Track Maintenance Costs on Rail Transit Properties (2009)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

25 CHAPTER THREE TRANSIT AGENCY SURVEY DATA Transit agencies and industry regulators, engineers, and administrators were asked to participate in a survey, and selected agencies were interviewed. The survey response is an industry cross section, including agencies from representative regions (East Coast, mid-continent, and West Coast), mode (light rail and heavy rail), and age (established systems and new systems). The survey responses represent 50% of the North American installed track facilities from responding agencies. The response rate was 19%, including agencies with facilities considered representative of North American practice. The identities of the responding agencies are withheld in the following assessment, but the context of responding agencies is included (heavy or light rail, system age, system size, and regional location). INTEREST IN TRACK MAINTENANCE COST INFORMATION This synthesis topic addresses the concerns of those directly involved in track maintenance, such as track supervisors and their immediate managers, as well as those responsible for administration and regulation. Each of these interests looks for differing characteristics in the data, or presentation of data in varying manners. This report focuses on a level most directly useful to the practitioners, but is cognizant of the broader constituency with varying perspectives and applications of the information. To assess the expectations of the broader constituency, respondents were asked their views on the use of track maintenance cost information. This survey received responses from transit agencies only. The broader constituency interest remains for a future study. The responses are summarized in Table 5 in which a common interest is to use the track maintenance cost information to justify budgets to state and federal funding sources. There is also high interest in using cost information as a reference in budget preparations. Opinions on other reasons for track maintenance cost information were mixed.

26 TABLE 5 USE OF TRACK MAINTENANCE COST DATA—AGENCY RANKING SCALED 1 TO 10 ON IMPORTANCE Agency A Agency B Agency C Agency D Agency E Agency F Hvy and Lt Rail, 100+ yr, 270 mi, EC Hvy Rail, 30 yr, 100+ mi, WC Lt Rail, 20 yr, 40 mi, WC Lt Rail, 10 yr, 45 mi, C Lt Rail, 20 yr, 37 mi, WC Hvy Rail, 100+ yr, 656 mi, EC Question Ranking Ranking Ranking Notes Ranking Ranking Ranking Notes II.1 Resource for Preparing or Justifying Maintenance Programs or Budgets 5 1 3 1 6 1 Critical and needed for monitoring inspection, trends and production activities II.2 Reference for Evaluating Maintenance Program or Budget Proposals 5 10 2 2 5 1 Weekly/monthly, production, service performance reports II.3 Reference for Track Upgrade Cost Assessments, Life-Cycle Cost Assessments 5 1 4 3 5 1 Data collected by quadrennial Track Condition Surveys form the basis for the formulation of our annual track reconstruction goals II.4 Resource for Estimating (construction estimates, maintenance manpower estimates) 5 1 4 4 6 1 Historical costs II.5 Benchmark Reference for Internal Assessments (compare to industry norms) 5 10 8 For new construction only 5 5 5 II.6 Allocate Maintenance Costs (for multiple traffic modes, cost centers, etc.) 5 10 7 Only allocate track maintenance 10 7 1 Personnel and material resources

27 cost budgeting II.7 Justify funding requests (federal, state budgeting) 1 1 2 2 7 1 Necessary capital programs II.8 Evaluate submittals (bid submittals, etc.): 5 10 5 3 5 1 II.9 Other Design review: Maintenance plays a major role in future project design review making sure future construction project will not increase maintenance cost. 6 Ranking: 1 = greatest importance to responder. Hvy Rail = Heavy Rail System; Lt Rail = Light Rail System; XX yr = approximate system age; NN mi = approximate system main line route miles; WC = West Coast; C = Central United States; EC = East Coast.

