What do we want Scotland to be famous for – building roads or building high speed rail links?
One may say that the cost of high speed rail is prohibitively expensive and as a result comparing road-building with 250mph rail travel is a false dichotomy. I would argue the other way.
The cost of HS2 is set at £32bn over decades of investment. Let’s say that the Scottish share of that is £4bn.
Monies (to be and already) spent on roadbuilding over the past and next few years includes:
M74 – £700m
Forth Road Bridge – £2bn+
M80 Stepps to Haggs bypass – £320m
M8/Aberdeen Western Peripheral – Goodness knows
So, the money is there if the will is there. Of course, the SNP’s short term view is to keep Scots happy enough for the next few years to make sure they vote Yes in the referendum and a 30 year plan for HS2 doesn’t fit into that timescale unfortunately. A counter-argument could well be that a Yes to independence will release the oil revenues that can be used to be spent on upgrading our infrastructure. Sounds good to me, particularly in light of the coming paragraph, but it’s prudent to operate in the expectation that Scotland will remain a part of the UK.
When I was in Norway, a country with oil-soaked ground beneath its seas, I was amazed at the number of tunnels that linked the archipelago of islands around Trondheim. Distances of 2km, 3km, 5km had been bored down through the ground and up the other end, seemingly with little fuss. Similarly, bridge after bridge was crossed on the little road trip that I was on. S, I couldn’t help but ask myself, why is there so much fuss involved and money being spent on a single Scottish bridge?
I decided to do a little reasarch.
There are over 900 road tunnels in Norway with a total combined length of 750km.
The longest road tunnels (>7km, with opening year and length) are:
• Lærdalstunnelen, 2000, 24505 m, world’s longest road tunnel
• Gudvangatunnel, 1991, 11428 m
• Folgefonntunnel, 2001, 11150 m
• Korgfjelltunnelen, 2005, 8530 m
• Steigentunnelen, 1991, 8079 m
• Bømlafjordtunnel, 2000, 7888 m, see also below
• Eiksundtunnelen, 2008, 7765 m, see also below
• Svartisentunnelen, 1986, 7615 m
• Høyangertunnelen, 1982, 7543 m
• Vallaviktunnelen, 1985, 7510 m
• Åkrafjordtunnelen, 2000, 7400 m
The new Forth crossing will be only 2.7km in length and the Norwegians have finished 6 tunnels that are much, much longer since 2000.
So, the crucial question, how much did they cost?
I was only able to find figures for three of these tunnels but the results may make you weep for your Scottish pounds:
Laerdal – 1,082 million kronor (£120m)
Bomlafjord – $61 million dollars (£38m)
Eiksund – 846 million kronor (£94m)
This is a country that is prohibitively expensive. I know of people who take their own potatoes with them over the border because they can’t face buying them in the supermarkets there. And they can still build long tunnels for a fraction of the price of our smaller Scottish white elephants bridges.
There are other comparisons that can be made. China, for example, built a 26mile bridge (longer than the English channel) for £1.4bn, albeit with wages at a much lower rate than you’d have to pay in Fife/Edinburgh.
So if the cheapest countries in the world and the most expensive countries in the world can build bridges and tunnels for cheaper than Scotland can, there is only one question that need be asked….
WHAT THE HECK ARE WE DOING WRONG!?
Why do Parliament buildings, trams, bridges, solar panels, insulation, heck, railway fares even, cost more in Scotland than in other places? Why can Norwegians happily hop from island to island by car and bike but we still have an old-fashioned network around our Highlands and islands?
So much in our would-be country needs to be ripped up and started again, both metaphorically and physically. Where better to start than with rail tracks, tunnels and bridge plans. High Speed Rail from Birmingham to London makes little sense but from Edinburgh to London (and beyond) it most certainly does. Independence or no independence, let’s shoot for the moon, and ask the Norwegians how the heck they do it.
#1 by Sandy Brownlee (oldchap) on November 24, 2011 - 11:45 am
On first reading this I started to think of some reasons Scottish (and UK) building is more expensive; typically a higher density of buildings making roads / rail more expensive to build, older housing stock (retrofitting insulation being more expensive than new builds), even the wrong kind of rock for building cheap tunnels.
Then I thought – fine these factors will play a part – but surely other countries have different difficulties that would on average balance out across all big projects? The list you give is fairly diverse: surely we could do better than average in one area of infrastructure building?
