Britain's infrastructure is too expensive - Railways, Trams, and Roads all cost more to build in Britain

[eldomtom2]

Another article on high construction costs in Britain. Now admittedly it's from two Tufton Street types who I mistrust on principle, but their figures (if not their prescriptions) are presumably accurate...

Britain's infrastructure is too expensive

Railways, Trams, and Roads all cost more to build in Britain

www.samdumitriu.com

“Unachievable.” The Infrastructure and Projects Authority’s assessment of High Speed 2 (HS2) does not pull its punches. Back in 2013, the high-speed line to connect London, Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds was estimated to cost about £56.7bn in 2023 prices. But this proved to be a massive underestimate. The 134 miles of track between London and Birmingham alone is now forecast to cost £53bn, and at £396m per mile Phase 1 of HS2 is one of the world’s most expensive railways.

Some of the mismanagement of the project would be comical, if it wasn’t so tragic. Take the recent news that two multi-million pound tunnel boring machines will be buried at Old Oak Common until a decision about whether to extend the line to Euston station is reached.

Much has been written about how HS2’s budget grew so large. Yet even if the 2013 estimate had been correct, HS2 would still stand out. At £165m per mile, it would still be more than double the price Italy is paying to build a high speed connection between Naples and Bari. It would also be 3.7 times more expensive than France’s high-speed link between Tours and Bordeaux. One reason HS2’s cost is high is the amount of tunneling involved, yet in Japan, bullet trains travel on Hokkaido’s new Shinkansen line built at just £50m per mile despite almost half of the Hokkaido line being tunneled.

It would be unfair, however, to single out HS2. Britain Remade, the pro-growth campaign group where we both work, has looked at 138 tram, metro, and rail projects across 14 countries (data) plus 104 road projects in 11 countries (data).

The reality is that infrastructure of all kinds, from railways to roads, tramlines to tubes, is more expensive to build in the UK.

 

[mrcheek]

Ive skim-read the article, but they dont seem to have any answers as to why costs are higher in this country.
Their research is thus rather pointless. We already know what theyve "revealed". Next, do they plan to study the activities of bears in woods?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Land and planning costs are very high in the UK, and population density is a problem compared to the "empty" country in France and Spain.
Italy is a more interesting comparison with a largely similar demographic.
The Belgium-Netherlands HSL also had significant planning and construction problems.
Germany also has major planning issues, mainly because of environmental lobbying.

The Naples-Bari example is an odd one because it doesn't buy HS all the way - much of the eastern part of the route is upgraded classic infrastructure.
Germany hasn't built any new HS stations (excepting Stuttgart), preferring to use existing city centre stations.
France has built a few simple out-of-town regional HS stations, but no major stations.

We also approach each project as a one-off, so contractors have no long-term incentive to cut costs or build permanent teams.
France/Italy/Spain have had multiple HS builds going on simultaneously for several decades.
There was intended to be some linkage between Crossrail and HS2 (eg for the tunnelling), but whether that had any positive impact I don't know.
I also believe our unit construction costs (eg for concrete, steel, labour rates, energy etc) are also high by EU standards, with a premium for scarce resources.
I'm sure UK exceptionalism also plays its part, going for unique ("world class") specifications when not really required (eg maximum speed).

 

[CdBrux]

A Boring Story about Infrastructure Planning

How our inflexible planning system discourages cheaper, greener changes

www.samdumitriu.com

This article does at least offer a suggestion as to the 'why', i.e. planning rules and maybe also the way they are applied:

In theory, two tunnel boring machines can do twice the work as one so it should mean a time saving. Yet, National Highway has found that using just one would actually allow the project to start earlier as fewer temporary works need to be built before tunnelling can start, which means that using one machine will take the same amount of time overall as using two.

Greener and cheaper, without taking longer, what’s not to like? In an ideal world, the planning system would be flexible and responsive to any change that kept project costs down while delivering environmental benefits.