28 BUDGET PROCESSES Table 6 presents results of opinions on a series of statements regarding the effectiveness of transit budget processes to meet track maintenance realities. Opinions were mixed, except on two questions where newer and older transit agencies differed. The survey offered the choice of agreeing, partially agreeing, or disagreeing with statements. The proposed statements and answers should not be construed as preferred management policy. The key question (III.2.e in Table 6) is whether budgets are adequate for routine track maintenance. Newer systems appeared to differ markedly from the older systems on this question; older systems appear to believe that budgets are partially or completely inadequate. It appears from these responses that these opinions differ at a system age between 20 and 30 years. A marked difference in opinion here appears to exist between the new and old systems on the question (III.2.c) whether budgets are preset without considering the maintenance demand. Unit Costs This section contains responses on labor and costs to perform basic tasks common to any maintenance operation. The point of this survey question is more to understand cost factors in common tasks, rather than the unit costs. The interest is in the cost (effort) ratio of (1) the direct manpower to perform tasks (within constrained work windows and often constrained ROW) to (2) the indirect cost required for preparation and track access delays in rail transit environments. Respondents were asked to provide the level of effort for three common maintenance tasks: rail replacement, frog replacement, and switch point replacement. The direct and indirect hours are requested separately for each task, along with cost for expendables. To avoid regional or bargained wage rate differences, the level of effort (hours) is used rather than cost.

29 TABLE 6 BUDGET PROCESSES Agency A Agency B Agency C Agency D Agency E Agency F Hvy & Lt Rail, 100+ yr, 270 mi, EC Hvy Rail, 30 yr, 100+ mi, WC Lt Rail, 20 yr, 40 mi, WC Lt Rail, 10 yr, 45 mi, C Lt Rail, 20 yr, 37 mi, WC Hvy Rail, 100+ yr, 656 mi, EC Question Ranking Ranking Ranking Ranking Ranking Ranking III.2.a Budgets Generally Implement an Internal Long-Term Maintenance Plan Partially Agree Partially Agree Partially Agree Agree Partially Agree Partially Agree III.2.b Budget Construction Strategically Uses Capital Funds for Maintenance Purposes Agree Agree Agree Disagree Partially Agree Partially Agree III.2.c Maintenance Budget Amounts Are Dictated Prior to Assessing Annual Maintenance Needs Agree Agree Partially Agree Disagree Agree Partially Agree III.2.d Maintenance Budgets Include Investments in Improved Efficiency, Technology, or Equipment Partially Agree Partially Agree Partially Agree Agree Partially Agree Partially Agree III.2.e Maintenance Budgets Are Adequate for Routine Maintenance Partially Agree Disagree Agree Agree Agree Agree (see comment) III.2.f Budgets Are Adequate for Contingencies Disagree Partially Agree Agree Partially Agree Partially Agree Partially Agree

30 III.2.g Comments on Budget Processes: Operating budget does not include long-term cost planning, except for recurring expenses (i.e., power/water bills, rail testing contracts, etc.). All long-term maintenance expenses are requested through the capital budget. 2-year budget cycle “smoothens the ripples.” Separate budgets for routine maintenance and capital projects, but lines are blurred between the two categories, and criteria have changed over time. Maintenance budget can absorb minor contingencies . Funding levels have not been adequate for maintenance contingencies to minimize long-term replacement costs. Hvy Rail = Heavy Rail System; Lt Rail = Light Rail System; WC = West Coast; C = Central United States; EC = East Coast

31 Rail Replacement This question requested an estimate of the hours required to replace one piece of 39-foot defective rail in mainline tangent track. Table 7 shows agency comments from responders. TABLE 7 QUALIFYING COMMENTS ON RAIL REPLACEMENT HOURS Agency A Agency B Agencies C, E, and F Agency D Heavy and Light Rail, 100+ Years, 270 mi, EC Heavy rail, 30 yr, 100 mi, WC Light Rail, 10 yr, 45 mi, C No Qualifying Comments Other direct expenses for rail, frog, and switch replacements typically include two electrical personnel for one 8-hour shift (for third rail safe clearance, rail bonds, and ground cable connections) and two train control personnel for 4 hours (wire removal/reinstallation and train control testing) No qualifying comments Agency D has not experienced any failures related to Items A.2 and A.3. No resources are available for labor hours or pricing. Abbreviations: EC = East Coast; WC = West Coast; C = Central United States. Table 8 shows agency responses for the direct work to perform the rail replacement (Part A); the support labor such as preparation time, support by signals, and traction power (Part B). Additional costs (expendables, etc.) are Part C of the responders’ entries (Table 9). Frog Replacement Tables 10 and 11 show the survey responses for frog replacement. Switch Point Replacement Table 12 shows the survey responses for a switch point replacement. See Table 13 for a summary of other direct expenses in switch point replacement.

