The time it takes to design, approve & build infrastructure projects

[richieb1971]

We need to be a dictatorship with sensitivities then. Lol

 

[class26]

They take time in most democracies. We are comparatively rapid. The recently opened LGV SEA fr9m Tours to Bordeaux was proposed by SNCF in 1992, first consultation in 1994, primary consent granted in 2009, opened in 2017. The continuation to the Spanish border was consulted 12 years ago, and there is still no agreement for it to be built. In Germany it takes far longer.

I might site the new Berlin airport here. Scheduled to open in 2011, now unlikely to open even by 2020. It has been under construction all the way through this period (and much before) but a long series of blunders due to the legendary Germany "efficiency " mean it has recently been suggested it be abandoned. It is also 4.75 billion euros OVER budget which makes the Great Western electrification seem not so bad after all !

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/news/the-crazy-saga-of-berlins-long-delayed-airport/

 

[Bald Rick]

Tell me about it - four years!!! I had to drive to the Haydock area a couple of weeks ago. I lost count of the number of sets of roadworks - I think it was 6.

As of next month, from London to Cheshire there will be 4 major sets of roadworks:

1) M1 J13-J16 (unlikely to be the whole stretch at first) (finish 2022)
2) M6 J2-J4 (2020)
3) M6 J13-J15 (2022)
4) M6 J16-J19 (March 2019)

The set around Milton Keynes J13 finished a couple of weeks ago. Then there are a lot of temporary roadworks overnight for maintenance and resurfacing - the Highways guys moved to overnight resurfacing over a decade ago (learning from the railway / airports as it happens).

Anyway, we’re off topic; this just demonstrates that it is not just rail schemes that take time to plan and implement.

 

[DarloRich]

It sounds as if it is the bureaucracy surrounding the whole process (and I include within that issues of funding etc) which slows things down a lot more than the technical side, or the actual construction

Read the very helpful information from @Bald Rick - he is prepared to give much more detail than I am and, frankly, has more patience than me! The process isnt, actually, overly bureaucratic when followed. The issue here is that this is a big project with a large number of vocal stakeholders each with their own desire for the project coupled with the "fluid" nature of the government financial commitment and their desire for "something different" in the delivery method.

Well it is my specialised subject.

I didn’t mention - the timescales quoted assume a positive and supportive political environment at all levels.

Along with absolutely no one complaining during the planning process and every single planning authority involved passing the proposals without comment. Fantasy world stuff!

It might be more appropriate to say mothballed railway

It might be called mothballed for PR purposes. It is a closed railway. There is a section of track missing. You could not run a train beyond Swanborne!

I might site the new Berlin airport here. Scheduled to open in 2011

But everything in Germany works perfectly........................

 

[A0]

M25:

First proposed in 1913, more seriously in 1937, again in Abercrombie’s report of 1944, then again in GLCs ringways report of the 60s, which was taken forward (sort of). First few sections built 1973-76, most of the rest then built in stages 1979-1986.

In terms of process, the timescales are exactly the same, except for construction. Because road schemes don’t need signalling, electrification, or integration testing, their construction is usually in the 18-30 month timescale (for any given section), unless here are very major civils (eg Queensferry Crossing).

Although it’s not always that quick - regular users of the MK to Northampton section of the M1 should note that there are 4 years of roadworks starting in the next few weeks, to enable all lane running. Which added to the 13 miles of roadworks between Coventry and Coleshill means that over a third of the route from the M25 to Birmingham will have roadworks... time for rail to advertise accordingly!

Going slightly OT - the M1 is a farce - for most of the last 15 years they've had extensive roadworks on it somewhere between Luton & Cathorpe - the worst being that 50mph from Northampton - M6 at all times for almost 2 years - madness.

Problem for rail is if you're at the south end of that bit of the M1 i.e. Luton you're on the wrong line to get to Birmingham.

If you're in London, you're better off using the M40. And depending on where you are in MK or Northampton and where you need to get to in Birmingham, the train might make some sense - though my personal trick is to drive to one of the stations near Birmingham Intl which has free parking and then take the train.....

 

[a_c_skinner]

Thanks for the elaboration of the process. Plainly the length of time it takes isn't wholly the railway's fault but it remains the case that something that had pretty widespread support and would take a handful of years to build has run on and on and it seems that the country as a whole is content with this laggardly state of affairs. Projects on a live motorway are not a good comparison and yes I was aware of the dilapidation of the E-W route. I remain unpersuaded that the time scales are set in stone.

