089
$0
$0
$0
$0
$7,159
$14,922
$95,000
$33,380
$0
$1,375,920
$0
$0
$0
$0
$7,351
$14,515
$97,540
$34,273
$0
$1,373,174
$0
$0
$0
$0
$7,336
$14,486
$97,345
$34,204
Rev. Vehicle
$2,442,877
$2,376,323
$2,371,580
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
$2,435,836
$0
$0
$0
$0
$7,041
$7,041
$0
$2,369,474
$0
$0
$0
$0
$7,229
$7,229
$0
$2,364,744
$0
$0
$0
$0
$7,214
$7,214
$0
L.F. Guideway
$609
$625
$624
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
$126
$0
$15
$13
$13
$0
$0
$0
$424
$0
$31
$0
$130
$0
$15
$14
$14
$0
$0
$0
$435
$0
$32
$0
$129
$0
$15
$14
$14
$0
$0
$0
$434
$0
$32
$0
L.F. Guideway
$103
$105
$105
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
$94
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$8
$1
$97
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$8
$1
$96
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$8
$1
L.F. Guideway
C-56
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix C

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

8.00
(Total Costs $)
1.00 SOFT-COSTS
GUIDEWAY ELEMENTS
8.01
8.02
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
FINAL DESIGN
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
PROJECT INITIATION
Insurance
Mobilization

8.01
8.02
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
FINAL DESIGN
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
PROJECT INITIATION
Insurance
Mobilization

Units
of
Measure

Unit Costs
$YOE
$City
$National
$13,436
$13,436
$13,409
Total
$97,219,739
$99,819,161
$99,619,921
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
$300,845
$11,600,789
$35,198,539
$20,338,449
$13,683,245
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$16,097,872
$338,044
$13,035,216
$36,139,663
$20,882,250
$14,049,102
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$16,528,290
$337,369
$13,009,197
$36,067,528
$20,840,569
$14,021,060
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$16,495,300
Total
33.6%
33.6%
33.6%
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
0.1%
4.0%
12.2%
7.0%
4.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
5.6%
0.1%
4.0%
12.2%
7.0%
4.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
5.6%
0.1%
4.0%
12.2%
7.0%
4.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
5.6%
L.F. Guideway
C-57
Booz Allen Hamilton
APPENDIX D
Cost Functions Worksheet
Appendix D
MODEL COST FUNCTIONS

FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS
Units
of
Measure

1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.11
2.05
2.06
2.07
2.08
2.09
2.10
2.11
Asymptote
L.F. Guideway
AT GRADE GUIDEWAY
BALLASTED TRACK
EMBEDDED TRACK
SPECIAL TRACKWORK
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
L.F. Guideway
5,476,681.14
1,000,491.86
1,104,469.29
13,796,397.58
1,382,304.95
1,486,387.03
181,749.99
3,032,517.61
3,841,351.04
2,622,882.05
642.21
1,050.01
3,509.70
212.76
9,304.70
2,044.49
226.31
96.16
132.73
15.08
35.88
Rev. Vehicle

Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork

Slope
L.F. Guideway
2.00 YARDS & SHOPS

2.01
2.02
2.03
2.04
Baseline Cost Functions
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
D-1
558,912.22
558,912.22
558,912.22
67,996.34
67,996.34
67,996.34
27,919,011.21
27,919,011.21
27,919,011.21
2,202,319.60
37,851.55
37,851.55
37,851.55
1.43
40.61
APPENDIX E
Appendix E