32 TABLE 8 DIRECT AND INDIRECT LABOR (HOURS) RAIL REPLACEMENT Part A Direct Labor Agency A Agency B Agency C Agency D Agency E Agency F Hvy and Lt Rail, 100+ yr, 270 mi, EC Hvy Rail, 30 yr, 100+ mi, WC Lt Rail, 20 yr, 40 mi, WC Lt Rail, 10 yr, 45 mi, C Lt Rail, 20 yr, 37 mi, WC Hvy Rail, 100+ yr, 656 mi, EC Supervisor Hours 4 6 est. 6 3 1 4 Operator Hours 4 6 N/A 1 0 Laborer Hours 8 27 est. 30 9 4 60 Welder Hours 4 12 N/A 6 3 4 Notes May require 2nd visit to replace temporary joints with welds Includes rail thermal adjustment and welding No rail replacement to date for defects Includes two thermit welds Rail on site Part B Indirect Labor Agency A Agency B Agency C Agency D Agency E Agency F Supervisor Hours 8 10 4 1 1 4 Operator Hours 8 14 N/A 2 0 Laborer Hours 12 49 24 2 3 16 Welder Hours 4 20 N/A 2 1 0 Notes see Note A.1 Survey questions IV.A.1 and IV.B.1—Rail replacement. Replace 1 piece of 39-ft rail for a detected transverse mainline tangent track. N/A = not available. Hvy Rail = Heavy Rail System; Lt Rail = Light Rail System; WC = West Coast; C = Central United States; EC = East Coast. TABLE 9 OTHER DIRECT EXPENSES RAIL REPLACEMENT Agency A Agency B Agency C Agency D Agency E Agency F Description Third rail lockout/ Tagout + train control testing Unknown Fuel, saw blades, and two thermite weld kits Saw blade, grinding wheel, two weld kits, fuel Slotter blades, fuels for small equipment Cost $2,400 Unknown <$300 $350 $100 Survey question IV.C.1—Rail replacement: Replace 1 piece of 39-ft rail for a detected transverse defect mainline tangent track.

33 TABLE 10 DIRECT AND INDIRECT LABOR (HOURS) FROG REPLACEMENT Part A—Direct Labor Agency A Agency B Agency C Agency D Agency E Agency F Heavy and Light Rail, 100+ yr, 270 mi, EC Heavy Rail, 30 yr, 100+ mi, WC Light Rail, 20 yr, 40 mi, WC Light Rail, 10 yr, 45 mi, C Light Rail, 20 yr, 37 mi, WC Heavy Rail, 100+ yr, 656 mi, EC Supervisor Hours 4 3 N/A 1 8 Operator Hours 4 3 N/A 1 0 Laborer Hours 8 12 N/A 8 80 Welder Hours 0 N/A 6 8 Notes Replacement frogs typically not field welded Agency C has not yet replaced any frogs N/A Frog on site Part B—Indirect Labor Agency A Agency B Agency C Agency D Agency E Agency F Supervisor Hours 8 5 N/A 1 8 Operator Hours 8 9 N/A 2 0 Laborer Hours 12 24 N/A 3 30 Welder Hours 0 N/A 1 0 Notes see Note A.2 NA Survey Questions IV.A.2 and IV.B.2 Frog Replacement: Replace a mainline No. 10 RBM (or similar) frog. N/A = not available. Hvy Rail = Heavy Rail System; Lt Rail = Light Rail System; WC = West Coast; C = Central United States; EC = East Coast. TRACK INSPECTION Track inspection is one of the discrete overhead items of track maintenance that is readily understood and is allocated significant resources. Table 14 indicates how the different agencies approach this aspect of their systems.