Yet the Planning Inspectorate have told National Highway to:

“provide a tabulated addendum to the ES [Environmental Statement], reviewing the construction effects changes consequent on the possible effect of changing from the use of 2 tunnel boring machines (TBMs) to 1 TBM. The duration of works and the effects experienced by receptors should be expressly considered. Effects and conclusion changes (if any) should be tabulated for each component of the Environmental Statement (ES) analysis.”
In layman’s terms, you need to do a bunch more paperwork before we’re convinced that using one tunnel boring machine instead of two is no worse for the environment.

 

[HSTEd]

A cynic might note that a legal framework developed in large part by lawyers and consultants tends to generate ever increasing work for lawyers and consultants.

The entire economic model used to develop, design, fund and build infrastructure in the UK is broken and no political group seems remotely interested in actually fixing it.

 

[CdBrux]

A cynic might note that a legal framework developed in large part by lawyers and consultants tends to generate ever increasing work for lawyers and consultants.

The entire economic model used to develop, design, fund and build infrastructure in the UK is broken and no political group seems remotely interested in actually fixing it.

I must be a bit of a cynic then!
Actually one person did seem to suggest they would have a go, they didn't last very long (for other reasons)

 

[mailbyrail]

Simply taking the rail project cost by mile for each project by country, the average by country doesn't show the UK in a bad light

USA £1,277
Australia £617
Singapore £452
Canada £450
Denmark £361
Germany £348
Norway £334
Sweden £305
Japan £264
Italy £240
UK £211
Spain £128
France £119
S Korea £73

 

[PGAT]

Simply taking the rail project cost by mile for each project by country, the average by country doesn't show the UK in a bad light

USA £1,277
Australia £617
Singapore £452
Canada £450
Denmark £361
Germany £348
Norway £334
Sweden £305
Japan £264
Italy £240
UK £211
Spain £128
France £119
S Korea £73

Which projects did you include?

 

[HSTEd]

Simply taking the rail project cost by mile for each project by country, the average by country doesn't show the UK in a bad light

USA £1,277
Australia £617
Singapore £452
Canada £450
Denmark £361
Germany £348
Norway £334
Sweden £305
Japan £264
Italy £240
UK £211
Spain £128
France £119
S Korea £73

I'm not sure what it is you are measuring here or how these numbers relate to anything?
£211 per mile gets you nothing these days after all!

 

[PGAT]

And isn’t HS2 in the realms of 200-300 million per mile? Don’t know a project where it’s 100,000 times cheaper than that

 

[mailbyrail]

It's Millions of GBP per mile - an essential qualification which I didn't state
It's the average for each country of the GPB figures shown in the final column of the table.

 

[PGAT]

It's Millions of GBP per mile - an essential qualification which I didn't state

Okay that makes much more sense

 

[stuu]

It's Millions of GBP per mile - an essential qualification which I didn't state
It's the average for each country of the GPB figures shown in the final column of the table.

But that's an entirely pointless number, as it isn't comparing like with like. Compare the similar projects, and the figures are mostly appalling, as per the headline

 

[lyndhurst25]

UK station reopening costs seem to have rocketed since BR days. Cononley (platforms still in place) supposedly cost only £34,000 in 1988 (about £90,000 in today’s money). Steeton and Silsden (new platforms and a car park built) cost £270,000 in 1990 (£633,000 in today’s money). How much for a reopened, basic station today?

 

[Snow1964]

Take a look at this drone flyover of works at Water Orton

3 huge car parks, fully levelled, fully surfaced and marked up, about three quarters of which is empty, and bit being used appears to have lots of white crew cab pick ups (probably 4x4)

A site office of about 90 portakabin type buildings. The whole site taking up area of about 3 fields, which will probably all be dug up again and environmentally restored.

