Costs of ALR versus widening: evidence from the M25
Moderator: Site Management Team
Costs of ALR versus widening: evidence from the M25
As this old chestnut has reappeared I took a look at the Post Opening Project Evaluations (One Year After) for M25 schemes completed in 2012-2015. The POPEs provide an outtrun investment (i.e., construction) cost. Mostly they are in 2002 prices though unfortunately J5-7 is in 2010 prices (so is inflated compared to the others):
J5-7 ALR, open 2014, £113.7m/11 miles = £10.3m per mile
J16-23 full HS, open 2012, £460m/22 miles = £20.9m per mile
J23-27 ALR, open 2015, £101m/17 miles = £5.9m per mile
J27-30 discontinuous HS, open 2012, 272.4m/17 miles = £16m per mile
Maintenance costs over 60 years are also provided (again, J5-7 is in 2010 prices, the others 2002). Widening schemes actually reduce maintenance costs compared to the status quo ante, hence the negative numbers:
J5-7 ALR, £20.9m
J16-23 full HS, -£15.4m
J23-27 ALR, £22.8m
J27-30 discontinuous HS, -£23.9m
So in short, widening was about 3 times as expensive as ALR to construct. It has lower maintenance costs, though this is a minor part of overall costs.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... n_2020.pdf
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... _Final.pdf
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... n_2020.pdf
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... _Final.pdf
J5-7 ALR, open 2014, £113.7m/11 miles = £10.3m per mile
J16-23 full HS, open 2012, £460m/22 miles = £20.9m per mile
J23-27 ALR, open 2015, £101m/17 miles = £5.9m per mile
J27-30 discontinuous HS, open 2012, 272.4m/17 miles = £16m per mile
Maintenance costs over 60 years are also provided (again, J5-7 is in 2010 prices, the others 2002). Widening schemes actually reduce maintenance costs compared to the status quo ante, hence the negative numbers:
J5-7 ALR, £20.9m
J16-23 full HS, -£15.4m
J23-27 ALR, £22.8m
J27-30 discontinuous HS, -£23.9m
So in short, widening was about 3 times as expensive as ALR to construct. It has lower maintenance costs, though this is a minor part of overall costs.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... n_2020.pdf
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... _Final.pdf
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... n_2020.pdf
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... _Final.pdf
Re: Costs of ALR versus widening: evidence from the M25
It would be good to see the full widening costs actually broken down.
- Additional public enquiry costs.
- Land purchase, amount paid plus all the legal work.
- Additional civils costs.
You also have to consider the public reaction. If the public don't like it and, through their politicians etc don't accept it, what's the point ? There's no greater example at the moment than the football story. Made sense on someone's spreadsheet.
- Additional public enquiry costs.
- Land purchase, amount paid plus all the legal work.
- Additional civils costs.
You also have to consider the public reaction. If the public don't like it and, through their politicians etc don't accept it, what's the point ? There's no greater example at the moment than the football story. Made sense on someone's spreadsheet.
Re: Costs of ALR versus widening: evidence from the M25
The problem with accountant led engineering is the end result is often not satisfactory for the actual user.
I have argued for a long time that the DfT WebTAG system does not factor in any of the unquantifiable aspects of a road or cycleway scheme, and as a result there is a bias towards maintenance of the status quo. This will be interesting when the government have just announced they are making even tighter carbon targets which are completely incompatible with the current planning system that is geared entirely around mass private car ownership in suburbs.
Pay peanuts, get monkeys.
I have argued for a long time that the DfT WebTAG system does not factor in any of the unquantifiable aspects of a road or cycleway scheme, and as a result there is a bias towards maintenance of the status quo. This will be interesting when the government have just announced they are making even tighter carbon targets which are completely incompatible with the current planning system that is geared entirely around mass private car ownership in suburbs.
Pay peanuts, get monkeys.
Bryn
Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already.
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.
Blog - https://showmeasign.online/
X - https://twitter.com/ShowMeASignBryn
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@BrynBuck
Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already.