34 TABLE 11 OTHER DIRECT EXPENSES FROG REPLACEMENT Agency A Agency B Agency C Agency D Agency E Agency F Description Third rail lockout/tagout + train control testing N/A Saw blade, grinding wheel, 4 weld kits, fuel Fuel for small equipme nt Cost $2,400 N/A $680 $20 Survey Question IV.C.2—Frog replacement: Replace a mainline No. 10 RBM (or similar) frog. N/A = not available. MATERIAL AND CONSTRUCTION BIDS The survey requested agency contract bid results. The responses only contained material procurement unit costs. Although the responses did not contain any results for material installation, the material procurements are followed by samples of contract unit prices for construction from the author’s database. Notes: 1. The contract bid results, while not generally for maintenance, reflect key transit cost influences such as agency track standards and specifications, as well as working constraints imposed by the physical configuration of the system—such as tunnels, aerial structures, awkward access, limited space, and distant staging areas—that are related to the constraints experienced by agency maintenance organizations. 2. Contract bid differences from in-house agency costs:

35 TABLE 12 DIRECT AND INDIRECT LABOR (HOURS) SWITCH POINT REPLACEMENT Part A: Direct Labor Agency A Agency B Agency C Agency D Agency E Agency F Hvy and Lt Rail, 100+ yr, 270 mi, EC Hvy Rail, 30 yr, 100+ mi, WC Lt Rail, 20 yr, 40 mi, WC Lt Rail, 10 yr, 45 mi, C Lt Rail, 20 yr, 37 mi, WC Hvy Rail, 100+ yr, 656 mi, EC Supervisor Hours 6 3 4 1 16 Operator Hours 6 3 N/A 1 24 Laborer Hours 18 12 16 3 120 Welder Hours 0 N/A 2 8 Notes Replacement points typically not field welded No stock rails replaced N/A Part B: Indirect Labor Agency A Agency B Agency C Agency D Agency E Agency F Hvy and Lt Rail, 100+ yr, 270 mi, EC Hvy Rail, 30 yr, 100+ mi, WC Lt Rail, 20 yr, 40 mi, WC Lt Rail, 10 yr, 45 mi, C Lt Rail, 20 yr, 37 mi, WC Hvy Rail, 100+ yr, 656 mi, EC Supervisor Hours 8 5 2 1 8 Operator Hours 12 9 N/A 2 0 Laborer Hours 22 24 10 3 32 Welder Hours 0 N/A 1 0 Notes see Note in Part A N/A Total Hours: Direct + Indirect 72 56 32 14 208 Ratio Indirect Hrs/Direct Hrs 1.4 2.111111 0.6 1 0.238095 Direct hr Pct of Total 41.67% 32.14% 62.50% 50.00% 80.77% Indirect hr Pct of Total 58.33% 67.86% 37.50% 50.00% 19.23% Survey Question IV.A.3—Switch point replacement: Replace a mainline 19 ft 6 in. switch point (or similar) and its stock rail. Hvy Rail = Heavy Rail System; Lt Rail = Light Rail System; WC = West Coast; C = Central United States; EC = East Coast. N/A = not available.