Whilst no one expects the workers to rough it like a navvy 175 years ago, is it really necessary to do all these instead of just hiring an existing local empty office building and run a minibus shuttle to a small gravel car park on site with a small office and a toilet block

Just feels like gold plating and making the job extra expensive, as got to waste months building a luxury temporary compound

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

BR was able to deliver vast projects cost effectively because its managed them itself and used contractors for key elements of the project but took the risk of integrating them to deliver the project goals. Privatisation fundamentally altered the dynamic here with Railtrack wanting to outsource the entire scheme to a single contractor who had to take all the risk of design, integration and construction as well as being liable for any possession overruns and the cost of the schedule 8 minutes arising. This then set off a chain of events where principle contractors had to find partners and enter the fray were the well paid engineering and project consultants who then had to throw money at attracting staff. Then there was the commercial teams of quantity surveyors, estimators and planners. Then when Major Projects realised it didn't have its own skill set it then had to have its own set of consultants to square up against them. This overweight organisational design has just been allowed to permeate all rail infrastructure projects ever since as none of the senior leaders in the industry will ever front up these arrangements. Until we get leaders back with a backbone like Bob Reid, Chris Green et al to challenge the status quo nothing will change. The winners are a select few but the losers are the wider society who will see no significant improvements to rail travel for over a decade now given the limited funds by so little now and take so long.

 

[Parham Wood]

The buck really stops with the Government (it doesn't matter who is in power the story is the same) and the Civil Service. This is where the challenge to cut costs without cutting the service provided should come from. Sadly they appear not fit for purpose for this and many things. Rocking the status quo is not good for the knighthood, but really if this was done it would be so much more deserving of an honour even if you are not in favour of such rewards.

 

[Snow1964]

Quite a few costs per mile comparison in this summary, based on over 200 European projects

Campaigners have claimed the UK is spending eight times more on rail and road projects than its European neighbors because of red tape and vehement protests.

A study by Britain Remade found that compared to seven other wealthier countries, Britain is spending on average twice as much on building new railways and a tenth as much per mile of road.

The research examined more than 200 different projects, including from Denmark, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Sweden and Norway.

In the case of the High Speed 2 (HS2) Rail Link, it was found that the UK was spending 8.5 times more than comparable European projects.

Sam Dumitriou, head of policy at Britain Remade, said: “When the UK builds infrastructure, whether it is railways, underground systems, trams or roads, we pay more – in some cases much more – than other countries in Europe. Are.

“Why so? One reason is that we give too much power to people who object to projects and end up in a situation where the plans get gilded.

“The other thing is that we don’t use ‘off the shelf’ designs as much as we should. And the planning system requires contractors to do an enormous amount of work.”

In one example, Britain Remade examined how France has been able to build 21 new tram systems in the last quarter while the UK has completed only a few.

Research has revealed the UK is paying eight times more than the EU for road and rail projects - Business News

A one-mile section of HS2's first completed tunnel beneath ancient woodland near Southam, Stratford-upon-Avon, Warwickshire

biz.crast.net

 

[Bald Rick]

UK station reopening costs seem to have rocketed since BR days. Cononley (platforms still in place) supposedly cost only £34,000 in 1988 (about £90,000 in today’s money). Steeton and Silsden (new platforms and a car park built) cost £270,000 in 1990 (£633,000 in today’s money). How much for a reopened, basic station today?

Accounting in BR back then was, shall we say, creative.

I‘m aware of many, many projects back then where the quoted costs are essentially the costs of materials, everything else was covered in ‘overheads’.

 

[Starmill]

Take a look at this drone flyover of works at Water Orton

3 huge car parks, fully levelled, fully surfaced and marked up, about three quarters of which is empty, and bit being used appears to have lots of white crew cab pick ups (probably 4x4)

A site office of about 90 portakabin type buildings. The whole site taking up area of about 3 fields, which will probably all be dug up again and environmentally restored.

Whilst no one expects the workers to rough it like a navvy 175 years ago, is it really necessary to do all these instead of just hiring an existing local empty office building and run a minibus shuttle to a small gravel car park on site with a small office and a toilet block

Just feels like gold plating and making the job extra expensive, as got to waste months building a luxury temporary compound

Those are site offices though, and they don't just cover the immediate area. People need welfare facilities in any job, but that site is to support an absolutely enormous amount of work over many years.

 

[matacaster]

A cynic might note that a legal framework developed in large part by lawyers and consultants tends to generate ever increasing work for lawyers and consultants.

The entire economic model used to develop, design, fund and build infrastructure in the UK is broken and no political group seems remotely interested in actually fixing it.

There are a considerable number of lawyers and consultants in parliament and house of lords, but that must surely be coincidence?