This country does seem to have a fundamental inability to do infrastucture properly. Yet there’s no obvious reason why that should be the case. We *used* to be good at it, so what went wrong?
#2 by Jeff on November 24, 2011 - 11:49 am
I’m afraid I have no answers on what went wrong with our building prowess, but Fergus Ewing might as he was all but signed up to a tunnel in 2006:
“Fergus Ewing, the transport spokesman, said: “On the face of the argument, a tunnel may have several advantages to a new bridge. Not only would it appear to be cheaper to build, but the experts say it could be completed more quickly than a conventional bridge and may even have some environmental advantages.”
#3 by 45kabsl on November 24, 2011 - 8:08 pm
Hi Sandy,
I would argue we are still good it. There are many reasons why infrastructure project costs are higher in this country than in others. You cant compare projects unless you know the risk profiles.
#4 by Thomas Widmann on November 24, 2011 - 11:55 am
I agree prices seem somewhat inflated in Scotland.
I’m not sure concentrating on a high-speed link to London is the best use of the infrastructure budget, though — it’ll just make the UK even more London-centric.
I think it’d be better to improve travel times within Scotland. For instance, a train from Glasgow to Inverness currently takes 3 1/2 hours, and driving in a car won’t be much faster. However, the distance as the crow flies is less than 200 km, so in theory it should be possible to reduce the travel time by train to less than an hour. If Inverness, Aberdeen, Edinburgh and Glasgow were all within an hour of each other, it would do wonders for the Scottish economy.
#5 by Jeff on November 24, 2011 - 11:59 am
Yes, I’m with you there Thomas, a much faster service up to Inverness and creating a real business hub there would be a competing priority to High Speed rail.
The thing about a fast link to London though is that that is not where the journey would necessarily end. A 2.5 hour trip to London means that you could take a sleeper service to Paris, Brussels, Germany and beyond which opens up a whole world of possibilities for the relatively remote Scotland.
#6 by Thomas Widmann on November 24, 2011 - 2:27 pm
I think you’re seeing this from a London perspective, Jeff. If Scottish people are travelling much further than London, they will take a plane rather than taking a train to London and then changing to a sleeper train, partly because of the time it’d take, partly because of the cost.
More direct flights from Scotland would be much more important to connect Scotland to Europe. For instance, at the moment most affordable flights between Scotland and Denmark use Edinburgh Airport, and I’m getting quite fed up having to drive to Edinburgh from Newton Mearns to pick up relatives visiting.
#7 by Jeff on November 24, 2011 - 2:42 pm
I don’t where that tiresome rebuke “a London perspective” comes into it but I take your point that people would probably still fly to Paris and Brussels, even if we did have a cheap and comfortable high speed rail. (Well, depends if you got kicked out at Charleroi or somewhere quite central I guess)
I’m certainly not saying that Denmark would be high up on the Scotland – x high speed destination list.
#8 by commenter on November 24, 2011 - 1:26 pm
“the [Inverness..Glasgow] distance as the crow flies is less than 200 km, so in theory it should be possible to reduce the travel time by train to less than an hour.”
Fair enough – I’d like to see the cost for a straight-line high-speed rail link between those cities though.
“If Inverness, Aberdeen, Edinburgh and Glasgow were all within an hour of each other, it would do wonders for the Scottish economy.”
I suspect that the price of the Inverness-Glasgow line would be so high that the associated tax increases would destroy the economy before any benefit from being able to take the train quickly from Inverness to Glasgow were to kick in (after which of course, the economy would boom – getting people (not freight or anything like that) from Inverness to Glasgow in under an hour would work wonders I’m sure).
#9 by Jeff on November 24, 2011 - 1:31 pm
“I suspect that the price of the Inverness-Glasgow line would be so high that the associated tax increases would destroy the economy before any benefit from being able to take the train quickly from Inverness to Glasgow were to kick in”
And yet people seem so relaxed about us wasting £2bn on a bridge when we can seemingly quite clearly have a tunnel for a fraction of the cost.
#10 by 45kabsl on November 24, 2011 - 8:10 pm
Jeff, just to clarify the construction cost of the bridge is c£800 million. This price was lower down to some good old fashioned engineering along with steel from India
#11 by Thomas Widmann on November 24, 2011 - 2:31 pm
I would definitely like to see the costings, too. I have a feeling that rather than building a proper high-speed rail link from Glasgow to Inverness, it’d be better to straighten out the tracks a bit, extend it from one to two parallel tracks, and electrify the whole lot. What I’d really like to see is a report listing all the options together with approximate prices so that the best solutions can be chosen.
