Capital costs of Highways England improvement schemes

The study of British and Irish roads - their construction, numbering, history, mapping, past and future official roads proposals and general roads musings.

There is a separate forum for Street Furniture (traffic lights, street lights, road signs etc).

Registered users get access to other forums including discussions about other forms of transport, driving, fantasy roads and wishlists, and roads quizzes.

Moderator: Site Management Team

Post Reply
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7549
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Capital costs of Highways England improvement schemes

Post by jackal »

There's no great consistency in how Highways England reports the costs of its improvement schemes. A scheme's cost can be several times higher or lower depending on which items are included. This makes it difficult to compare the costs of different schemes.

I've found a neat workaround for schemes with DCO applications that have been accepted for examination. A DCO application includes a 'Funding Statement', which gives generally comparable capital costs. Most of the funding statements mention that 'This estimate includes all costs to deliver the Scheme from Options stages through to the opening for traffic. It includes an allowance for compensation payments relating to the compulsory acquisition of land interests in, and rights over, land and the temporary possession and use of land. It also takes into account potential claims under Part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973, Section 10 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 and Section 152(3) of the 2008 Act'. Here is an example funding statement: https://infrastructure.planninginspecto ... tement.pdf

A limitation is, of course, that a DCO application needs to have been made and accepted for examination, so for instance most smart motorway schemes are not included as they don’t usually require a DCO (the M4 scheme is an exception). Additionally, the Planning Inspectorate archives documents a few years after the DCO is granted, so funding statements for older schemes are not available. Even so, this is a useful way of finding comparable costs for many recent and ongoing schemes.

Without further ado, here are the capital costs:

A1 Birtley to Coalhouse £289m
A1 in Northumberland: Morpeth to Ellingham £261.6m
A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement £1.487bn
A19 / A184 Testos Junction Improvement £79.8m
A19 Downhill Lane Junction Improvement £54m
A30 Chiverton to Carland Cross £271m
A38 Derby Junctions £229m
A47/A11 Thickthorn Junction £91.2m
A47 Blofield to North Burlingham Dualling £89.5m
A47 North Tuddenham to Easton Dualling £195.27m
A47 Wansford to Sutton Dualling £70.9m
A57 Link Roads £180.6m
A63 Castle Street £392.5m
A303 Sparkford to Ilchester Dualling £171m
A303 Amesbury to Berwick Down £1.7bn
A417 Missing Link £439.6m
A428 Black Cat to Caxton Gibbet improvements £812.5m
A585 Windy Harbour to Skippool Improvement £154.5m
M4 junctions 3 to 12 smart motorway £738m
M20 Junction 10a £104.4m
M25 junction 10/A3 Wisley interchange £272.6m
M25 junction 28 improvement £124m
M42 Junction 6 Improvement £282.3m
M54 to M6 Link Road £198.26m

https://infrastructure.planninginspecto ... /projects/
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7549
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: Capital costs of Highways England improvement schemes

Post by jackal »

As a quick follow up, I looked at £/mile for the five schemes that could be seen as 'standard' dualling schemes with grade separation, i.e. not including at-grade schemes or schemes with upgrades of major junctions like Black Cat or Girton.

A1 in Northumberland: Morpeth to Ellingham £261.6m/13 miles=£20.1m per mile
A30 Chiverton to Carland Cross £271m/8.7 miles=£31.1m per mile
A47 Blofield to North Burlingham Dualling £89.5m/1.5 miles=£59.67m per mile
A47 North Tuddenham to Easton Dualling £195.27m/5 miles=£39.1m per mile
A303 Sparkford to Ilchester Dualling £171m/3 miles=£57m per mile.

So building a basic grade-separated dual carriageway in England seems to cost £20m-£60m per mile - or in broad terms, about £40m per mile.
User avatar
ChrisH
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 3975
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 11:29

Re: Capital costs of Highways England improvement schemes

Post by ChrisH »

jackal wrote: Thu Dec 09, 2021 16:34 As a quick follow up, I looked at £/mile for the five schemes that could be seen as 'standard' dualling schemes with grade separation, i.e. not including at-grade schemes or schemes with upgrades of major junctions like Black Cat or Girton.

A1 in Northumberland: Morpeth to Ellingham £261.6m/13 miles=£20.1m per mile
A30 Chiverton to Carland Cross £271m/8.7 miles=£31.1m per mile
A47 Blofield to North Burlingham Dualling £89.5m/1.5 miles=£59.67m per mile
A47 North Tuddenham to Easton Dualling £195.27m/5 miles=£39.1m per mile
A303 Sparkford to Ilchester Dualling £171m/3 miles=£57m per mile.