36 a. Contracted track construction information is from line extension projects (new track construction) where there is no train interference and there is immediate access throughout the work. Agency track maintenance generally has train interference and access only from distant points of system entry, or is conducted in constrained time windows without trains. b. Material unit costs generally include shipping costs, which vary with the distance from the recipient agency. c. Contract labor costs generally have a lower overhead than agency labor. d. Contracted services include profit and other marginal costs. e. Contractor bid strategies may vary. Occasionally, track construction and (more rarely) material bid unit costs do not reflect the design or specification. These costs are typically limited to one or two of the track line items in a bid. However, individual line item bids vary significantly (as much as 400%) for the same project by separate contractors without any indication of strategic bidding intent. 3. The cost reference date is April 15, 2007. All costs are normalized from the bid date to this reference date using an inflation rate established by the FOB bid cost of rail steel of a domestic manufacturer. Material Unit Costs Table 15 presents material procurement bid results from 10 contracts awarded between 1992 and 2006. All contracts were new construction (line extensions or other new track). The unit costs for materials in these bids generally include transportation to each agency. The unit costs in these bids should be considered to be biased toward the low side of a true average because half of the tabulated bids in the survey responses only included the winning bid (i.e., low bid). Full interpretation of the bids requires access to the original specification for each bid and each line item. Unit costs here may be considered only illustrative for common practice.

37 TABLE 13 OTHER DIRECT EXPENSES SWITCH POINT REPLACEMENT Agency A Agency B Agency C Agency D Agency E Agency F Hvy and Lt Rail, 100+ yr, 270 mi, EC Hvy Rail, 30 yr, 100+ mi, WC Lt Rail, 20 yr, 40 mi, WC Lt Rail, 10 yr, 45 mi, C Lt Rail, 20 yr, 37 mi, WC Hvy Rail, 100+ yr, 656 mi, EC Description Third rail lockout/ tagout + train control testing Welding, fuel, consumables Saw blade, grinding wheel, 2 weld kits, fuel Fuel for small equipment Cost $2,400 $500 $200 $20 [Survey Question IV.C.3] Switch Point Replacement: Replace a mainline 19 ft 6 in switch point (or similar) and its stock rail. Hvy Rail = Heavy Rail System; Lt Rail = Light Rail System; WC = West Coast; C = Central United States; EC = East Coast. TABLE 14 TRACK PERSONNEL Agency A Agency B Agency C Agency D Agency E Agency F Hvy and Lt Rail, 100+ yr, 270 mi, EC Hvy Rail, 30 yr, 100+ mi, WC Lt Rail, 20 yr, 40 mi, WC Lt Rail, 10 yr, 45 mi, C Lt Rail, 20 yr, 37 mi, WC Hvy Rail, 100+ yr, 656 mi, EC V1a Inspectors 12 15 14 8 10 93 V1b Percent of Staff 8.00% 23.00% 100.00% 28.00% 100.00% 33.00% Total Track Department Personnel 150 65 14 29 10 282 System Length (track miles) 273 268 72 96 62.6 1312 Inspectors per Track Mile 0.04 0.06 0.19 0.08 0.16 0.07 Total Track Department Personnel per Track Mile 0.55 0.24 0.19 0.30 0.16 0.21 Hvy Rail = Heavy Rail System; Lt Rail = Light Rail System; WC = West Coast; C = Central United States; EC = East Coast. Construction Unit Costs Table 16 shows results of tabulated construction bids.

38 TABLE 15 TRACK MATERIAL UNIT COSTS SE-04 CONTRACT BID SUMMARY Work Description/Bid Item Units Average Unit Cost (4/15/07) No. Bids in Average Ballast Mat SF $22.85 1 Ballast Ballast CY $45.71 1 Sub-ballast CY $35.04 1 Bumper Posts Bumper post EA $11,907.27 1 Friction buffers EA $36,250.50 2 Concrete Ties Concrete cross ties and standard rail fasteners, FOB destination EA $85.50 1 Concrete crossties—Emergency guard rail EA $226.54 2 Concrete crossties—Grade crossing (10 ft) EA $193.51 5 Concrete crossties—Standard EA $150.50 8 Derails Derail unit in existing track E4 $13,712.89 1 Derail unit in new track EA $11,427.41 1 Direct Fixation Fasteners Direct fixation fastener assembly for restraining rail Each $463.87 1 Direct fixation rail fasteners EA $68.21 2 Direct fixation rail fasteners (captive to plate clips) EA $150.79 8 Floating Heel Blocks Including Joint Bars Each $185.86 4 Frogs #8 self-guarded frog excluding tie plates Each $8,765.23 1 #10 rail bound manganese frog, rail Each $10,772.90 2 #8 rail bound manganese frog, rail Each $10,787.88 1 #15 rail bound manganese frog Each $15,335.94 2 #20 rail round manganese frog Each $18,803.54 1 Grade Crossing Panels LF $341.43 5 Insulated Rail Joints Insulated joint rail joint kits Each $481.43 1 Insulated rail joint plug EA $1,371.29 1 Rail Non-welded rail blank ends Ton $1,159.25 4 Continuous welded rail, standard TON $1,308.57 12 Continuously welded rail, high strength Ton $1,395.40 5 Pre-curved rail TON $2,064.96 2 Rail Lubricator EA $9,141.93 1 Shop Rail Welds Each $333.08 5