 

[B&I]

Read the very helpful information from @Bald Rick - he is prepared to give much more detail than I am and, frankly, has more patience than me! The process isnt, actually, overly bureaucratic when followed. The issue here is that this is a big project with a large number of vocal stakeholders each with their own desire for the project coupled with the "fluid" nature of the government financial commitment and their desire for "something different" in the delivery method

That's why I was trying to define 'bureaucratic' in the widest sense, to include ' fannying about by politicians and civil servants', or alternatively 'a constant buzz of purposeless activity to disguise the fact that they'd rather spend money on roads'

 

[DarloRich]

That's why I was trying to define 'bureaucratic' in the widest sense, to include ' fannying about by politicians and civil servants', or alternatively 'a constant buzz of purposeless activity to disguise the fact that they'd rather spend money on roads'

I suspect the process is as involved for a new road.

 

[B&I]

I suspect the process is as involved for a new road.

More of them seem to get built, though

 

[Bald Rick]

More of them seem to get built, though

They really don’t.

There needs to be a distinction between:

1) projects that are someone’s pet idea that gets some traction and ‘widespread support’ (that someone could be a person, organisation or even a local authority)

2) projects that have official support from a funder that has money to do something about it.

The road schemes you tend to hear about are in the second category. Many of the rail schemes you hear about on these pages are in the first.

There are countless road schemes that don’t get built. One example - the A10 Foxton bypass; its been on the blocks since at least 1955; it has been designed at least twice. But not happening.

 

[Bald Rick]

I suspect the process is as involved for a new road.

Correct.

I think that when I have time (which isn’t now, sandwich in mouth) that I will explain wha is involved in getting to the start of the consents process, and what is involved in the consents process.

 

[DarloRich]

Correct.

I think that when I have time (which isn’t now, sandwich in mouth) that I will explain wha is involved in getting to the start of the consents process, and what is involved in the consents process.

that should be of great interest but will no doubt be ignored

 

[gordonthemoron]

Those complaining about lack of perceived progress on EWR should bear in mind the the current implementation of Thameslink (2000) was proposed by BR in the 1990s

 

[B&I]

They really don’t.

There needs to be a distinction between:

1) projects that are someone’s pet idea that gets some traction and ‘widespread support’ (that someone could be a person, organisation or even a local authority)

2) projects that have official support from a funder that has money to do something about it.

The road schemes you tend to hear about are in the second category. Many of the rail schemes you hear about on these pages are in the first.

There are countless road schemes that don’t get built. One example - the A10 Foxton bypass; its been on the blocks since at least 1955; it has been designed at least twice. But not happening.

There are countless that do.

I live in the north-west. I can think of quite a few new road schemes built round here in the last couple of decades. As for railways, I can think of a couple of chords a few hundred yards long

 

[DarloRich]

There are countless that do.

I live in the north-west. I can think of quite a few new road schemes built round here in the last couple of decades. As for railways, I can think of a couple of chords a few hundred yards long

it is clearly a conspiracy.

 

[A0]

They really don’t.

There needs to be a distinction between:

1) projects that are someone’s pet idea that gets some traction and ‘widespread support’ (that someone could be a person, organisation or even a local authority)

2) projects that have official support from a funder that has money to do something about it.

The road schemes you tend to hear about are in the second category. Many of the rail schemes you hear about on these pages are in the first.

There are countless road schemes that don’t get built. One example - the A10 Foxton bypass; its been on the blocks since at least 1955; it has been designed at least twice. But not happening.

Ironically, that particular road scheme would be of great benefit to the railway as it would divert a main trunk route away from a level crossing on a busy line......

 

[Bletchleyite]

There are countless road schemes that don’t get built. One example - the A10 Foxton bypass; its been on the blocks since at least 1955; it has been designed at least twice. But not happening.

Indeed. There have been screams for a Mottram-in-Longdendale bypass for almost as long as I've sat in traffic there at the end of the M67 (at more or less any time of day on any day).

 

[The Planner]

Suggest people take a look at the motorway archive for the length of time it takes to get them built. For example, the route of the M40 to Birmingham was added to the trunk roads programme in 1972, the bit from Waterstock to Warwick didnt open until 1991. The public enquiry for the bit from Warwick to the M42 was in 1973!

 

[ac6000cw]

Ironically, that particular road scheme would be of great benefit to the railway as it would divert a main trunk route away from a level crossing on a busy line......

Agreed.