Note that estimation of the unit cost relationships found in the CostFunction worksheet is
not automated. Rather, estimation of these relationships was performed manually and hard
coded into the worksheet. For this reason, the unit cost relationships do not change as new
project data are added to the underlying cost database. There are two reasons for not
automating estimation of the unit cost relationships. First, the automation process would
have introduced a high degree of complication to model design (especially when one
considers that cost elements are not reported for all projects). Second, and much more
importantly, regression cost parameters for small samples tend to be unstable as new data
points are added. This instability could easily yield significant, unpredictable and frequently
questionable changes in cost estimates for new projects following expansion of the
underlying dataset. Moreover, an automated regression estimation process would not
include the judgment required to determine if the unit cost values for new projects added
to the underlying database are reasonable. Given these concerns, the decision was made
not to automate the process, but rather to work off of a set of fixed unit cost relationships
estimated using a base dataset available at the time the model was first developed. These
fixed relationships can be re-estimated at a later date as the models dataset grows.
At the same time, it is crucial that the unit cost models reflect information available when
new projects become added to the underlying database (i.e., in the CostDatabase
worksheet). The account for this new information, the model does include calculations to
adjust the asymptote parameter () to reflect the addition of new unit cost data to the
CostDatabase worksheet (while leaving the slope parameter, , fixed). Specifically, the
model compares the pivot point of the original dataset used to estimate the unit cost
model with the new pivot point associated with the updated data set (note: the pivot
point for a given cost element is the mean of the unit cost and unit quantity values of the
underlying dataset). The unit cost model is then adjusted to reflect the change in pivot point
values.
This model adjustment process is presented diagrammatically in Exhibits E-1 and E-2
below. Exhibit E-1 shows a hypothetical unit cost function for at-grade guideway. The
downward sloping curves capture a significant decline in unit cost for guideway
construction as the length of guideway constructed increases. The older, lower curve was
estimated using the original dataset available at the time the model was completed. The
pivot point for this dataset is represented by a triangle along the curve. The diamond
represents the pivot point for the new, updated dataset. This updated dataset includes all
projects used to estimate the original unit cost curve plus all new projects added to the

E-1
Appendix E
database since the unit model was first estimated. The upper curve represents a modified
version of the original (lower) unit cost curve. Specifically, the new, modified curve has been
shifted upward relative to the original curve to reflect the higher positioning of the new
pivot point. Note however, that the curve has only been shifter upwards (i.e., has
changed); there is no change to the slope ().
Exhibit E-1
Adjusted Unit Cost Function: Example
At-Grade Guideway
Cost Per Linear Foot
$2,500
$2,000
$1,500
Adjusted Model (Updated dataset)
$1,000
$500
Original Model (original dataset)
$0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
Linear Feet
Exhibit E-2
Adjusted Unit Cost Function: Example
At-Grade Guideway
Cost Per Linear Foot
$1,000
New Pivot Point
$900
$800
Full
Adjustment
$700
Partial Adjustment
Expected
$600 Difference
Old Pivot Point
$500
70,000
72,000
74,000
76,000
78,000
80,000
82,000
84,000
Linear Feet
At the same time, note that the new curve has shifted up by an amount less than the vertical
difference between the two pivot points. This is more easily seen in Exhibit E-2. The reason
for this is as follows: it is already hypothesized that unit costs decrease (increase) as the
number of units increases (decreases). Hence, given that the new pivot point represents a

E-2
Appendix E
lower number of units than the original pivot point, it should be expected that the unit cost
for the new point should be higher than the original. This is represented by the expected
difference in Exhibit E-2. The remaining difference in vertical distance between the old
and new pivot points reflects the actual difference in the unit costs between the two samples
(the original dataset and the new, updated dataset). This is represented as the partial
adjustment in Exhibit E-2. Hence, in the revised unit cost model, the curve has shifted up
by the amount of the partial adjustment ( increased) while the slope of the unit cost
function () remains unaltered.
The CostFunctions worksheet houses the unit cost model parameters (i.e., slope and
asymptote coefficients) for all cost elements used by the model. Once again, these
relationships have been estimated using the baseline dataset available during development
of the model and the slope component to these relationships remains fixed regardless of
addition of new cost data to the CostDatabase worksheet. However, the CostFunctions
worksheet does include calculations to adjust the asymptote parameter to reflect the
addition of new unit cost data to the CostDatabase worksheet. (Note: the asymptote
parameter represents the theoretic minimum unit cost value which is approached as project
sizes approach an infinite number of units). Moreover, should the user decide to limit the
unit cost analysis to a preferred set of database projects using the SelectProjects option,
the CostFunctions worksheet also includes calculations to automatically adjust the unit cost
function asymptote parameter to reflect this choice.

