Comparative Cost–Benefit Analysis of Elevated and Underground Metro Systems Using Life Cycle Cost Approach
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22399/ijcesen.5151Keywords:
Cost–Benefit Analysis (CBA), Elevated Metro System, Underground Metro System, Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA), Capital Expenditure (CAPEX), Operation and Maintenance (O&M)Abstract
This study presents a comprehensive cost–benefit analysis (CBA) comparing elevated and underground metro systems based on their capital expenditure (CAPEX), operational and maintenance (O&M) costs, and life cycle cost components. Using financial indicators such as Net Present Value (NPV) and Benefit–Cost Ratio (BCR), the analysis assesses the long-term economic viability of both systems. The results reveal that while underground systems demand higher initial investments—primarily due to tunneling, waterproofing, and ventilation requirements—their operational costs also remain significantly higher, averaging ₹140 crore annually compared to ₹25 crore for elevated systems. The life-cycle NPV for underground systems was found to be nearly four times greater than that of elevated corridors, demonstrating the elevated system’s superior economic efficiency. Despite offering spatial and environmental advantages, underground alignments incur heavy capital and maintenance burdens. The findings highlight the need for cost optimization, efficient project design, and innovative maintenance strategies in urban rail development. Overall, the study concludes that elevated metro systems are more financially sustainable for medium-density urban areas, while underground systems should be reserved for zones with extreme space constraints or high environmental sensitivity.
References
[1] A. Sharbaf, S., & Schneider-Marin, P. (2025). Cost-benefit analysis of sustainable upgrades in existing buildings: A critical review. Energy and Buildings, 328, 115142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2024.115142
[2] Begić, H., & Krstić, H. (2024). Comprehensive review and comparative analysis of building condition assessment models. Results in Engineering, 22, 102176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rineng.2024.102176
[3] Fallah Shayan, N., Mohabbati-Kalejahi, N., Alavi, S., & Zahed, M. A. (2022). Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as a Framework for Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). Sustainability, 14(3), 1222. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031222
[4] Grant Nwaogbe, Osahon Urhoghide, Eyo Ekpenyong, & Aralu Emmanuel. (2025). Green construction practices: Aligning environmental sustainability with project efficiency. International Journal of Science and Research Archive, 14(1), 189–201. https://doi.org/10.30574/ijsra.2025.14.1.0023
[5] Li, H., Zhao, X., Ding, X., & Zhang, R. (2024). The Impact of Rapid Urbanization on the Efficiency of Industrial Green Water Use in Urban Agglomerations around Poyang Lake. Sustainability, 16(19), 8698. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16198698
[6] Lin, D., Broere, W., & Cui, J. (2022). Underground space utilisation and new town development: Experiences, lessons and implications. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 119, 104204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2021.104204
[7] Lovrenčić Butković, L., Mihić, M., Nahod, M.-M., & Sigmund, Z. (2023). The Benefits of Cost-Benefit Analysis in Construction Projects. Proceedings of the 6th IPMA SENET Project Management Conference “Digital Transformation and Sustainable Development in Project Management,” 407–420. https://doi.org/10.5592/CE/SENET.2022.27
[8] Meral, Ç., Temel, B. A., & Başaga, H. B. (2024). Choosing the Right Construction Method: A Comparative Study of Cost and Timeline for Top-Down and Bottom-Up Approaches. Buildings, 14(8), 2381. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14082381
[9] Novikova, T., Kaneva, M., & Zafarjonova, M. (2023). Cost-benefit analysis for health project evaluation (example of a Russian outpatient clinics’ project in the Novosibirsk region). Frontiers in Public Health, 11, 1073964. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2023.1073964
[10] Von Der Tann, L., Sterling, R., Zhou, Y., & Metje, N. (2020). Systems approaches to urban underground space planning and management – A review. Underground Space, 5(2), 144–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.undsp.2019.03.003
[11] Doneva, K., Nikolov, D., & Koleva, M. (2015). Cost implications of underground excavation and support systems in large-scale infrastructure projects. Journal of Underground Construction Engineering, 12(3), 145–156.
[12] Maruvanchery, V., Jain, P., & Singh, R. (2020). Application of the Decision Aids for Tunneling (DAT) framework for cost prediction in underground construction. Tunneling and Underground Space Technology, 98, 103–118.
[13] Paraskevopoulou, C., Benardos, A., & Kaliampakos, D. (2013). Geotechnical risk factors influencing cost performance in underground projects. Engineering Geology, 156, 12–23.
[14] Saputra, H., Rahman, F., & Widodo, A. (2025). Safety management and cost modeling in underground construction under complex geological conditions. International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 19(1), 45–59.
[15] Saldarriaga, J., Duque, J., Aguilar, J., & Duque, A. (2021). Methodology for optimal layout selection in urban drainage and sewer networks. Urban Water Systems Engineering Review, 27(2), 90–108.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 International Journal of Computational and Experimental Science and Engineering
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