 

[NoRoute]

The Naples-Bari example is an odd one because it doesn't buy HS all the way - much of the eastern part of the route is upgraded classic infrastructure.
Germany hasn't built any new HS stations (excepting Stuttgart), preferring to use existing city centre stations.
France has built a few simple out-of-town regional HS stations, but no major stations.

That's a learning point - if you want a successful HS project, avoid building lots of new city centre stations and try to integrate it with existing rail infrastructure. And if that applies in countries with relatively lower population densities, it certainly applies to densely populated countries with bureaucratic planning and permitting processes like the UK.

There's something around the quality of the early engineering and project design decisions, that some UK projects seem to start with simply unrealistic assumptions and wildly inaccurate cost estimates and as such are doomed to failure before they even put a shovel in the ground.

 

[ricoblade]

Land and planning costs are very high in the UK, and population density is a problem compared to the "empty" country in France and Spain.
Italy is a more interesting comparison with a largely similar demographic.
The Belgium-Netherlands HSL also had significant planning and construction problems.
Germany also has major planning issues, mainly because of environmental lobbying.

The Naples-Bari example is an odd one because it doesn't buy HS all the way - much of the eastern part of the route is upgraded classic infrastructure.
Germany hasn't built any new HS stations (excepting Stuttgart), preferring to use existing city centre stations.
France has built a few simple out-of-town regional HS stations, but no major stations.

We also approach each project as a one-off, so contractors have no long-term incentive to cut costs or build permanent teams.
France/Italy/Spain have had multiple HS builds going on simultaneously for several decades.
There was intended to be some linkage between Crossrail and HS2 (eg for the tunnelling), but whether that had any positive impact I don't know.
I also believe our unit construction costs (eg for concrete, steel, labour rates, energy etc) are also high by EU standards, with a premium for scarce resources.
I'm sure UK exceptionalism also plays its part, going for unique ("world class") specifications when not really required (eg maximum speed).

Nothing new here - I was asked this question at a graduate interview with BR in 1986 (didn't get the job) about why France had managed to build the TGV and the UK struggled with such.

 

[DerekC]

BR was able to deliver vast projects cost effectively because its managed them itself and used contractors for key elements of the project but took the risk of integrating them to deliver the project goals. Privatisation fundamentally altered the dynamic here with Railtrack wanting to outsource the entire scheme to a single contractor who had to take all the risk of design, integration and construction as well as being liable for any possession overruns and the cost of the schedule 8 minutes arising..

The buck really stops with the Government (it doesn't matter who is in power the story is the same) and the Civil Service. This is where the challenge to cut costs without cutting the service provided should come from. Sadly they appear not fit for purpose for this and many things. Rocking the status quo is not good for the knighthood, but really if this was done it would be so much more deserving of an honour even if you are not in favour of such rewards.

In the curious mixture of free market privatisation and government micromanagement we now have, there is nobody to take top level risk. There isn't a BR and the civil service doesn't have the expertise (or the culture). The civil service is told when starting a project (I have been there) that it mustn't increase head count, and consultants and contractors are employed to manage the whole thing. They won't take real risk, and the usual tactic employed is to create a special purpose company that feeds the profits to the partner companies that got the job, whilst hiving financial risk off to the government. The whole project is then developed on the basis of as near 100% mitigation of every non-financial risk as can possibly be achieved, so that those in charge can't be criticised if something goes wrong. The cost escalates and every now and then a head rolls, but the money still keeps flowing the same way. You can see this very clearly in HS2, but it applies to lots of other smaller projects as well.

 

[QueensCurve]

Germany hasn't built any new HS stations (excepting Stuttgart), preferring to use existing city centre stations.
France has built a few simple out-of-town regional HS stations, but no major stations.

And therein perhaps lies part of the problem. Japan needed new stations for the Shinkansen because the track guage was different to the historic guage. The French and german approach was to use existing stations although this required some upgrades to infrastructure to provide enough capacity on the approaches.