#12 by Iain Menzies on November 24, 2011 - 3:17 pm
on the dundee to glasgow/edinburgh/aberdeen times it takes about 90 mins to do that run (good lord ive done it often enough) now if you want to get the travel time down below an hour wouldnt a direct express service manage that?
#13 by R.G. Bargie on November 24, 2011 - 12:19 pm
Yeah, I’d really like to know the official reasons for building a bridge rather than a tunnel. Are there any geological ones? Is the ground somehow unsuitable? Because otherwise it seems like a no-brainer – tunnels are much simpler, not subject to weather damage, don’t get in the way of shipping, don’t have to be closed when it’s windy or snowy, etc etc.
As for the cost of large construction projects generally, though, it seems to be a crazy lottery. Look at the Millennium Stadium in Cardiff – a stunning, magnificent 75,000-seater arena with a roof, completed for a total of £120m. Yet the Olympic Stadium in London, with a near-identical capacity and no roof, is scheduled to come in at almost £500m. And Wembley, only slightly bigger than the Millennium, cost a staggering £750m. How can you build two very similar stadia in the same country, only seven years apart, and have one cost £630m more than the other one?
#14 by Allan on November 24, 2011 - 7:24 pm
Not sure, but the building of the Milenium Stadium was pain free (built specifically for the Rugby World Cup in 1999), compared to the process that led to the building of the new Wembley Stadium. Bear in mind that there was a group (like Kate Hoey) who wanted Wembley to be a UK version of the Stad De France – capiable of hosting Football as well as Athletics events should the need arise. Those people were ousted by the likes of Ken Bates & Adam Crozier who wanted the new Wembley to be a Football stadium. While this infighting was going on, the designs probably changed adozen times.
So in theory, thanks to the English FA, not only was a great hulking ugly concrete bowl built as a monument to English Football’s greed, but it also meant that there had to be a seperate Olympic Stadium should London win the right to host the World Athletics Championships (which they did, but had to give up because the funding for the stadium at Picketts Lock fell through) or the Olympics (which obviously they also won).
#15 by 45kabsl on November 24, 2011 - 8:12 pm
Reason for price differential is mainly steel and size. The new Wembley has roughly double the amount of steel work than the Millenium in Cardiff. The price of steel has also gone up from around £350 supply and fix per tonne 7 years ago to £900 per tonne currently
#16 by Doug Daniel on November 24, 2011 - 12:39 pm
“High Speed Rail from Birmingham to London makes little sense”
Well, the high-speed line will decrease journey times from Birmingham to London to a level similar to commuting from the outskirts of London to the city centre. So all of a sudden, you’ve got the whole of Birmingham as a potential commuter base for London’s workers. This is why they want to do it. It’s got sod all to do with the broader economy – it’s just about sucking people into London, as usual.
Anyway, I would love Scotland to have a first-class high-speed rail network, but first of all we need someone to do a proper feasibility study to show if it’s actually practical. As John Ruddy mentioned on the last HSR article on here, there needs to be a certain distance between stations to make it worthwhile, as the train needs enough room to get up to top speed and slow down again. A quick Google search found a figure of 50km, although John suggests it is more like 80 – 120 miles. I may disagree with John on most things, but he does seem to know what he’s on about when it comes to railways. Wikipedia’s article has figures for optimal distance too, suggesting HSR is best for journey times of 2 – 3 hours (which fits in with John’s figures), as well as saying that HSR is “competitive” with cars “if there is road congestion or expensive parking fees” (i.e. no more than existing rail services).
With all that in mind, it seems the potential for HSR in Scotland doesn’t extend any further than various direct routes to Inverness, and direct routes from Aberdeen to Glasgow and Edinburgh (maybe Dumfries or something too?) Perth, Stirling and Dundee are all too near the other major towns or cities (except Inverness), and HSR between Edinburgh and Glasgow is just a non-starter. And let’s be honest, if it can’t be done on Scotland’s busiest route, then it just won’t get done.
That could all be wrong, and in fact I hope it is as I would love to have all the major places in Scotland brought to within an hour or so of each other. But it doesn’t look likely.
#17 by Doug Daniel on November 24, 2011 - 1:08 pm
Sorry, that should be competitive with cars over shorter journeys – obviously HSR would absolutely obliterate a car over a long journey!
