Two other important points, one is that the government keep qualified experts on staff rather than relying on expensive consultants which rarely have actual expertise in the field. And secondly,...
Two other important points, one is that the government keep qualified experts on staff rather than relying on expensive consultants which rarely have actual expertise in the field.
Unlike infrastructure projects in Britain or America, which are heavily reliant on external consultants to handle all stages of the project, this group of well-paid in-house engineers led much of the Madrid Metro expansion. The team stayed largely the same throughout the different projects, meaning that they were able to learn from their experience and apply it to future projects.
And secondly, they reduced lengthy environmental studies by focusing on areas where new ground would be broken, and not repeating past work, which also saves a ton of money.
This abbreviation meant that the project had to complete fewer requirements, such as studies on increased carbon emissions or the impact on farmland. The metro projects completed a streamlined assessment with the required parts clearly laid out in law, and would get confirmation within five months, compared to two or more years in Britain or America.
The environmental assessment for the 4-mile (6.5-kilometer) extension of Line 11 was just 19 pages long. [...] Contrast this with the 3.3-mile (5.3-kilometer) Portishead branch line reopening in the South West of England, which had a 17,912-page-long environmental statement. On a per-mile-of-new-track basis, Portishead’s was 1,142 times longer than Madrid’s. While the costs of Madrid’s environmental monitoring plan were assessed and controlled, in Britain environmental mitigations can run into the hundreds of millions.
Honestly it just sounds like they haven't allowed beaurocracy-creep to hamstring projects. It's always cheaper to keep experts on staff, avoid repeated work, and being mindful of how much new tech is implemented.
Nothing about this in particularly revelatory imo, which is a damning indictment of how inefficient we've let our infrastructure become.
There's almost too much good stuff in this article. This is a tall order. That individuals can't contest a line beyond local elections is so alien that while it might be an honest enough...
There's almost too much good stuff in this article.
On its own, having democratic accountability and the levers of planning, funding, and construction at the right level is not a guarantee of low costs.... But the American projects that are self-initiated, self-directed, self-funded, self-approved, and in politically competitive jurisdictions do better.
This is a tall order. That individuals can't contest a line beyond local elections is so alien that while it might be an honest enough mechanism, I can't imagine that many big city governments still have sufficient accountability.
Also, it's worth noting that the article highlighted a significantly higher city revenue than compared to London. I'm curious how it stacks up against other cities, but restructuring municipal, state, and federal taxes to enable more local funding capacity is another roadblock. Corruption figures in again as well.
From the article: ... More about the stations: And about signaling:
From the article:
Madrid was able to build so much because of one thing: low costs. The 35-mile (56 kilometer) program of expansion between 1995 and 1999 cost around $2.8 billion (in 2024 prices). New York’s 1.5-mile extension of the 7 subway to Hudson Yard cost about the same (adjusted for inflation). London’s Jubilee Line Extension, built at the same time as Madrid’s expansion, cost nearly ten times more per mile than Madrid’s program. The World Bank described Madrid’s costs as ‘substantially below the levels that were internationally considered possible’. Since the 1990s, Madrid, and Spain as a whole, has continued to build infrastructure at some of the lowest costs in Europe.
...
Madrid’s success provides four key lessons for policymakers and engineers in places that struggle to cheaply build new transit.
City-level powers rewarded fast, inexpensive delivery. The structure of the Community of Madrid concentrated the planning, funding, and construction powers at the right level to deliver the project. This enabled political entrepreneurs to make electoral promises about delivering new infrastructure and have their political fortunes dependent on success.
Time is money. The regional government streamlined environmental and planning processes and the company that oversaw construction expedited the building by tunneling 24/7.
Trade-offs matter and need to be explicitly considered. The metro planners recognized the trade-offs that exist between station design and cost, signaling complexity and how much testing is required, and tried-and-tested technology versus innovation.
A pipeline of projects enables investment in state capacity. Madrid built the necessary state capacity to deliver the project, with experienced engineers and managers working in-house to deliver the technical design and oversee construction. The public company tasked with construction could pay extra to hire experts and procured based on cost and quality instead of just the lowest-cost bid.
More about the stations:
As far as possible, stations were standardized, using copy-and-paste designs. This simplified the engineering and design work required, while construction crews would gain experience and efficiency in building stations. The new stations are simple and replicable and are also easy to navigate. Busier stations have sculptures and murals to add character, a far cheaper way to spruce up a station than building an architectural behemoth. While per-station costs aren’t available, even if the entire budget of the 1995–1999 program was only spent on stations, they would still be just £60 million each in 2024 terms, less than a third as much as London Bridge’s Jubilee line station.
And about signaling:
Trade-offs exist when it comes to signaling too. The planners could have opted for moving block signaling, where computers calculate the exact location of trains in real time to determine safe distances between them. While this brings benefits in capacity, it is also more expensive and much more complicated to build and test. Instead, the planners chose to use tried-and-tested fixed block signaling, which divides the track into blocks where there could be only one train at a time.
Delays caused by innovation in signaling have plagued projects in other countries. The construction of London’s Elizabeth line was complete by 2019, but it didn’t fully open until 2023 because of the complex digital signaling tying together the new tunneled track and the two Victorian railways to the east and west of the city center. This complexity required three years of testing with trial trains running through the tunnels.
I haven't found a lot of info in english, sorry, but some of these cheap and no so well planed are collapsing. So far, around 20 houses have been demolished and the counter is going up. The rushed...
I haven't found a lot of info in english, sorry, but some of these cheap and no so well planed are collapsing. So far, around 20 houses have been demolished and the counter is going up. The rushed the construction and changed the layout (ignoring expert's complains) in order to have it ready before the elections.
Two other important points, one is that the government keep qualified experts on staff rather than relying on expensive consultants which rarely have actual expertise in the field.
And secondly, they reduced lengthy environmental studies by focusing on areas where new ground would be broken, and not repeating past work, which also saves a ton of money.
Honestly it just sounds like they haven't allowed beaurocracy-creep to hamstring projects. It's always cheaper to keep experts on staff, avoid repeated work, and being mindful of how much new tech is implemented.
Nothing about this in particularly revelatory imo, which is a damning indictment of how inefficient we've let our infrastructure become.
There's almost too much good stuff in this article.
This is a tall order. That individuals can't contest a line beyond local elections is so alien that while it might be an honest enough mechanism, I can't imagine that many big city governments still have sufficient accountability.
Also, it's worth noting that the article highlighted a significantly higher city revenue than compared to London. I'm curious how it stacks up against other cities, but restructuring municipal, state, and federal taxes to enable more local funding capacity is another roadblock. Corruption figures in again as well.
From the article:
...
More about the stations:
And about signaling:
I haven't found a lot of info in english, sorry, but some of these cheap and no so well planed are collapsing. So far, around 20 houses have been demolished and the counter is going up. The rushed the construction and changed the layout (ignoring expert's complains) in order to have it ready before the elections.
You can read a little more about it here:
Out of service since 2022: Will Madrid’s metro line 7B reopen one day?
And in spanish here:
Orden de derribo para otras 20 casas en San Fernando de Henares por el hundimiento de la línea 7B de Metro
El hundimiento de la línea 7B de Metro: las prisas electorales de Aguirre que han dejado sin casa a decenas de familias