# The Costs of Subways and Els

I’m probably going to write this up more precisely with Eric and send this to a journal, but for now, I’d like to use our construction costs database to discuss the cost ratio of subways to elevated lines. The table I’m working from can be found here; we’re adding projects and will do a major update probably at the end of the month, but I don’t expect the new data to change the conclusion. Overall, the data is consistent with a subway : el cost ratio in the 2-2.5 range, but it’s not possible to get more precise estimates despite the breadth of the data.

Crude averages

Our database has 11,559 km of total length, but not all of that comes with cost estimates yet; subtracting lines for which we don’t have costs, we get 11,095 km. The total cost of all the lines in our database is, in PPP-adjusted but not inflation-adjusted dollars, \$2.302 trillion, for an average of \$207 million/km. Nearly all of the items are recent – the majority by length are still under construction, and only 10% opened by 2010. So inflation adjustment is minor, though nontrivial.

Moreover, looking only at 100% underground lines, we get 3955.3 km, for a cost of \$945.3 billion, averaging \$239 million/km. The other lines are mixed or elevated. The purely elevated lines total 2490.4 km, for a cost of \$408.1 billion, or \$164 million.

To be slightly fancier but use the same underlying data, the linear estimate of cost per km, treating the tunnel proportion as the independent variable, is 153.1406 + 117.5787*tunnel-proportion; this has a larger spread than just averaging pure subways and pure els, coming from both the inclusion of more data and from not weighting by line length.

However, even the larger spread has a subway : el cost ratio of 1.77, lower than found elsewhere in the literature. Why?

Els are disproportionately build in higher-cost countries

The most important quantitative fact coming out of the analysis of construction costs is that the most important independent variables are country-level dummies. The correlation between the tunnel proportion and cost per km is just 0.163; the correlation between cost per km and a dummy variable that takes the value 1 in the US, Canada, Britain, Australia, New Zealand, and Singapore and 0 elsewhere, is 0.543. If we instead set the dummy variable to take the value 1 in the countries I consider cheap – Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece, Bulgaria, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Turkey, South Korea – then the correlation with plain cost is -0.18, and since linear correlation is better at detecting high outliers than low-but-positive ones, we can take the reciprocal of cost and then the correlation is 0.258.

So it’s useful to figure out where the most els are being built. For example, China has 5,933 km in our database – that is, a slight majority – of which 3,851 are confirmed tunnel and another 1,046 are unconfirmed (Hangzhou in particular is bad about reporting tunnel proportions). Excluding lines with unconfirmed information, we have 9,842.6 km of which 6,436.4 are in tunnel, or 65% – but China is 3,851/4,887, or 79%.

In the lowest-cost countries, els are not common. In Spain, 205.7 km out of 253.8 in our database are underground, or 81%. The Korean lines in our database are 100% underground, and as we add more data, this will hardly change. Overall, the countries I consider cheap have 927 km of rapid transit in the database, which number will rise as we add more Korean data, and of those, 730.1 are underground, a total of 79%. What’s more, one third of the non-underground length in cheap countries consists of a single 63 km item, tagged CR3, consisting of surface improvements for Marmaray (the tunnel is costed separately, as BC1); 63 km is hefty, but as a single item, it is less visible to unweighted correlation estimates like the regression.

So if els are uncommon in China and in cheap countries, where are they common? The answer is high-cost developing countries and Gulf states. India has 1,046.7 km in the database, of which only 235.8 are underground, or 23%; when I continue my series of posts on rapid transit traditions and get to India, I will of course mention the predominance of els. Moreover, these Indian els are spread across many items – there are 29 Indian items, since individual lines in Mumbai and phases in other cities each get their own lines, which matters for unweighted correlation estimates. Similarly, Thailand is 20% underground, Vietnam 50%, Pakistan’s single line 6%, Bangladesh 48%, the Philippines 55%, Malaysia 22%, Indonesia’s single line 38%, Panama 12%, Saudi Arabia 14%, the UAE 22% – and all of these are high-cost. In the developed world, the el-happiest country is Taiwan, only 40% underground in our database, and it’s on the expensive side, its average cost at 40% underground still amounting to \$240 million/km, and its three all-underground lines averaging \$375 million/km.

It makes sense when you think about it. If construction costs in a country are higher, then it will look for ways to cut costs by building less visually desirable els (typically in developing countries) or slower light rail lines (as in the United States). If we included at-grade light rail lines, then our table would also have a wealth of high-cost American lines; as it is, we’re likely to add some at-grade heavy rail lines like the Silver Line in Washington and, if it actually begins construction, the planned PATH extension to Newark Airport.

Country-internal averages

So instead of averaging in the entire database, let’s look internally to countries, chosen to be big enough to have a mix of projects with different underground proportions. I’m also going to ignore some cases where I worry about comparability – for example, in France, above-ground lines are represented mostly by a metro extension in Toulouse and by the most outlying parts of Grand Paris Express, and I worry about comparing those with Parisian and inner-suburban tunnels. The worst exclusion has to be that of China: while there is a wealth of data there, China built more els 15-20 years ago than it does now, so comparing subways to els in (say) Shanghai is to some extent a comparison of costs in the 2010s to costs in the late 1990s and early 2000s. In that, China is hardly different from the United States – New York built many els from the 19th century until the mid-1920s, but subsequently built an almost 100% underground system.