#18 by Jeff on November 24, 2011 - 1:13 pm
A good look at the actual practical considerations but for me High Speed rail is less about getting around Scotland quicker than joining Scotland up with London and beyond which, given how direct the rails are for most of England and that the continent already has fast trains, it definitely seems to be a go-er.
It has to be a better use of our money than building a £2bn bridge that the Norweigans could knock a tunnel together for for about £200m…
#19 by commenter on November 24, 2011 - 1:31 pm
Doug, you’ve cracked it – the reason for the Bham London rail link is so people can get from Bham to London quickly. Many of them commuting! A terrible idea, as you say.
Of course, as you point out, high-speed rail in Scotland so people can get from A to B more quickly is a great idea, because Scottish people wouldn’t be doing anything so tawdry as commuting.
They’d be Edinburghers travelling over to the Kelvingrove art gallery for a wee day trip no doubt… Or Glaswegians visiting cultural attractions in Edinburgh.
#20 by Jeff on November 24, 2011 - 1:58 pm
I think you’re missing the key point here in that a fast link between Glasgow and Edinburgh would see both cities prosper together given the equal popularity and positioning of the East and West. Studies are showing quite clearly that the result of a high speed link between Birmingham and London would just see a concentration of economic activity in London to Birmingham’s detriment.
Given London is already the centre of the UK economy, and pulling wealth into its rich bosom, I don’t think that sounds like the best of plans.
#21 by Richard Thomson on November 24, 2011 - 1:40 pm
Jeff,
Good points. While I don’t want to piddle over your firework unduly, the comparison tunnels which you cost each carry only 2-3 lanes of traffic.
As the replacement FRB will be carrying 3 lanes in each direction and require complex interchanges at each side you can look at doubling (at least) the cost per km, which will also need to be adjusted not only for inflation, but also the exchange rate at the time.
That said, your point about the comparative costs of infrastructure projects still stands. While there’s a sound case for considering Optimism Bias in estimating likely costs [http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/5(3).pdf] there is/was something like a 60% optimism bias built into the replacement FRB costings.
Stating that upfront is a bit like going into a car showroom and confiding to the salesman “I want something which should probably only cost me £14,000, but really, I’m willing to spend up to £20,000 – what can you sell me?”, then driving off the forecourt surprised at having parted with £20k for your car.
It’d be interesting to compare how other countries factor in optimism bias, how their contracts differ and how their planning systems do/don’t work in comparison to ours…
#22 by Jeff on November 24, 2011 - 1:56 pm
My urine-splattered firework is still fizzing with plenty of snap, crackle and pop Richard, thanks very much.
Even if one was to double the price of a standard Norwegian tunnel, the bridge still looks way, way over the going rate. And I don’t see why doubling it is an appropriate factor as adding a lane or two does not mean twice as much work when it comes to the actual boring and fixed costs that would be involved. And wouldn’t the Norwegians have had just the same issues with junctions and joining up their road tunnels with existing roads? I don’t see why the Forth crossing is a special exemption there.
I’m also not entirely sure why the exchange rate comes into it since we’re talking about Norwegian kronor building Norwegian tunnels and Sterling building a Scottish bridge. I’ve used the current exchange rate in my post which seems fair. Indeed, the kronor has grown in strength against the Sterling since 2000 so if we were to go back a decade on the exchange rate then these tunnels would infact have cost less than I am saying in the post. Fair shout on inflation though.
I can’t say I’ve heard of optimism bias before, it sounds an interesting concept. But isn’t that going in the wrong direction here? Wouldn’t the Scottish Government want to suggest a price that is lower than reality to get the best deal from engineers/contractors? That, to me, would suggest that the eventual price of this bridge is going to increase even further away from the price of those Norwegian tunnels.
Of course, what is really at stake here, after the Parliament and the trams, is proof that Scotland can complete big projects efficiently. There’s a lot of big figures being banded about already and if they creep up then this could be Scotland’s Darian project all over again.
#23 by Jeff on November 24, 2011 - 1:59 pm
Also, any idea why Fergus Ewing, and the SNP in general, were so effusive over the idea of a tunnel but then did an about turn in favour of a bridge, with all of its glorious photo opportunities?
I personally have noidea what turned their minds….