E-3
APPENDIX F
Select Projects Worksheet
Select Projects Baseline
Appendix F
Select Projects
Scroll right to determine which projects are currently selected => (project titles for p
FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY

LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.11
AT GRADE GUIDEWAY
BALLASTED TRACK
EMBEDDED TRACK
SPECIAL TRACKWORK
2.00 YARDS & SHOPS

2.01
2.02
2.03
2.04
2.05
2.06
2.07
2.08
2.09
2.10
2.11

Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork

Units
of
Measure
Units
$National
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Each
$0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Rev. Vehicle
$0
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
F-1
APPENDIX G
Standard Model LRT Parameters
Appendix G
STANDARD MODEL LRT

Note: The "Standard Model LRT" represents the proportions of vertical
grade types and other componenets used ti construct a "typical" LRT
investment and provides the baseline for project cost variance analysis
FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY

LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS
Units
of
Measure

RIDERSHIP
WEEKDAY
L.F. Guideway
Unlinked Trips per L.F. Guideway

1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.11
AT GRADE GUIDEWAY
BALLASTED TRACK
EMBEDDED TRACK
SPECIAL TRACKWORK
2.00 YARDS & SHOPS

2.01
2.02
2.03
2.04
2.05
2.06
2.07
2.08
2.09
2.10
2.11
% of Guideway
% of Guideway
% of Guideway
% of Guideway
% of Guideway
% of Guideway
% of Guideway
Track Feet per L.F. Guideway
Yes/No
Yes/No
3.00 SYSTEMS
3.01 SIGNAL SYSTEM
Crossing Protection
Substations
Catenary
Third Rail
3.03 COMMUNICATIONS
Elevators
Escalators

100%
0.39767605
100%
100%
75%
9%
5%
4%
4%
3%
0.170611252
1.487877040
0.246351487
1
1
75%
9%
5%
4%
4%
3%
0.170611252
1.487877040
0.246351487
1
1
0.000412154
0.000477779
0.000
0
0
0.000
Yes/No
Yes/No
Yes/No
Yes/No
Yes/No
Yes/No
1.000
0
0
0.000
Yes/No
Track Feet Per L.F. Guideway
Yes/No
Yes/No
Yes/No
Yes/No
Intersections per L.F. Guideway
Yes/No
Yes/No
Yes/No
Yes/No
Yes/No
Yes/No
Yes/No
Yes/No
Yes/No
Yes/No
Yes/No
Elevators/Escalators per L.F. Guideway
G-1
100%
Yes/No
Yes/No
Yes/No
Yes/No
Rev. Vehicles Per L.F. Guideway

Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Standard Model LRT: Mix

Full
Select
Sample
Agencies
0.000
0.000
0
0
0.000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.000
0
0
0.000
0
0
0.000
1.9048398
1.9048398
1
0
0
0
0.000000000
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0.947
0
0
0
0
0
Booz Allen Hamilton
Appendix G
STANDARD MODEL LRT

Note: The "Standard Model LRT" represents the proportions of vertical
grade types and other componenets used ti construct a "typical" LRT
investment and provides the baseline for project cost variance analysis
4.00 STATIONS
4.01
4.02
4.03
4.04
4.05
4.06
4.07
4.08
4.09
4.10

PARKING LOTS
PARKING GARAGES
SIGNAGE & GRAPHICS
5.00 VEHICLES
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06
Stations per L.F. Guideway

% of Stations
% of Stations
% of Stations
% of Stations
% of Stations
% of Stations
Spaces per L.F. Guideway
Spaces per L.F. Guideway
Overpasses per L.F. Guideway
Yes/No
Rev. Vehicles Per L.F. Guideway

Standard Model LRT:

Mix
0.000200038
0.000200038
46.4%
47.5%
0.8%
2.3%
1.5%
1.5%
0.019175742
0.002023028
0.000007549
0
46.4%
47.5%
0.8%
2.3%
1.5%
1.5%
0.011208181
0.001825255
0.000006794
0
0.000412154
0.000412154
Yes/No
Yes/No
0
0
Yes/No
Yes/No
Yes/No
Yes/No
1
1
1
1
Yes/No
Yes/No
Yes/No
Yes/No
1
1
1
0
Yes/No
Yes/No
Yes/No
Yes/No
Yes/No
Yes/No
Yes/No
Yes/No
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0