So building a basic grade-separated dual carriageway in England seems to cost £20m-£60m per mile - or in broad terms, about £40m per mile.
There look to be some significant economies of scale there for the schemes of longer length. Is there a comparable set of figures yet for the A66? That is the longest dualling scheme out there at the moment I believe.
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7549
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: Capital costs of Highways England improvement schemes

Post by jackal »

ChrisH wrote: Fri Dec 10, 2021 09:21
jackal wrote: Thu Dec 09, 2021 16:34 As a quick follow up, I looked at £/mile for the five schemes that could be seen as 'standard' dualling schemes with grade separation, i.e. not including at-grade schemes or schemes with upgrades of major junctions like Black Cat or Girton.

A1 in Northumberland: Morpeth to Ellingham £261.6m/13 miles=£20.1m per mile
A30 Chiverton to Carland Cross £271m/8.7 miles=£31.1m per mile
A47 Blofield to North Burlingham Dualling £89.5m/1.5 miles=£59.67m per mile
A47 North Tuddenham to Easton Dualling £195.27m/5 miles=£39.1m per mile
A303 Sparkford to Ilchester Dualling £171m/3 miles=£57m per mile.

So building a basic grade-separated dual carriageway in England seems to cost £20m-£60m per mile - or in broad terms, about £40m per mile.
There look to be some significant economies of scale there for the schemes of longer length. Is there a comparable set of figures yet for the A66? That is the longest dualling scheme out there at the moment I believe.
The A66 hasn't been submitted yet, so it's not directly comparable. But the estimate is £773m for 18 miles, or £42.9m per mile. So in the middle of the range.

I agree economies of scale are a factor. Another is number and standard of GSJs. For instance, the A1 scheme has only 4 GSJs, all compact, which is 0.3 GSJs per mile, while the A303 Sparkford scheme has one compact GSJ and one full GSJ, which is 0.67 GSJs per mile and at a higher average design standard.

A1 general arrangement: https://infrastructure.planninginspecto ... ev%206.pdf
A303 general arrangement: https://infrastructure.planninginspecto ... 0Plans.pdf
WHBM
Member
Posts: 9706
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 18:01
Location: London

Re: Capital costs of Highways England improvement schemes

Post by WHBM »

The quoted "Capital Cost" of a project can vary on so many parameters that it's difficult to make comparisons. Include or not :

- Whether land purchase costs are included, as they are sometimes budgeted separately, or the land is already owned, and can be a good proportion of the total.
- Ground conditions.
- Whether off-site drainage work is required.
- Extent of statutory undertakers (gas/water/telephone etc) existing infrastructure encountered (as the Edinburgh Tram project found out only too well).
- Number of bridge structures needed.
- Cut/fill proportions.
- Distance of project from material supply (eg from a concrete batching plant). Try doing a project in the Scottish Highlands.
- Current "market" for civils (I've known main contractors in London have to bring in subcontractors from Northern Ireland).
- Competence of designer (such that certain contractors will not work with certain "professional" consultants any more).
- and a whole lot more ...
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7549
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: Capital costs of Highways England improvement schemes

Post by jackal »

A couple of big new schemes have been accepted for examination, hence their funding statements, providing comparable costs, have been released:

A66 Northern Trans-Pennine: £1490 million
A12 Chelmsford to A120 Widening: £1045 - £1268 million

The A66 scheme is 18 miles long, so some £82.8m per mile. This is the most expensive 'standard' grade-separated D2 that has got this far in the development process (see list a few posts above).

If we use the midpoint of the A12 scheme it's £1.1565bn for 15 miles or £77.1m per mile, which is a bit more reasonable given it's a D3 scheme, admittedly using a mixture of widening and new build.

The next largest current scheme is the A428 Black Cat to Caxton Gibbet at £812.5m for 10 miles or £81.3m per mile, all offline and including a three-level roundabout.

Finally we might mention the A14 Huntingdon to Cambridge, which was £1.487bn for 21 miles or £70.8m per mile. Admittedly comparison here is tricky due to inflation and the A14 freeflow junctions.