Japan

In Japan, we go back to the 1990s, so using dollar amounts does have inflation artifacts. Thankfully, the yen has had no inflation, so we can just plug in raw yen numbers and convert at the 2020 rate of 100:1. The 100% underground lines in Japan have averaged \$382 million per km, the elevated ones \$123 million/km; the ratio is 3.1. The regression estimate, again using ¥100 = \$1 throughout, is cost = 149.8978 + 255.9496*tunnel-proportion; the ratio using this method is 2.7.

India

India has a single 100% underground line in the database, Line 3 in Mumbai, built for \$449 million/km. The pure els in India cost \$158 million/km, for a subway : el ratio of 2.8. Looking only at els in Mumbai, the average inches up to \$167 million/km, a ratio of 2.7. Inflation adjustment would have marginal impact as all of these lines are recent, the earliest priced in 2011 terms. The regression estimate (for all of India, not just Mumbai) is cost = 151.6146 + 222.2716*tunnel-proportion, which yields a ratio of 2.5.

Taiwan

As mentioned above, Taiwan’s three pure subways average \$375 million/km. But as a note of caution, they are all regional rail tunnels, and we know from evidence in countries that build 100% underground metros and regional rail tunnels (Finland, Sweden, France, Britain, Germany…) that the latter are more expensive.

With that caveat, the four pure above-ground lines in Taiwan average \$170 million/km, a ratio of 2.2. The regression estimate is cost = 183.3252 + 163.0895*tunnel-proportion, a ratio of 1.9. This is a lower ratio than in India and Japan, despite the caveat; the reason could be that the underground lines in the dataset are in Kaohsiung, Taoyuan, and Tainan, whereas the lines in Taipei and New Taipei are elevated, as the database so far does not include the older Taipei MRT lines with their city-center tunnels.

Thailand

There are no pure subways in Thailand; even the underground MRT’s extension is only 20% underground. However, the under-construction Orange Line is 75% underground, and costs \$531 million/km. Overall, the regression estimate is 155.9491 + 350.2821*tunnel-proportion, which includes a number of lines in Bangkok and a cheaper half-underground line in Chiang Mai. This is a ratio of 3.2; excluding the one Chiang Mai line, this rises to 3.9.

Conclusion

Our database is consistent with the observation in the literature that the subway : el cost ratio is about 2-2.5. But a crude averaging of global costs would lead to an underestimate, since higher-cost countries are more likely to be building els. This is partly coincidence – former colonies in the developing world tend to have high costs and also wide throughfares where els are more politically acceptable – and partly the use of els to reduce costs where the country’s ability to afford subways is limited.

This reinforces the need to look at other treatments for reducing costs more carefully. It’s plausible that some policy treatments are not found in low-cost countries because those treatments are undesirable for some reason but do reduce costs. Thus, it is critical to look at both the best industry practices and the variation in practices within the parts of the world one considers best.

# 10 comments

1. Herbert

Your statement that Els tend to be he older parts of networks holds up in Nuremberg where U1 has more elevated and subway parts than the younger U2 & U3. Interestingly enough the parts of the El to Fürth were used by trams for a transition period.

If you want a like for like comparison, look at Panama city which has a half el half subway metro line…

• Alon Levy

Yeah, so I’ve tried not to look at half-and-half extrema like Panama and Frankfurt, just because I’m worried about the extrapolation. I even slightly discount Thailand because the Orange Line is only 75% underground.

2. Joe Wong

Of course building underground subway is much more expensive than building elevated lines, where many unforeseen situations can or will occur, that can add additional costs in building same. However the expense of building subways outweigh the disadvantage of same. Elevated lines, such as the ones in Taipei has it’s advantages too, since they are generally more of a noiseless elevated viaducts designs like PATCO from Collingswood and Westmont where the trains operate at a very high speed, and creates very little noise in the process, unlike the elevated lines in NYC which many dates back to the 1880’s and are very noisy, and ugly as hell. Look at what SEPTA did in Philly with rebuilding its Market Frankford Subway Elevated Line, and did a remarkable job of demolishing and completely rebuilding the elevated structure which brought it into the 21st century standards, and looks nice, and is NOT noisy as hell either.

3. Nathan Davidowicz

I am not sure about the figures for Vancouver BC Canada. as if you convert C\$ to US\$ the figure you gave is too high. I assume you started with a total project cost of \$2.83B ( Canadian) and the extension is 5.7 km of which about 87% is underground.

4. yuuka

>the el-happiest country is Taiwan

I have a feeling that might be changing, at least in Greater Taipei. Initial stages of the Wanda-Zhonghe-Xinlu and Minsheng-Xizhi line, along with the rest of the Circular line, are planned to be underground, so that might be interesting to watch.

On a side note, if by three pure subways you mean the recent MRT extensions to Songshan, Xinyi and the blue line, why are they considered regional rail to you?

• Alon Levy

No, I mean regional rail lines in Kaohsiung, Taoyuan, and Tainan. I couldn’t find costs for the recent underground MRT extensions.

• yuuka

Hmm, I’m not sure whether those count as new construction given that the impetus seems to be grade separation of TRA and removing the railway corridor in favor of something else (Taipei built a highway).

As for MRT costs, I’ll get back to you. I have an itching suspicion it’s hidden somewhere on the Taipei City DORTS website…

• yuuka

*edit: Wanda-Zhonghe-Shulin (god damn it, Taipei, why are all your line names so complicated?)

My search on the DORTS website didn’t work out…

5. Mikel

If one adds the number of stations as an additional independent variable, does the stations-to-line cost ratio vary significantly between subways and els? In subways I think the total cost of the stations is ~1.5x the total cost of the tunnel, but for els I’d say the ratio should be smaller because stations tend to be simpler…

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.