6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
DEMOLITIONS
Buildings
Other Removals
Asbestos Abatement
Railroads
6.05
6.06
6.07
6.08
ROADWAY CHANGES
LANDSCAPING
7.00 RIGHT-OF-WAY
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0

Property Management
Agency
Contractor
7.04 RELOCATION
7.05 OTHER
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
Use Analysis Percents
8.01
8.02
8.02
8.03
8.04
8.05
8.06
FINAL DESIGN
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
PROJECT INITIATION
Insurance
Mobilization

G-2
Booz Allen Hamilton
APPENDIX H
Cost Variance Worksheet
Appendix H
COST VARIANCE ANALYSIS: DETAIL

Select
Unit Cost
Basis
Baseline Model: Unadjustred unit cost functions

Select
Project
FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY

LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS
Units
of
Measure
L.F. Guideway
0.0a Analysis: Total Cost in Current Baseline Year Dollars

WEEKDAY RIDERSHIP

1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.11
AT GRADE GUIDEWAY
BALLASTED TRACK
EMBEDDED TRACK
SPECIAL TRACKWORK
2.00 YARDS & SHOPS

2.01
2.02
2.03
2.04
2.05
2.06
2.07
2.08
2.09
2.10
2.11

Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
3.00 SYSTEMS
3.01 SIGNAL SYSTEM
Crossing Protection
Substations
Catenary
Third Rail
3.03 COMMUNICATIONS


Total Project Costs
Standard LRT
Modeled Project
Actuals
$361,253,145
$576,768,959
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
L.F. Guideway
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Intersections
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Station
H-1
Print
$97,278,492
$28,297,252
$5,306,967
$9,434,572
$9,075,899
$21,286,161
$4,154,834
$2,101,684
$9,265,249
$4,089,449
$2,419,106
$1,847,319
$18,417,848
$0
$0
$0
$0
$364,557,892
$555,525,064
$582,045,247
$886,939,303
$113,796,847
$202,419,030
$33,048,573
$6,107,634
$3,900,072
$9,075,899
$47,470,103
$1,293,880
$3,011,708
$4,509,598
$1,112,955
$2,419,106
$1,847,319
$18,674,638
$16,901,866
$4,915,157
$0
$145,243,891
$6,084,050
$4,610,360
$3,804,559
$2,184,509
$0
$0
$9,924,943
$37,116,525
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$32,090,648
$0
$0
$5,025,877
$5,025,877
$0
$0
$40,679,384
$57,545,738
$59,951,818
$13,772,036
$21,823,116
$19,413,881
$25,757,509
$6,310,393
$1,183,074
$8,503,541
$1,461,572
$22,913,020
$22,913,020
$0
$0
$0
$27,043,907
$12,031,797
$0
$15,012,110
$0
$8,928,230
$1,066,661
$0
$0
$0
$0
$18,417,848
$0
$0
$0
$9,924,943
$0
$0
$0
$0
APPENDIX I
Capital Cost Calculator Worksheet
Appendix I
PROJECT COST CALCULATOR

Select
Estimate
Basis
Baseline Model (original data set)

Print

FALSE
FTA FIXED GUIDEWAY

LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS
Units
of
Measure
Enter Project Name Here

Phoenix, AZ
Year
Unit Cost
Select City:
Quantity
L.F. Guideway
100,000
Total Cost
2009
$6,908
$690,759,386
WEEKDAY RIDERSHIP
Unlinked Trips
39,768
L.F. Guideway
100,000
2010
$1,162
$116,158,480
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Track Feet
Each
100,000
0
0
0
0
0
50,000
150,000
0
200,000
100,000
2010
2010
2010
$750
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$248
$125
$0
$30
$39
$75,047,648
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$12,379,769
$18,796,132
$0
$6,071,360
$3,863,571
45
2010
$935,312.69
$42,089,071
2010
$0
$0
$0
$73,216
$0
$0
$0
$3,294,707
$0
$0
$0
$0
$31,896,129
$0
$0
$2,525,806
$4,372,429
1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.11
AT GRADE GUIDEWAY
BALLASTED TRACK
EMBEDDED TRACK
SPECIAL TRACKWORK
2.00 YARDS & SHOPS

