Comments on: Chicago Completes Brown Line Renovation

By: simple

simple — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 21:16:08 +0000

Thanks for the insights, Alon. It’s clearly a difficult task to address these issues but it’s helpful to spell them out. Limited bidders is indeed a problem in Chicago — CTA or the consulting engineers may propose innovative construction methods to save costs, but the contractors have CTA over the barrel if they collectively do not wish to use such methods. It’s even more difficult when the contractors have plenty of other work to keep them busy, as was the case when Brown Line went to bid. Some of this is chicken-and-egg, as you suggest. With limited transit work overall, there’s limited incentive for contractors to adjust their methods to save money as a means to get more work — certainly no promise of longer term reward for doing so.

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 19:58:51 +0000

I’m not sure how easy it is – I’ve seen no study about Chicago-specific cost issues. But in New York, the problems seem to center around excessive administrative bloat and one-bid contracts: there’s been little rail construction until now so there are few contractors who know how to do it, and those contractors submit joint bids instead of compete, driving up prices. In addition, the excessive use of consultants in the US tends to double costs over in-house experts, and union work rules increase the number of workers necessary by 50-100%.

The solution to the consultant problem would require the CTA to convince the politicians who fund it that funding cuts reducing in-house expertise end up increasing costs. With good case studies from Britain, which is consultant-dominated, and Continental Europe, which is not, this may be doable.

The solution to the contractor problem would require some combination of antitrust lawsuits against contractors who submit joint bids to avoid competition, and inviting foreign contractors, especially Spanish ones, who are world leaders in cost control (Madrid subway construction costs are about one third those of the rest of Europe).

I have no idea what to do about the union issue, except maybe invite foreigners. It might be possible to strike a deal where unions agree to have fewer workers per construction project in exchange for more projects, which would be possible due to reduced costs. But it’s very unlikely such a deal could be struck.

There’s also a mafia problem increasing the cost of trucking raw materials, but that’s not what raises costs by a factor of 3.

By: simple

simple — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 19:37:15 +0000

Alon, I share your frustration that these projects seem to cost too much, but what is to be done? You frequently talk about projects in places like Chicago and NYC costing 2-3 times what they “should” not just 20-30%. Am I to infer from your snappy comments that CTA could easily build more for less but just chooses not to? Put yourself in the place of CTA’s President — what would you do differently? Unless you have some really realistic advice they can use, things cost what they cost and its a choice between sucking it up and feeling like you’re overpaying or simply not making any major improvements. Isn’t it?

By: Jake

Jake — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 08:56:43 +0000

“Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that they stopped spending when they hit the limits of funds available.”

this is why you see the historic canopies at all stations other than Rockwell, Kedzie, Belmont, and Fullerton.

The only good thing that came out of the bungling of the design portion of this project.

By: Aaron M. Renn

Aaron M. Renn — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 20:36:28 +0000

I believe the Fullerton and Belmont stations were in excess of $100 million each, which is one differences vs. the Douglas project.

Regardless, one can’t properly say this project came in on budget as significant scope was jettisoned to get it there. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that they stopped spending when they hit the limits of funds available.

By: DBX

DBX — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 03:53:59 +0000

I do have to wonder where the money went, given that complete reconstruction of the Douglas branch on the Blue Line during 2003-2005 cost a third less than simply doing a mixture of station renovations and station rebuilds on the Brown Line during 2007-2009. Staging is obviously a factor, as the contractors on the Douglas had the luxury of having the line shut during weekends, but bear in mind they did COMPLETELY replace the elevated structure from end to end, and also they used much higher quality designs and materials for the stations.

I’ll give them one small bit of credit though — the project came far enough under the revised budget that they were able to restore the Belmont and Fullerton stations to the original, pre overrun-panic, plan, including almost full-length canopies and escalators.

By: Roland S

Roland S — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 21:22:22 +0000

sigh… the Brown Line. The poor design on the heatlamps never really bothered me, but I’m the kind of guy who dresses pretty warmly, since I’m probably taking a sizable walk before and after the train ride. I’m just happy that it’s done, and that the line will now be fully-functional for the rest of my lifetime. I’d rather not quibble over the details. I’m more hopeful for the line extensions, where the new stations can be built from scratch to a high standard.

By: Andy K

Andy K — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 16:08:16 +0000

Damn consultant, yeah Alon?

I am always curious as to what exactly caused these over runs. In my mind, there are 3 types of overruns on a project:

1. Extra costs that could not have been anticipated. These could include geological differences, unknown utilities, changes in code requirements during construction, etc. With types of costs you are generally paying for something that is unavoidable.

2. Screw ups – poor design, poor management, graft, etc.

3. Added scope – making something bigger, or adding new features.

#2 are of course the types of cost that are the worst kind. Avoidable, expensive, and you don’t get anything back for these costs.

By: miafan

miafan — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 14:38:34 +0000

The new stations are very handsome, but the new platforms are disastrous — partly because of poor design, and partly because cost overruns led to scalebacks, they actually provide much less shelter from the elements than the older ones did. The absence of windbreaks makes waiting for a train during a Chicago winter a particularly brutal experience. I gather that the original idea was that there would be a train-tracker system in the stations to announce approaching trains, so that passengers could wait inside rather than on the platforms, but the installation of this system stalled after problems in the initial testing and nobody at the CTA seems to want to talk about it any longer…

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 06:57:05 +0000

I would venture that neither Aaron nor Ryan has any experience bringing in $500 million infrastructure projects on time and within budget.

The CTA has no experience bringing $500 million infrastructure projects within budget, either. The Brown Line renovation would not be a $500 million project in a city without severe cost overruns. Building an el that long from scratch wouldn’t cost $500 million.

If an agency decides that it can’t stick to reasonable budgets and assumes everything will cost 5 times as much as it should, and then completes the project for 4 times the normal cost, that’s not coming within budget; that’s failing to come within budget by less than expected. It’s shooting for a D and getting a D+.