39 Work Description/Bid Item Units Average Unit Cost (4/15/07) No. Bids in Average Stock Rail—39 ft Each $1,230.04 17 Switch Points 19' 6" switch point rail, straight EA $1,413.39 4 19' 6" switch point rail, curved EA $1,615.78 6 33-ft switch point rail, straight EA $2,064.66 4 33-ft switch point rail, curved EA $2,118.95 1 26' 0" switch point rail, straight EA $2,309.53 5 26’ 0" switch point rail, curved EA $2,422.87 5 39' 0" switch point, straight EA $4,176.44 3 39' 0" switch point rail, curved EA $2,326.66 1 56' 3" curved switch point EA $7,331.45 1 Turnouts No. 6 turnout (No. 12) rail bound manganese frog, ballasted track, concrete ties, fully guarded EA $104,480.99 10 No. 6 turnout, self-guarded frog, ballasted track, concrete ties EA $69,399.47 64 No. 8 equilateral turnout, direct fixation EA $98,954.94 4 No. 8 turnout, rail bound manganese frog, ballasted track, concrete ties EA $95,036.66 4 No. 8 turnout, rail bound manganese frog, concrete ties EA $103,349.27 4 No. 10 turnout, rail bound manganese frog, concrete ties EA $112,133.44 6 No. 10 turnout, rail bound manganese frog, direct fixation EA $105,520.39 4 No. 15 turnout ballasted EA $74,420.44 3 No. 20 turnout ballasted EA $59,536.35 1 Crossovers No. 10 crossover EA $76,182.72 2 No. 10 double crossover, ballasted EA $193,493.14 2 No. 10 single crossover, concrete ties EA $210,230.93 4 No. 10 single crossover, direct fixation EA $215,713.02 4 No. 15 single crossover, ballasted EA $137,188.13 8 No. 20 single crossover, ballasted EA $163,724.96 1 Ten contracts from 1992 through 2006; unit costs escalated at 3% from bid date to 4/15/07.

40 TABLE 16 TRACK CONSTRUCTION UNIT COSTS SE-04 CONTRACT BID SUMMARY Work Description/Bid Item Units Average Unit Cost (4/15/07) No. Bids in Average Concrete Crossties—Standard EA $335.46 2 Direct Fixation Installation—Owner Furnished Material LF $145.94 6 Direct Fixation Resilient Tie Track LF $449.48 1 No. 6 Double Slip Switch, Ballasted Track, Concrete Ties EA $218,576.91 2 No. 6 Double Crossover, RBM Frog, Ballasted Track, Concrete Ties EA $294,173.59 4 No. 8 Equilateral Turnout, Concrete Ties EA $154,476.42 1 No. 8 Equilateral Turnout, Direct Fixation EA $194,057.64 2 No. 10 Turnout, Railbound Manganese Frog, Direct Fixation EA $261,558.27 4 No. 10 Crossover EA $408,045.54 6 No. 10 Double Crossover, Concrete Ties, 33' 0" Track Centers EA $550,455.41 2 No. 15 Turnout, Owner Furnished Material EA $53,327.91 1 10 Contracts from 1992 through 2006; unit costs escalated at 3% from bid date to 4/15/07; contractor furnished material and installation unless noted. RBM = rail-bound manganese.