2.01
2.02
2.03
2.04
2.05
2.06
2.07
2.08
2.09
2.10
2.11

Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork
Storage Building
Yard Trackwork

Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Track Feet
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
Rev. Vehicle
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
L.F. Guideway
I-1
0
0
0
45
2010
2010
45
0
0
100,000
2010
2010
$708,803
$0
$0
$25
100,000
2010
$44
APPENDIX J
LRT Comments
Reviewer
Thorpe, Greg
Appendix J
Page
Comment
Edits
Response
One question that we have is what is the

end use of the study?
The overall study objectives are to:
Document the as-built costs for a wide

range of LRT investments
Develop unit-cost relationships for all

LRT project components
Will FTA use it to evaluate projects for

funding or use it to bring projects in line
with a national standard or median?
Sawyer, Bryan
(TRAX)
Better understand what drives the cost

differences between projects
Determine if / whether / how LRT
investment costs are changing over time
Develop an LRT Capital Cost Calculator
From the report, one can conclude that

Salt Lake City gets more "mileage" out
of the funds spent than most other
projects.
Response not needed
Lastly, we would like to receive a copy

of the program so that we can evaluate
how our University and Medical Center
LRT extension relate to the national
average and also to evaluate our future
projects, i.e.
Westside, Airport and Draper
extensions.
Response not needed
The overall approach to the variance

analysis graphs on the specific projects
seems to be effected by the inclusion of
the Hudson Bergen MOS II line. This
project is $700 million above the
"Typical LRT Investment" line. This
project is so far above any of the others
that it makes it seem as though the
Denver and Salt Lake lines are so far
below the "Typical LRT Investment".
With out knowing how this number was
generated, The low and high projects
maybe should be taken out of the
calculation of the "Typical LRT
Investment" number.
Response not needed

J-1
Excel Files
Attached
to E-mail
PMO cost
worksheet.xls
Reviewer
Appendix J
Page
Section
5.2.15
(SLC
Project
specific
comment
s)
Comment
Edits
Response
The statement is made that the vehicles

were below the average vehicle
purchase. This is correct. The
statement made in the bullets states that
the vehicles were above the average in
unit costs. This is incorrect and is
inconsistent with the above statement.
UTA tagged onto the San Diego LRV
procurement from 1990 to get the
vehicles at $1.8 in 1999 dollars.
Response not needed
The first bullet uses the word "typical"

to describe a LRT. This needs to be
defined. What is typical? It may be that
there is a cost savings in non typical.
Section 5.1.1 of the report provides adequate

definition of the Standard Model LRT.
The numbers used to for the UTA

project are in error and need to be
corrected. (Please see attached sheet
given to the PMO to FTA from UTA.)
The numbers used are not too bad but
we did do even better than what is
shown. Total project was $304 M not
$312 M.
Response not needed

J-2
Excel Files
Attached
to E-mail
Reviewer
Appendix J
Page
Comment
Edits
Response
Excel Files
Attached
to E-mail
Response not needed
I like the concept of the study and the

focus to help plan and estimate
upcoming lines but; question the
interpretation of the numbers being
reported for the study and how they are
so generic. For example, UTA used the
same contractor for the yard and shop
electrification as for the main line. This
is not separated into the two line items
of yard and shop and systems
electrifications. Also the utility
relocations are done under many
contracts and not just one.
I am sure that other projects used the
same approach as UTA to get the most
for the money and to do this the scope
of the project was separated into what
was the most value.
Shonsey, John
(RTD)
Pg. 3-2, 3.0

(Project
Description)
They refer to Denvers Line as

Denver T-REX Light Rail Initial
Segments. It should read Denver
Southwest Corridor Light Rail Initial
Segments.
Completed
Pg. 3-2, 3.1