#24 by Richard Thomson on November 24, 2011 - 2:56 pm
Glad to hear it’s still fizzing away…
On the Norwegian comparison, tunnel costs increase in line with the size of the bore. While I’m quite slim-line myself, the fact that you’re needing to carry twice as many lanes of traffic should mean that a doubling up of costs is pretty conservative.
Or think of it another way – you need 6 lanes, so you’re building 2x 3 lane tunnels.
As for the complexity of junctions, judging from streetview, none of the 3 costed tunnels are linking motorway with other motorways at each end. Having a grade-separated free-flowing junction is much dearer than just sticking up a roundabout or a T-junction.
I wasn’t sure whether you’d used current exchange rates or not, but the only point I was making was that you needed to be comparing like for like. You’re dead-on that it still looks like it costs too much to build major infrastructure in this country, though.
I genuinely have no idea why Ministers went cold on the idea of a tunnel, but the prospect of better photo opps seems well beyond the furthest reaches of probability! I would have thought that mineworkings in West Lothian and the existence of an oil pipeline, not to mention the proximity of the existing bridge might have been factors, but apparently not, if the initial Transport Scotland report is to be believed.
#25 by Jeff on November 24, 2011 - 3:05 pm
I think, to be fair, I read something about the Forth being particularly deep and having very steep banks which may be the reason.
Still seems like a poor excuse for not having a go if there’s massive savings to be made, particularly in light of Norwegian engineering successes over much greater distances.
#26 by 45kabsl on November 24, 2011 - 8:15 pm
Jeff,
The main reason for not having the tunnel is cost. The construction cost of the new bridge is c£800 million whilst the cost of a tunnel would be much higher; principally because the tunnel entrances and exits would have to built quite away from the shore, then subsequently fitting into the Motorway network would also add costs. The risks of tunneling and getting the equipment would also increase the project costs.
#27 by ianbeag on November 24, 2011 - 2:23 pm
I agree totally with the concept of a tunnel and I asked the question at a public political forum to be told that the sub-strata under the Forth was unsuitable and that the two end points of the tunnel had to be sited a long way inland on both sides to get to a suitable depth. Perhaps someone more clued up than myself could comment on that answer.
However, something more basic which affects everyone in the UK- why, in the country where tarmacadam was invented can we not build a road that lasts more than a year or two? Since the 1980’s I’ve driven regularly on roads across Northern German and Holland and not until a more recent trip have I come across a motorway under repair – the reason, adding an extra lane to one of Hitler’s autobahn’s built in the 1930’s. The same applies to small secondary roads in Germany – no potholes and no sign of surface repairs. Their Winter weather can be as bad or worse than ours so it cannot be weather related. A clue perhaps – the top surface on their roads seem to be 8-10 inches thick where ours are nearer to 2-3″. Can anyone enlighten me?
#28 by Doug Daniel on November 24, 2011 - 2:58 pm
This is entirely hearsay, but a Ukranian guy I used to work with reckoned that in Germany they heat up the hole they’re going to fill first, so that the tarmac they fill the hole with will bond properly, and then they make absolutely sure it is sealed properly, with the result being you can’t even tell there was a repair made; whereas he reckoned here we just dump the tarmac in the hole and go over it with a roller.
He could be wrong of course, but he was pretty convincing. It would certainly explain why the same hole in Renfield Street needed repairing three times in a year when i lived in Glasgow.
#29 by 45kabsl on November 24, 2011 - 8:06 pm
This an element in truth to this however standard practice in the UK is to paint the holes with bitumen binder which should seal the excavation and prevent water ingress. However this is for road reinstatement’s on existing surfaces.
#30 by Doug Daniel on November 25, 2011 - 12:13 pm
That bitumen binder seems to be about as much use as Pritt-Stick. It’s also why many of our roads look like a patchwork job. Is there not a better alternative? As I say, my friend reckoned that holes are properly sealed in Germany to the extent that you can’t even tell there was a hole there before. If he’s right, they must be doing something better than just putting some binder round the crack and saying “job’s a good ‘un”.
#31 by 45kabsl on November 24, 2011 - 8:04 pm
Hi Ian,
Our road’s are designed to different specifications depending on the road type. For example a Type 4 road (B or C road) the standard road spec has 100mm of bitumen macadam or asphalt. Whereas a Type 2 road (A road) has 225mm of bitumen macadam. The problems really start when utilities begin to excavate and repair roads as the specification for repair is different to the road construction. This means that the seal in the different reinstatement’s can lead to fatigue cracks which are worked loose and may eventually be picked out of the surface by continued wheel loads, thus forming a pothole.
