Abstract
Metro systems must move large numbers of people, meet net-zero goals, and remain affordable throughout their lifespans. Yet, financial and carbon checks are often done separately, making it harder to make sound choices about buying equipment, upgrading signals, improving power systems, or renovating stations. Without considering both costs and carbon impacts together, organizations save money in the short term but face higher energy or upkeep costs later, or run into surprising operational problems. This review brings together research and trade publications from 2020 to 2025 that use life-cycle assessment (LCA), life-cycle cost (LCC), or combined procedures for rail and metro systems. It follows the PRISMA 2020 and PRISMA-S guidelines to examine key choices, such as which metrics are used, how system perimeters are set (including maintenance, upgrades, and end-of-life), how electricity conceptions and peak demand are handled, and how future costs are estimated. The review also examines how studies address uncertainty and convert LCA and LCC results into key performance indicators (KPIs). A structured coding method is used to systematically compare studies. The review indicates the avoidance of various important impact areas. For subterranean and building-heavy projects, construction materials, including concrete and steel, are major contributors. Operational emissions depend primarily on electricity sources, peak demand, additional station equipment, and energy recovered from braking. The main cost drivers are how often parts need to be replaced and the price of energy, while service operational disruptions are capable of markedly raising costs. Analogizing results across studies remains difficult due to distinctions in limitations and data origins. The Metro Eco-Value KPI Framework (MEVKF) has four main parts: a set of KPIs for different metro system areas, a basic data inventory for each asset group, clear rules for updating KPIs, and a visualization tool to show cost and carbon trade-offs, including uncertainty and scenarios. The framework is meant to be rolled out in stages. Agencies can start with a core set of KPIs (like NPV and GWP with context) and add more metrics over time—such as energy use, peak direction, reliability, and renewals—using digital tools like BIM and asset registers to make data collection easier.
Keywords
Life Cycle Costing; Life Cycle Assessment; Metro Rail; Embodied Carbon; Operational Emissions; Asset Management; Eco‑Efficiency; KPI Framework; Traction Power; Stations; Signalling; Rolling Stock.
Citations
IRE Journals:
Ammar Ismail Dalvi "Lifecycle Cost (LCC) and Carbon (LCA) Integrated KPI Framework for Metro Assets" Iconic Research And Engineering Journals Volume 9 Issue 8 2026 Page 57-68 https://doi.org/10.64388/IREV9I8-1714092
IEEE:
Ammar Ismail Dalvi
"Lifecycle Cost (LCC) and Carbon (LCA) Integrated KPI Framework for Metro Assets" Iconic Research And Engineering Journals, 9(8) https://doi.org/10.64388/IREV9I8-1714092
About IRE Journals
IRE Journals is an open access online journals established with an aim to publish high quality of research work in various diciplines. We have more than 6 years in publications. Over 2500+ papers already published.
Important Links
For Authors
Volume 8:
Issue 1, Issue 2, Issue 3, Issue 4, Issue 5, Issue 6, Issue 7, Issue 8, Issue 9, Issue 10, Issue 11, Issue 12Volume 7:
Issue 1, Issue 2, Issue 3, Issue 4, Issue 5, Issue 6, Issue 7, Issue 8, Issue 9, Issue 10, Issue 11, Issue 12Volume 6:
Issue 1, Issue 2, Issue 3, Issue 4, Issue 5, Issue 6, Issue 7, Issue 8, Issue 9, Issue 10, Issue 11, Issue 12Volume 5:
Issue 1, Issue 2, Issue 3, Issue 4, Issue 5, Issue 6, Issue 7, Issue 8, Issue 9, Issue 10, Issue 11, Issue 12Volume 4:
Issue 1, Issue 2, Issue 3, Issue 4, Issue 5, Issue 6, Issue 7, Issue 8, Issue 9, Issue 10, Issue 11, Issue 12Volume 3:
Issue 1, Issue 2, Issue 3, Issue 4, Issue 5, Issue 6, Issue 7, Issue 8, Issue 9, Issue 10, Issue 11, Issue 12