(Denver Light
Rail)
Exhibit 3-1 refers to T-REX Light Rail

System, it should read RTD Light Rail
System
Completed
Pg. 3-2, 3.1

(DLR
description
para.)
Third line should remove the word TREX
Completed

J-3
Capital Cost STV

Response to FTA
for SWC2.xls
Reviewer
Appendix J
Page
Comment
Pg. 3-3, 3.1

(DLR
description
para.)
Pg. A-52
Edits
1st paragraph, 1st sentence. Add after

the southern portion of the city in
1994.
For the last 2 sentences change them
to The southwest Corridor extension
opened for revenue service in the year
2000, with an estimated 8,400 daily
riders for the Southwest extension and
22,000 daily riders for the entire LRT
system by the year 2015. Within one
year of operation a total of 38,000
average daily riders were using the
system, of these 17,400 average daily
riders were using the Southwest
extension. This five station extension
is the segment included in the
database.
Completed
2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence, remove

the T-REX light rail line.
Completed
At the top of the spread sheet the

project is referred to a design/build
project DB. The project was actually
a design/bid/build project DBB.
Please change the reference.
Completed
We are in the process of getting

revised budget information for you.
Please note though that our final
numbers show that we came under
budget by $3,000,000 ($3 million). In
other words the final cost for the
project was $174.9 million. The
original budget was $177.9 million.

Response
Response not needed
J-4
Excel Files
Attached
to E-mail
Reviewer
Shaw Stone &

Webster,
PMOC and
PAAC,
Grantee
(Pittsburgh's
Stage II
Project)
Appendix J
Page
Comment
Edits
Response
Pg. 1-2 (1.2

Study
Purpose)
States that these are as-built unit

costs, although most of the project
data are from in-process projects,
and as-built costs may differ. For
example, Stage II data reflect the
project at approx. 70% complete
(earned value) and 62% expended
(relative to full FFGA amount), with
92% of the funds committed. At the
time of data collection, one major
contract within the parking
structure category (total estimated
cost $22,950,000) had not yet been
awarded, and has the potential to
have a significantly different asbuilt value.
Not sure how to address this one. May be add

where available right after as-built unit costs
in section 1.2
Pg. 3-11
(3.4.2
(Project
Descriptions)
Pittsburgh
Stage II)
The cost data collected and

analyzed in this report are for the
Stage II Priority Project, which is
under a FFGA, and which includes
the highest priority items of the full
program. (This prioritized
approach was necessary due to
limitations on funding.) The
following comments on this section
bring the project description in line
with the same Priority Project as
addressed by the data. (The FFGA
refers to the project as Stage II
Light Rail Transit Priority Project.
For clarity, references to Stage II
throughout this report could call out
Stage II Priority.)
Completed

J-5
Excel Files
Attached
to E-mail
Reviewer
Page
Pg. 3-12
(3.4.2
(Project
Descriptions)
Pittsburgh
Stage II
Third
paragraph)
Appendix J
Comment
Edits
Port Authority broke ground

on the Stage II Priority
project.
Delete the remanufacture of Port
Authoritys existing fleet of 55
light rail vehicles.
scheduled to be complete by June
2004
Response
Completed
3-12 (3.4.2
(Project
Descriptions)
Pittsburgh
Stage II
Fourth
paragraph)
5.5 miles of the Overbrook

Line should be 5.2 miles.
(remaining 0.3 miles of the
project are on the Library line,
see below)
six ADA stations should be
eight.
Completed
3-12 (3.4.2
(Project
Descriptions)
Pittsburgh
Stage II
after Castle Shannon Junction,

add reconstruction of track on
0.3 miles of the alignment,
Completed
3-12 (3.4.2
(Project
Descriptions)
Pittsburgh
Stage II
Sixth
paragraph)
Delete all but first sentence of the

(Drake Line) paragraph as written and
replace with, The project includes
modifications to the existing line as
necessary to allow for the testing of
light rail vehicles.
Completed
3-12 (3.4.2
(Project
Descriptions)
Pittsburgh
Stage II
Seventh
paragraph)
Editorial: delete has
Completed