Still, taking it all together the A66 does seem a bit of an outlier.
User avatar
c2R
SABRE Wiki admin
Posts: 11162
Joined: Fri Jul 05, 2002 11:01

Re: Capital costs of Highways England improvement schemes

Post by c2R »

I'd suspect the geography of the A66 has something to do with it... While land in the south east is expensive, it's obviously much more straightforward to construct a road across flat agricultural land on a new road corridor than it is to deal with the landscape across the pennines while construction occurs along the same road corridor. It also gets a bit more snow and rain than Cambridgeshire...
Is there a road improvement project going on near you? Help us to document it on the SABRE Wiki - help is available in the Digest forum.
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Get involved! - see our guide to scanning and stitching maps
Herned
Member
Posts: 1363
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 09:15

Re: Capital costs of Highways England improvement schemes

Post by Herned »

The A66 has a lot of locations where the new/upgraded road meets and runs with the existing road, so it will need a lot of traffic management and potentially temporary alignments and arrangements for construction traffic. Would an entirely offline route be cheaper?
User avatar
RichardA35
Committee Member
Posts: 5705
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2002 18:58
Location: Dorset

Re: Capital costs of Highways England improvement schemes

Post by RichardA35 »

jackal wrote: Mon Sep 26, 2022 15:31 A couple of big new schemes have been accepted for examination, hence their funding statements, providing comparable costs, have been released:..

A66 Northern Trans-Pennine: £1490 million

Still, taking it all together the A66 does seem a bit of an outlier.
It looks like the reports are all expressed at 2010 prices so applying current 10% escalation rates it will give a large total.
The construction programme shows 5 years of continuous work so I imagine a lot of uncertainty has also been built in.
User avatar
KeithW
Member
Posts: 19205
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:25
Location: Marton-In-Cleveland North Yorks

Re: Capital costs of Highways England improvement schemes

Post by KeithW »

c2R wrote: Mon Sep 26, 2022 15:48 I'd suspect the geography of the A66 has something to do with it... While land in the south east is expensive, it's obviously much more straightforward to construct a road across flat agricultural land on a new road corridor than it is to deal with the landscape across the pennines while construction occurs along the same road corridor. It also gets a bit more snow and rain than Cambridgeshire...
I will wager they get a lot more lost time due to inclement weather between Bowes and Appleby than between Cambridge and Catthorpe. If nothing else they will have to bus in at least some of the workforce to avoid overloading the lodgings in the area.
https://a66-environmental-statement.virtual-engage.com/Statement.html?entry=11 wrote: 13.9.13 Annex B12 of the EMP provides an outline Skills and Employment
Strategy, which will set out measures to upskill and maximise the use of
a local workforce and supply chains. The Principal Contractor will be
required to implement measures to promote opportunities to benefit the
local supply chain and support local businesses during construction. The
strategy will ensure that local businesses are made aware of the
procurement process and tendering opportunities whilst providing
support for those who require it. Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) will
be outlined to monitor the utilisation of local subcontractors and
suppliers. The Strategy will also provide support and guidance to
existing businesses that are impacted as a result of the construction
and/or operation of Project.

13.9.14 The Skills and Employment Strategy will support local training
infrastructure and provide opportunities for vulnerable members of the
community. It will outline how the Project aims to utilise and maximise
the benefits to local schools and colleges. This will include measures to
increase and extend the range of courses available to young people as
well as employing them on the Project to develop their skills and
qualifications first-hand, for example through apprenticeships.

13.9.15 Annex B10 of the EMP provides an outline Construction Worker Travel
and Accommodation Plan, which will be developed in consultation with
the Local Planning Authorities. It will ensure that additional demand
created by non-home-based workers does not place excessive pressure
on the local housing market and visitor accommodation supply. This will
be based on a forecast of the number of people employed throughout
the construction programme. Impacts on the local housing and tourism
User avatar
KeithW
Member
Posts: 19205
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:25
Location: Marton-In-Cleveland North Yorks

Re: Capital costs of Highways England improvement schemes

Post by KeithW »

Herned wrote: Mon Sep 26, 2022 16:00 The A66 has a lot of locations where the new/upgraded road meets and runs with the existing road, so it will need a lot of traffic management and potentially temporary alignments and arrangements for construction traffic. Would an entirely offline route be cheaper?
As I recall a high proportion of the transpennine section is being done offline. The main online sections seem to be between the Penrith to Temple Sowerby, Appleby to Brough and the Bowes bypass where the options for offline improvements are limited and the Bowes bypass.
Post Reply