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.
Blog - https://showmeasign.online/
X - https://twitter.com/ShowMeASignBryn
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@BrynBuck
Re: Costs of ALR versus widening: evidence from the M25
They're making targets but not making policies to achieve the targets.
Re: Costs of ALR versus widening: evidence from the M25
The Government believe that mass adoption of electric vehicles and better heating solutions / insulation will solve that - avoiding the need to become deeply unpopular with voters!
We might be in a climate emergency but the selfish nature of human beings shows no sign of ending - restrictions on mass motoring are simply not an option in a democracy.
Re: Costs of ALR versus widening: evidence from the M25
The figures do show that SM was done over widening, because it is cheaper, which I still think was the main factor, rather than safety. Safety had to feature in the publicity of course. The disagreements over which actually is safer will never end though.....
Roads and holidays in the west, before motorways.
http://trektothewest.shutterfly.com
http://holidayroads.webs.com/
http://trektothewest.shutterfly.com
http://holidayroads.webs.com/
- Vierwielen
- Member
- Posts: 5711
- Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2008 21:21
- Location: Hampshire
Re: Costs of ALR versus widening: evidence from the M25
An accountant is somebody who knows the cost of everything, but the value of nothing.
-
- Elected Committee Member
- Posts: 11153
- Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 21:58
- Location: Belfast N Ireland
- Contact:
Re: Costs of ALR versus widening: evidence from the M25
And an opposition politician is wedded to value and promptly has a fling with cost as soon as they're elected.
(Not entirely accurate, because plenty of opposition politicians whinge about how much money is being spent regardless of value to other people!)
I'm not exactly convinced that the modelling adequately reflects the quantifiable aspects. How often do we hear "trains and trams are too expensive, have a bus instead" when the sum appears to be:
additional operating costs of more expensive system minus additional farebox receipts from a more popular system equals too much money required in PSO
instead of
additional operating costs of more expensive system minus additional farebox receipts plus money saved to the economy because there is more space on the road for people who can't avoid driving equals a potentially very different outcome.
Jackal makes a fair point about maintenance costs:
(Not entirely accurate, because plenty of opposition politicians whinge about how much money is being spent regardless of value to other people!)
Are you sure we get something as useful as monkeys?Bryn666 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 13:57 The problem with accountant led engineering is the end result is often not satisfactory for the actual user.
I have argued for a long time that the DfT WebTAG system does not factor in any of the unquantifiable aspects of a road or cycleway scheme, and as a result there is a bias towards maintenance of the status quo. This will be interesting when the government have just announced they are making even tighter carbon targets which are completely incompatible with the current planning system that is geared entirely around mass private car ownership in suburbs.
Pay peanuts, get monkeys.
I'm not exactly convinced that the modelling adequately reflects the quantifiable aspects. How often do we hear "trains and trams are too expensive, have a bus instead" when the sum appears to be:
additional operating costs of more expensive system minus additional farebox receipts from a more popular system equals too much money required in PSO
instead of
additional operating costs of more expensive system minus additional farebox receipts plus money saved to the economy because there is more space on the road for people who can't avoid driving equals a potentially very different outcome.
Jackal makes a fair point about maintenance costs:
However, I would predict that conventional widening schemes will in due course be provided with full smart technology, including CCTV coverage - it will be less important than where there is no hard shoulder, but MS4s, mandatory variable speed limits and speed/red X cameras will become the norm on all but the least busy motorways.jackal wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 12:36 Maintenance costs over 60 years are also provided (again, J5-7 is in 2010 prices, the others 2002). Widening schemes actually reduce maintenance costs compared to the status quo ante, hence the negative numbers:
J5-7 ALR, £20.9m
J16-23 full HS, -£15.4m
J23-27 ALR, £22.8m
J27-30 discontinuous HS, -£23.9m
So in short, widening was about 3 times as expensive as ALR to construct. It has lower maintenance costs, though this is a minor part of overall costs.