At the Transit Costs Project, we’re planning to return to writing more infrastructure construction costs cases, and we need help to improve our coverage to new places – potentially, your help. See job ad here.

How many positions are you hiring for?

This number depends on the applications we get, but there will be multiple hires.

What kind of cases are you interested in?

Cases studying construction costs for urban rail in a specific city or group of cities; so far we’ve done rapid transit projects (commuter rail counts), but we will look at proposals that look at adjacent issues, for example mass expansion of light rail if it is at sufficient scale to qualify as a megaproject. We’re not going to be interested in highway-only or highway-focused studies, but a public transport-focused report could still talk about a contemporary highway megaproject in the same place to give more context – for example, at the same time that it built more than 100 km of new metro in a decade, Madrid also built motorway tunnels, and this may be relevant to understanding its decisionmaking, engineering practices, and contracting practices.

As we say in the job ad, you should be familiar with our existing cases, which can be read here. This doesn’t mean you need to memorize them (I have not memorized the one I wrote myself, let alone the others). But they should give some guidance about what issues we’re interested in seeing in each case: a sketch of the history of urban rail in the city, an explanation of the decisionmaking that led to the project, a description of the ongoing discourse about it informed by local opinions on how things should be done, engineering drawings, and similar issues leading to a synthesis of what works and what doesn’t.

Do the cases need to agree with the program focusing on decisionmaking, project delivery, and so on?

They need to be on-topic but absolutely do not need to agree with us. I’m fairly hardline against certain procurement elements that we call the globalized system in the cases, such as large contracts and design-build delivery, but also if you think I’m wrong and set out to find a case showing that design-build has actually worked and improved things, that’s entirely on-topic. Marco Chitti came to my attention after he vociferously disagreed with me on Twitter about private competition in intercity rail in Italy.

Which places are you interested in seeing reports for?

We’d like to have a wide variety of examples. So far we’ve done two American cases (Boston and New York), plus Italy, Stockholm, and Istanbul. Potentially, any example of urban rail megaproject elsewhere qualifies; that said, all other things being equal, we would prefer environments that are different from all of those, such as medium-cost places (like France or Germany), Asian examples of any kind, Latin American examples (cheap like Santo Domingo or Santiago, or more expensive like Brazilian cities), the United Kingdom with its relatively recent cost explosion, and so on.

This also, frustratingly to applicants, means that we’re going to hire based on who else we’re going to hire. What this means is that if we decide to hire three people, and then we narrow the shortlist to five good applicants with good proposals for a Paris case and then two more with good proposals for Tokyo and Santo Domingo cases, we’re not going to do two Paris cases.

What connections do I need for the interviews?

Any. You don’t need to have a list of 20 names of people to talk to in advance, but we would like to see evidence that you can get to this many interviews. This can come from connections with local advocates, politicians, civil servants, academics, contractors, union organizers, journalists, agency heads, engineers, or policy experts. Interviewees often naturally suggest other people to interview or documents to read, whose authors are then natural interview subjects; this in our experience has included both disgruntled planners eager to publicize the failures of the projects they’ve been involved in and planners who think their superiors are doing good work and would like to publicize their agencies’ successes.

I think I have enough knowledge and connections in multiple countries and can do two cases. What do I do?

Talk to us; it’s likely we’ll only be able to make you an offer for a single case, but you never know.

(Update) Where is the job?

We work fully remotely. I met Elif in person two years into the Transit Costs Project and Marco even later.

The meetup was a lot less formal than expected; people who showed up included loyal blog readers (thank you for reading and showing up!), social media followers (same), and some people involved in politics or the industry. I don’t have any presentation to show – I talked a bit about the TransitMatters Regional Rail program and then people asked questions. Rather, I want to talk about something I’ve said on social media but not here, which I delivered a long rant about to the last people who stayed there.

The issue at hand is that the only way that seems to work to deliver complex infrastructure projects is with close in-house supervision. This is true even in places where the public-sector supervisors, frankly, suck – which they frequently do in the United States. It’s fine to outsource some capabilities to consultants, but if it happens, then the supervision must remain in the public sector, which requires hiring more in-house people, at competitive salaries.

Why?

The reason is that public-sector projects always involve some public-sector elements. This is true even in the emergent norm in the English-speaking world and in many other countries that take cues from it, in which not only is most work done by consultants, but also the consultants are usually supervised by other consultants. The remains of the public sector think they’re committed to light-touch supervision, but because they, by their own admission, don’t know how to do things themselves or even how to supervise consultants, they do a bad job at it.

The most dreaded request is “study everything.” It’s so easy to just add more scenarios, more possibilities, more caveats. It’s the bane of collaborative documents (ask me how I know). In the Northeast Corridor timetabling project I’m doing with Devin Wilkins, I could study everything and look at every possible scenario, with respect to electrification, which projects are undertaken, rolling stock performance profile, and so on. It would not be doable with just me and her in a year or so; I would need to hire a larger team and take several years, and probably break it down so that one person just does Boston, another just does Philadelphia, a third just does Washington and Baltimore, several do New York (by far the hardest case), and one (or more) assists me in stapling everything together. The result might be better than what we’re doing now, thanks to the greater detail; or it might be worse, due to slight inconsistencies between different people’s workflows, in which case a dedicated office manager would be needed to sort this out, at additional expense. But at least I’d study everything.