J-6
Excel Files
Attached
to E-mail
Reviewer
Page
Appendix J
Comment
Edits
Response
3-12 (3.4.2
(Project
Descriptions)
Pittsburgh
Stage II
Eighth
paragraph)
Delete A fleet of 28 new vehicles and

remanufacture of the Authoritys
current fleet of 55 LRVs of the from,
and replace with The project includes
an order with
Completed
3-13 (3.4.2
(Project
Descriptions)
Pittsburgh
Stage II
First
paragraph)
Revise to read two-car train

operations along the Overbrook and
Library Lines. (delete Beechview)
Completed
3-13 (3.4.2
(Project
Descriptions)
Pittsburgh
Stage II
Second
paragraph)
Delete portions of the Beechview

Line and in downtown Pittsburgh.
Completed
3-13 (3.4.2
(Project
Descriptions)
Pittsburgh
Stage II
Third
paragraph)
Delete (Station Improvements)

paragraph in its entirety.
Completed
3-13 (3.4.2
(Project
Descriptions)
Pittsburgh
Stage II
Fourth
paragraph)
Revise paragraph to read Park and

Ride Lot Expansion Stage II will
advance the Authoritys successful
Park and Ride Improvement Program
by adding approximately 2200 new
park and ride spaces along the
Overbrook and Library Lines in new
or expanded facilities.
Completed

J-7
Excel Files
Attached
to E-mail
Reviewer
Page
4-4 (4.1.3
(Normalizatio
n Worksheet))
5-31 (5.2.7
(Cost
Variance
Analysis)
Pittsburgh
Stage II
Appendix J
Comment
Edits
Editorial. Last sentence of first

paragraph, coat should be cost.
4.5 mile should be 5.5 mile
Response
Completed
Completed
5-31 (5.2.7
(Cost
Variance
Analysis)
Pittsburgh
Stage II
Second
paragraph)
In first bullet, revise subway to

retained fill
Completed
5-32 (5.2.7
(Cost
Variance
Analysis)
Pittsburgh
Stage II
Exhibit 5-22)
In line 3, track feet should be 57,636

instead of 54,298.
Completed

J-8
Excel Files
Attached
to E-mail
Reviewer
Appendix J
Page
Comment
5-33 (5.2.7
(Cost
Variance
Analysis)
Pittsburgh
Stage II
Exhibit 5-23)
In Guideway Elements, there should

be no sections of underground
Guideway. Check the source of
these data. (Its not Appendix A).
5-66 (5.4.1
(Are Project
Costs
Increasing
or
Decreasing?
))
Bhattacharya,
Steve
Edits
Response
Reviewed: Exhibit shows negative quantity

variance for underground guideway indicating
that there is no underground investment for this
project.
Editorial. The bulleted paragraph,

Higher Fixed Costs per Unit appears
to be duplicated.
Completed
Add an Executive Summary to

summarize the results of the study
and to help the Senior Management
to comprehend the contents of the
study without reading the whole
report.
Completed
The study identifies the cost drivers but

it is not centralized. The summary
Variance Table should identify the cost
drivers so that they are all in one place.
The Time Series Analysis should be
expanded to include full-page graphics
of Unit Cost Time Series diagram. It
should also include other examples
more than just ballasted track.
Completed
There should be more explanation

on Standard Model LRT ----how
was it created and the basis of the
database? The Appendix G
should have clarification on each
column of the Table.
Completed

J-9
Excel Files
Attached
to E-mail
Reviewer
Appendix J
Page
Comment
Edits
Include a Table with average cost of

each cost category based on all
selected database.
Whole doc.
Schachenmayr,
Martin
Section 2
Response
Response not needed
Edit the whole report to fix all

typographical errors for example:
Change 3.1 to 3.2 in Table of Contents
and the Text for Los Angeles Light
Rail project.
Completed
Comments from WMATA were not

submitted electronically, it would
be hand delivered.
Completed
In some cases, a more detailed

description of the inclusions in each
of the project elements listed in
Table 2-1 would be helpful. For
instance, I would recommend
expanding the summary
descriptions for "guideway" and
"stations" on pages 2-4 and 2-5,
respectively, to clarify that station
costs do not include the guideway
structures (e.g., aerial guideway,
tunnel) through the station area (I
assume this is the case).
Revised