 

[Red Dragon]

One of the major problems we have in the UK with the procurement of all major infrastructure, roads, railways, trams, water, power generation, power transfer, and airports is the fact that these projects take 20 years from concept to copletion. Unfortunately our goverment has a 5 year horizon which is dictated by a 5 year term.
We've all seen the indecision on HS2, which IMHO has been exsessive.

Whether it's around Euston, how big, too big too small, stop, go, no, or stopping short at Old Oak Common, or the infrastructure in Birmingham, or shall we go onwards to Crewe or shall we go to Leeds or shan't we, If we are going to Leeds which route should we take (having blighted large trackts of land and property) shall we connect HS2 through from Leeds to York and on to Edinburgh - we've seen it all. Dithering, delay and a total lack of commitment by the polititians. This is what I believe differentiates us from most of the other countries mentioned in this thread.

The UK Government has been told for decades how to procure major projects, they need to plan decide and implement, but they must not keep changing their minds part way through. This indecision leads to disruption, delays, frustration on the part of many, large increases in costs to the contractors and claims for additional costs from them. The delay adds in more inflation. Changing part way through leads to inefficient working, and further delay and disruption costs.The same approach has been exhibited towards HS2 and The Northern Powerhouse. I attended a meeting in The New Parliamentary Buildings a few years ago to do with the launch of The Northern Powerhouse, it's been slashed/shelved since.

If we are comparing costs internationally, we need to look at the difference in the processes adopted in other countries and, more importantly, the commitment of the UK Goverment to, not just high speed connections between our major centres but, all major infrastructure projects.

There exists in the UK an organisation called The National infrastructure Commission with Sir John Armitt as its Chairman. The purpose, the objectives, the authority and the terms of reference need to be looked at so that politicians, most of whom have never worked in industry in their lives, are not allowed to intrfere with, postpone, cut limbs off projects, or change or meddle with them at their whim for political reasons, after due public consultation has taken place and the scope of works has been agreed.

 

[stuu]

There exists in the UK an organisation called The National infrastructure Commission with Sir John Armitt as its Chairman. The purpose, the objectives, the authority and the terms of reference need to be looked at so that politicians, most of whom have never worked in industry in their lives, are not allowed to intrfere with, postpone, cut limbs off projects, or change or meddle with them at their whim for political reasons, after due public consultation has taken place and the scope of works has been agreed.

Removing democratic oversight from anything is an appalling idea. Although I completely sympathise with the logic behind it

 

[islandmonkey]

Removing democratic oversight from anything is an appalling idea. Although I completely sympathise with the logic behind it

The trouble is that when you realise that the people at the top are as uninformed as myself, you start questioning the point of representative democracy in terms of its ability to produce competent decision making.

 

[renegademaster]

That's a learning point - if you want a successful HS project, avoid building lots of new city centre stations and try to integrate it with existing rail infrastructure. And if that applies in countries with relatively lower population densities, it certainly applies to densely populated countries with bureaucratic planning and permitting processes like the UK.

There's something around the quality of the early engineering and project design decisions, that some UK projects seem to start with simply unrealistic assumptions and wildly inaccurate cost estimates and as such are doomed to failure before they even put a shovel in the ground.

In the case of HS2 , their isnt really any spare capacity in London to direct the extra HS2 services without stepping on someone else's feet, which is why the new extension to Euston is needed

 

[Ken H]

...

Whether it's around Euston, how big, too big too small, stop, go, no, or stopping short at Old Oak Common, or the infrastructure in Birmingham, or shall we go onwards to Crewe or shall we go to Leeds or shan't we, If we are going to Leeds which route should we take (having blighted large trackts of land and property) shall we connect HS2 through from Leeds to York and on to Edinburgh - we've seen it all. Dithering, delay and a total lack of commitment by the polititians. This is what I believe differentiates us from most of the other countries mentioned in this thread.

...

The cost of new kit in BR days was inflated by variation orders - the same indecision you mention above.
Its not a rail, government or public sector thing. The private sector IT project I am working on is 19 months late due to lack of initial analysis, no resource planning, and variations in scope and resourcing during the project life. I am just glad I am paid by the hour.
Seems management just cant stop fiddling. Someone needs ruler and slap the wrists of meddling executives with a sharp 'Stop it!'