Because I’m doing this project for Marron and not for an American public-sector client, I can prune the search tree, and do it at relatively reasonable expense. That’s partly because I’m the lead, but also partly because I know what I’m doing, to an extent, and am not going to tell anyone “study everything” and then dismiss most scenarios after three months of no contact.

The behavior I’m contrasting myself with is, unfortunately, rife in the American public sector. And it’s the most common among exactly the set of very senior bureaucrats, often (not always) ones who are there by virtue of political appointment rather than the civil service process, who swear that consultants do things better than the public sector. There’s no real supervision, and no real narrowing of the process. This looks like an alternative to micromanagement, but is not, because the client at the end does say “no, not like this”; there’s a reason the consultants always feel the need to study everything rather than picking just a few alternatives and hoping the client trusts them to do it right.

It’s telling that the consultants and contractors we speak to don’t really seem happy with how they’re treated by the public-sector client in those situations. They’re happy when interfacing with other private actors, usually. I imagine that if I hired a larger team (which we don’t have the budget for) and gave each person a separate task, they’d be really happy to have come up with all those different scenarios for how to run trains in the Baltimore-Washington area, interfacing with other equally dedicated people doing other tasks of this size. When consultants are supervised by other consultants, only the top-level consultant interfaces with the remains of the civil service, hollowed out by hiring freezes, uncompetitive salaries, and political scourging; the others don’t and think things work really smoothly. This, I think, is why opaque design-build setups are so popular with the private consultants who are involved in them: by the time a country or region fully privatizes its supervision to a design-build consultant, its public sector has been hollowed so much that the consultants prefer to be supervised privately, even if the results are worse.

In contrast, the only way forward is a bigger civil service. This means hiring more people, in-house, and paying them on a par with what they would be earning in the private sector given their experience. As I said at the bar a few hours ago, I’m imagining someone whose CV is four years at the MTA, then five at a consultant, then four at the MBTA, and then six at a consultant; with these 19 years of experience, they could get hired at a senior engineer or project manager position, for which the market rate in Boston as I understand is in the high $100,000s. For some things, like commuter rail electrification, there are unlikely to be any suitable candidates from within the US, and so agencies would have to hire a European or Asian engineer.

With competitive salaries, people would move between different employers in the same industry, as is normal in American and European industries. They could move between public and private employers, because the wages and benefits should be similar. They’d pick up experience. An agency like the MBTA, with its five to six in-house design review engineers, could staff up appropriately to be able to supervise not just small projects like infill commuter rail station, which it built at reasonable cost on the Fairmount Line, but also large ones like the Green Line Extension and South Coast Rail, which it builds at outrageously high costs.

Hayden Clarkin’s online conference TransitCon just happened, and I was drafted at the last minute to give a talk about construction costs. Here are the slides; for the most part, they’re a compressed version of slides that regular readers have seen before, except done in Beamer rather than Google Slides.

Cognizant of the fact that most people at TransitCon would have heard of me and our research and many would have read the reports or at least seen me, Eric, Marco, or Elif talk about them, I rushed through the description of our report. Instead of just going over trodden ground, I added slides at the end describing new issues we’d learned about since writing the synthesis, which was in a fairly advanced draft in late summer 2022 already. This fell into two categories: new obstacles, and reactions of people in power.

The new obstacles slide talks about the issue of last-minute squeaking (in the “squeaky wheel gets the grease” aphorism, which can and should be changed to “squeaky wheel gets replaced”). The most glaring examples of gross surplus extraction for Second Avenue Subway and the Green Line Extension all happened fairly early in the process.

In contrast, since then, Eric has spent so much time working in Seattle he could given time make an entire case out of its ongoing problems, and there, some of the extraction has been late in the project: one suburb’s fire department demanded construction in excess of the normal fire codes or else it wouldn’t certify the stations in its jurisdiction as fire-safe. In Dallas, the city itself is grabbing surplus: it’s demanding betterments and holding up the DART Silver Line until it gets them, adding $150,000 a day to the cost of the project. These two examples are both late in the process, after the Full Funding Grant Agreement has been signed; but once there is a political commitment, a local actor can still hope to grab surplus by demanding unreasonable changes.

But it’s really better to view this issue as one of top-level cowardice and unwillingness to take responsibility. The solution in Seattle is not hard: dissolve the department and have it taken over by the state or by Seattle proper. But whoever does that in effect takes ownership of every single fire in the suburb, and this requires taking more responsibility than American politicians and their appointees are used to.

The reaction of people in power plays to how they treat obstacles. I wrote a title for that slide, The Self-Hating State, and then deleted it and replaced it with the less toothy Public Officials and Consultants. But in effect what we see when we present the results to sympathetic federal and state officials who want to do better (i.e. not the MTA) is that most government officials don’t like the government very much. Their eyes glaze over the sort of technical and economic points that their counterparts here talk about, and instead they talk about how consultants have more long-term experience, when most of what the consultants know is how poorly-managed projects are built and where they do have positive knowledge (like the standardization of construction in Copenhagen) they’re not listened to.

Even more frustrating is their reaction to red tape. They take it as a given that the government must involve red tape; the same red tape in the private sector is invisible to them, such as when Seattle-area construction involves multiple jurisdictions each with its own consultants. But more fundamentally, these are people who can rewrite regulations, formally or informally, to make things easier; they just consider a government that works unthinkable.