The depth of the tarmac has no connection to the likelihood of potholes rather the age of the road and the number of subsequent work by utilities and there reinstatement.
In order to stop potholes road’s should be resurfaced before the end of there design life ( c 20 years) however councils rarely have the funding to be able to do this hence why we are constantly fire fighting repairing pot holes!
#32 by ianbeag on November 25, 2011 - 1:23 pm
I still don’t understand why the big difference between the lasting qualities of our roads and those in other countries in Europe and N. America. I can cite the case of the northern part of the M6 towards the Scottish border which seemed to be under repair for months shortly after it was opened. It will be interesting to see the life cycle of our newest motorway stretch from Haggs to Glasgow.
#33 by Marad on November 24, 2011 - 5:38 pm
For anyone that can be bothered reading it, here is the 2007 report from Transport Scotland on one of the tunnel options.
http://tinyurl.com/638xnzn
Near the end of the report is the tunnel cost compared with other tunnel and bridge costs.
There are a bunch of reports and studies available on the Transport Scotland website which cover all the options considered for the Forth Crossing.
#34 by Allan on November 24, 2011 - 7:27 pm
I’d have thought that most to one particularof the money can be attributed to one particular black hole:-
Management/Consultancy fees…
#35 by DougtheDug on November 24, 2011 - 7:36 pm
If money could be spent on upgrading rail lines and trains within Scotland then I think that would be a very good idea but as always where does the money come from as a new Forth crossing either tunnel or Bridge is needed and the road system cannot be ignored as that carries most of the passenger and freight traffic in Scotland.
If the spending on the new High Speed rail link to Birmingham (target date 2026) and then to Manchester (target date 2030-32) comes under the Barnett formula then Scotland will get it’s 8% chunk of that spend though there is no guarantee that it will actually fall under the Barnett formula.
Also in the HS2 plans are a proposal to run standard UK classic gauge trains on the new HS2 line as well as European gauge trains and those could then move onto the normal high speed rail lines which are too narrow for the new HS2 trains north of Manchester which would reduce the travel times to Glasgow without extending the HS2 line north from Manchester to Glasgow.
Currently the Scottish Government has no extra money to start building High Speed rail links either internal or external or any guarantee that the UK Government will pay for a link to Scotland so I say the Scottish Government should use any future Barnett formula consequentials from the HS2 project in England to improve rail links within Scotland.
The one question I would have about the Norwegian tunnels is are they all through solid rock and how many are sub-sea? The cost of putting a tunnel under the Forth which may be in much less secure material with water lying above it could be much more than a land based tunnel through stable rock.
#36 by Daniel J on November 25, 2011 - 2:34 pm
Pretty sure HS2 is classified as ‘UK’ spending and thus no Barnett consequentials.
#37 by Douglas McLellan on November 24, 2011 - 7:46 pm
Geology is a key point here.
In Norway rail tracks are built directly onto bedrock thus making it considerably cheaper (no embankments etc). Even in tunnels in Scotland there is usually the need for works to support the train tracks. Also, most of the tunnels can be bored without sealing. When you were there did you see bare rock as opposed to concrete or other sealing materials?
As for other building costs, the UK average building project spends 25% more on aggregates than on the continent.
And as we are a much smaller land with a higher proportion of land ownership in private hands, the costs of expropriation is, again, a lot higher.
The Forth has a geography that made it ideal of the Trident refit as opposed the expensive Devonport which needed a lot more work to refit. That same geography means a bored tunnel was always unlikely which is why the submerged tunnel idea gained a little traction.
#38 by 45kabsl on November 24, 2011 - 7:55 pm
Hi Jeff,
Good post but as someone who works in construction and knows a considerable amount about bridges I can tell you the principle reason why construction projects cost more in the UK/Scotland is risk. The Scottish Government is extremely risk averse when it comes to procurement instead relying on market competition to drive prices down with the Contractor taking on risk. The problem with this it does lead to higher prices for risks which have a very low probability of occurring and higher prices. If the government were to alter there approach and retain some risk and manage this better they would get a better price.
When you look at the M74 there was a huge fan fare that the project had been delivered on time and budget but what you have to remember is that this project was procured by one JV consortium because other bidders were not interested in the risk profile. This led the Scottish Government in to placing a contract were that was too expensive. Even though the contractor ended up returning money to the Government in reality the amount returned should have been considerably higher considering the risk profile of the project.
