International comparison is provided on metro projects

In the past days a document was issued comparing metro projects only in general, missing real technical parameters and based on several years old incorrect information. The professionals of DBR Metro Project Directorate know the international projects of course, and soon they intend to assist the press with a technical supporting document based on actual facts, because as we know now the project of metro 4 as being constructed in downtown circumstances with extremely adverse ground conditions belongs to the midfield in Europe in terms of the average costs of metro construction.

Metro is a generic term. Different metros or transportation systems called metros, which are partially surface rail-mounted and often serve suburban railway functions, cannot be compared in general as it turns out from the Mallorca document, which in any way took fairly superficial information as basis (see www.metro4.hu). For an investment of this size the price and completion date of the project are influenced by many technical components: soil structure, bedrock conditions, surface build-ability, planned surface landscaping, station features, type of trains, mean of service for passenger traffic, function, associated projects are all such factors, which specify the costs and time frame of a metro construction.

DBR does not deem the contractor in Madrid to have detailed data on the soil structure in Budapest, to know the utility map of the Hungarian Capital or other technical parameters, which are defining and key elements of a metro construction in terms of the price and time. Of course we do not doubt that a metro may be built faster and less expensive - thus in Spain also -, but it is a fact as well, that despite different journalistic fallacies comparisons with no merits were published.

DBR does not know the Spanish example in full detail, but as we know there was no need to have a drill-shield to be built, because it already existed, and also no large reconstructions on the surface followed the works, which obviously particularly reduce the project costs. Besides as we know in Spain the full metro project is free of VAT. Measures facilitating human life safety are subsidized by the state in Spain – as min 30% of the metro costs falls under here, these costs are significantly lower, than in other countries. Madrid has highly preferable geotechnical conditions, thus underground structures may be constructed with minimal costs and no subsidiary procedures. Most part of the metro network in Madrid is built from top, runs on an alignment close to the surface, thus the tunnel is significantly cheaper as well. The project there has only a single tunnel with side platforms system, and the stations are built subject to this also, with very few escalators (pedestrian traffic of both bounds is led through staircases up to the distribution floor over the tracks and from here to the surface). Due to large volume metro investments in Madrid – with cheap station provisions – design works are carried out by the investor’s own staff with mastering the system continuously. Due to the continuity in addition to that the tunnel drilling shields are recyclable, their costs divide over the tunnel length may be built during their full life cycle, as the costs of the vehicle plant used to be established divide among each lines also. Finally the permitting and approval process of drawings is centralized also, thus it occurs within a really short time period, and no price increasing effect arises caused by requirements resulting from partial interests of many acting parties.

DBR does not know the Spanish example in full detail, but it seems from the news that there was no need to have a drill-shield to be built, because it already existed, and also no large reconstructions on the surface followedhe works. We find interesting that the projects in Mallorca or Madrid were mentioned as examples, and not the metro in Rome or Athens, which are more expensive than our metro 4. Otherwise, the largest metro-building companies of the World bid for the Hungarian tender; the Spanish companies were also welcome to provide proposals, and if they had been able to build metro 4 for really that cheap, then they would be building it now.