J-10
Excel Files
Attached
to E-mail
Reviewer
Appendix J
Page
Comment
Edits
Response
Section 2
The contingency discussion on page

2-6 is not clear to me. If these are
"as-built" costs, then why are there
any contingency factors applied to
the cost data? I am sure there is a
good reason, but a bit more
explanation might be helpful.
Further, given the rather vague
definition of contingency on page 26, I am not sure that stating the
range of 10% to 30% is appropriate,
since it is not real clear what that is
for.
Response not needed
Section 2
In the "Data Collection Process"

section, it would be of interest to
understand how "as-built" costs
were allocated among the standard
cost categories (Table 2-1). Evidently
the PMOCs collected data from the
properties. How did they convert
bid schedules (some of which are
likely to have included lump sum
work) to the standard cost
categories, keeping in mind that
these schedules are typically
unbalanced? Was change order
work addressed differently? Some
further discussion about the various
procurement/delivery methods
used on the projects included in the
cost sample, and its impact on the
unit prices, would be informative (is
that what the contingency factors
are for?).
Response not needed

J-11
Excel Files
Attached
to E-mail
Reviewer
Engineering
Meeting
Olson, Eric
Appendix J
Page
Comment
Edits
Response
Separate the underground

guideway into cut and cover or
bored tunnel.
Response not needed
Include more station size measures

such as small medium and large.
Response not needed
Include bus transfer requirements in

the station quantities.
Response not needed
Add an executive summary section

and include simple summary unit
cost per element.
See above.
Comments on the Excel Database
Completed
Comments on the LRT report
Completed

J-12
Excel Files
Attached
to E-mail

FTA LRT Capital Cost Study Final Report 101003

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FTA LRT Capital Cost Study Final Report 101003

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

FTA LRT Capital Cost Study Final Report 101003

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Federal Transit Administration

LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT CAPITAL COST STUDY

October 10, 2003

LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT CAPITAL COST STUDY UPDATE

Light Rail Capital Costs

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................... iii

Light Rail Capital Costs

4.0 LIGHT RAIL CAPITAL COST DATABASE .........................................................................4-1

Federal Transit Administration

Light Rail Capital Costs

Documenting the as-built costs for a wide range of LRT investments;

Update Database Structure and Cost Baseline

Light Rail Capital Costs

In addition to these structural changes, the

Expand the Database Project Sample

Federal Transit Administration

Light Rail Capital Costs

Denver Southwest Corridor

Guideway Alignment Mix

RETAINED CUT GUIDEWAY

ELEVATED FILL GUIDEWAY

Southern New Jersey

Los Angeles Long

St. Louis St. Clair Cnty

San Jose North Corridor

Pittsburgh Light Rail

Portland MAX Segment 1

Salt Lake North South

Pasadena Gold Line

Portland Interstate MAX

San Diego Mission

Pittsburgh Light Rail

Alignment Length (Lineal Feet)

Federal Transit Administration

Light Rail Capital Costs

Develop Unit Cost Functions

$Millions per Sation

For the 2003 Study Update, the

Cost comparisons among projects

Federal Transit Administration

Light Rail Capital Costs

Development of the Standard Model LRT concept (see below)

$ Per Lineal Foot

Light Rail Capital Costs

Cost Variance Analysis: What Drives Cost Differences

Federal Transit Administration

Light Rail Capital Costs

Right-of-Way acquisition costs

Variance Analysis: By Driver

Total Cost Variance

Unit Cost Variance

LRT Cost Inflation: Are Project Costs Changing Over Time?

Federal Transit Administration

Light Rail Capital Costs

Sources of Unit Cost Increases

Federal Transit Administration

Light Rail Capital Costs

Technology Improvements and Betterments: Projects completed in more recent years

Develop a Capital Cost Calculator