This leads me to HS2, in principle this is a great way to improve Scotland’s Infrastructure and whatever the outcome of the independence debate i would imagine the rest of the UK would still be Scotland’s largest trading export so having a excellent infrastructure is extremely important to a future Scotland Economy. In order to develop a better price than a more flexible approach to risk and procurement is required by the Scottish Government.
I could go on on how to reduce construction costs on large infrastructure projects, but i would hedge a bet that I may start boring everyone!
#39 by Scottish republic on November 24, 2011 - 8:00 pm
“”””””””””””So, the money is there if the will is there. Of course, the SNP’s short term view is to keep Scots happy enough for the next few years to make sure they vote Yes in the referendum and a 30 year plan for HS2 doesn’t fit into that timescale unfortunately.”””””””””””””””
Wrong, nonsense.
The SNP had this plan up and going before they won the Holyrood election. The plan is a measure intended to keep the Scottish economy ticking over while Westminster drags the Scottish economy further and further down.
It’s a stop gap and will fail if we don’t get independence.
Now, at long last, dimwit Osborne is finally doing what Salmond suggested – £50BN but not before he has spent a year and a half sinking the economy.
#40 by Barbarian on November 24, 2011 - 8:11 pm
One problem with high speed rail links – or in fact any rail link – is you need to link the commuters to the stations in the first place.
On the roads, potholes keep reforming because they do not fix them properly in the first place. They simply fill the hole. But if a dentist did that with your teeth, the filling would soon fall out. They should be removing all the loose tarmac, leaving a solid base. Because they do not, water easily gets into the spaces and when it freezes, it expands widening the space and loosening the filler. I’m no engineer but I know the basics. Pity our councils cannot do the same.
#41 by Laurence on November 25, 2011 - 5:29 am
A forth tunnel wasas you know studied in the Forth replacement crossing study, which for a variety of reasons, rightly or wrongly came down in favour of a bridge recommendation.
With regards to your cost comparison- It should be noted that the bridge itself is estimated at 26%-37% of the overall cost with the remainder being road improvements to smooth the associated traffic flow. Also care is needed in comparing these project costs in rural areas, as is often the case in Norwegian and Alpine tunnels, against major urban projects where for example the costs are highly directed to other aspects, for example in dealing with the logistics of maintaining traffic flow in surrounding areas for the duration of the project.
Whether the crossing study stands up to scrutiny is completely a different matter- I haven’t read the detail so won’t pass comment.
On the subject of rail links- what about fort William Inverness- A huge gap in service for the sake of 60 miles.
#42 by EphemeralDeception on November 25, 2011 - 8:44 am
Jeff I take you points on the argument of rail v car.
However there is no current HS2 project for Scotland there is zero plans to come here nor start here and build South.
Any statement to the opposite is a deception.
Unlike the Paris to Barcelona line where it is the interest to build at both ends. If HS2 was really a British project this is exactly what should have happened here.
The Scottish government proposed to start building from both ends aligned to the feasibility recommendations.
The feasibility study clearly stated that the most benefit of High speed rail is in connecting Glasgow/Edinburgh with London and the main element was to compete with Air travel not road.
If you look at the uk Strategy and infra projects (current and planned) they are all in S of England paid by the rest of the UK. This is the main crux of the matter.
Post independence I do not see any way forward either because I can see the will to build South to the border but no will to build from Central England North to meet it. At least Scottish taxypayers wont be subsidising S Englands infrastructure for no return.
#43 by EphemeralDeception on November 25, 2011 - 8:50 am
In addition.
I cannot think of a better capital project than a high speed rail service to link Scotland England and Wales. This would have helped the long term growth of the UK immensely. It was the highest costed project considered but also had the highest returns.
This was a huge opportunity for unionists to finally show a union benefit and they have failed to act. A missed opportunity that speaks volumes as a broken union.
#44 by Chris on November 25, 2011 - 1:15 pm
I think the main difference for Norway, in terms of this, is that they’ve already had thirty years of investing and saving their oil revenues, and have a fairly hefty capital budget, that’s paid for out of that. Not a reason not to do it, but just context.
#45 by Jeff on November 25, 2011 - 2:16 pm
I considered that Chris but I don’t understand why having a large capital budget would make individual jobs any cheaper.
I could own £50m but a Mars Bar is still going to cost me 60p.