The (currently under construction) Ely southern bypass is being contributed to financially by NR precisely for that reason, as it will allow the closure of the busy level crossing at Ely station and removal of most vehicle traffic from the (very low clearance) road underpass alongside it, which should stop the frequent bridge strikes that occur at present.

 

[richieb1971]

In my perfect world all these consultations would be done within a 6-12 month period and everything GRIP 1-4 complete. The rest takes as long as it takes.

 

[The Planner]

Which isn't going to work, optioneering, design and consultation is always more time consuming.

 

[richieb1971]

Which isn't going to work, optioneering, design and consultation is always more time consuming.

So what happens in a time in the future when we must absolutely have something built or its going to have major consequences and you have to go through all this drivel? Each month that passes the trains are getting more crowded, the roads are getting more congested. If you have a process to build that takes up to 10 years to build anything, the problem has magnified into a bigger problem by virtue of following process.

There will become a time where the perception doing nothing isn't on the table. It may work up until now and it may work into the future a bit, but beyond that there will be pressure points.

 

[A0]

So what happens in a time in the future when we must absolutely have something built or its going to have major consequences and you have to go through all this drivel? Each month that passes the trains are getting more crowded, the roads are getting more congested. If you have a process to build that takes up to 10 years to build anything, the problem has magnified into a bigger problem by virtue of following process.

There will become a time where the perception doing nothing isn't on the table. It may work up until now and it may work into the future a bit, but beyond that there will be pressure points.

Look, you have a choice. You can either live in a Western democracy, which means such matters are subject to due process, consultations and environmental impacts considered before decisions are made. Or you move to the "capitalist communist" model that China uses, where no objection or consultation meaningfully takes place. If your house or land is in the path of the changes, tough luck, the bulldozers will be arriving next week. Now if you want to live in a country like the latter, fine. I suspect you are in the minority though.

 

[richieb1971]

I don't necessarily want to change the process as it seems sensible. What doesn't seem sensible is how long it all takes. Your using 2 extremes to describe something. On the one hand a communist way which shows results almost immediately vs a process which takes so long that half the staff that started the project are dead by the end of it.

All I am asking is would/could the process be accelerated in extreme circumstances. Say 1 million extra people went on trains tomorrow and people got home at 2am. Would EWR get a priority shove to be built in those circumstances if that was to alleviate the problem? Or would it takes another 5 years of pain on the railways?

Sounds like your saying it takes as long as it takes. But what ever problems arise in a project are eventually over ridden.

 

[Tobbes]

I don't necessarily want to change the process as it seems sensible. What doesn't seem sensible is how long it all takes. Your using 2 extremes to describe something. On the one hand a communist way which shows results almost immediately vs a process which takes so long that half the staff that started the project are dead by the end of it.

All I am asking is would/could the process be accelerated in extreme circumstances. Say 1 million extra people went on trains tomorrow and people got home at 2am. Would EWR get a priority shove to be built in those circumstances if that was to alleviate the problem? Or would it takes another 5 years of pain on the railways?

Sounds like your saying it takes as long as it takes. But what ever problems arise in a project are eventually over ridden.

I think Bald Rick answered this earlier. Presumably you could shorten the optioneering and the consultation phase if you only had one option, took special legal powers in primary legislation to override the stautory requirements, and no-one objected. But if they did, you'd be utterly stuffed.

 

[Elecman]

As of next month, from London to Cheshire there will be 4 major sets of roadworks:

1) M1 J13-J16 (unlikely to be the whole stretch at first) (finish 2022)
2) M6 J2-J4 (2020)
3) M6 J13-J15 (2022)
4) M6 J16-J19 (March 2019).

And i think that the missing bit Jct 15 to Jct 16 will happen straight after J16 to 19 finishes ( or even before) as I’m sure I’ve seen the SPECS cameras being erected in this area marked as Camera not in use.

 

[RT4038]

I don't necessarily want to change the process as it seems sensible. What doesn't seem sensible is how long it all takes. Your using 2 extremes to describe something. On the one hand a communist way which shows results almost immediately vs a process which takes so long that half the staff that started the project are dead by the end of it.

All I am asking is would/could the process be accelerated in extreme circumstances. Say 1 million extra people went on trains tomorrow and people got home at 2am. Would EWR get a priority shove to be built in those circumstances if that was to alleviate the problem? Or would it takes another 5 years of pain on the railways?

Sounds like your saying it takes as long as it takes. But what ever problems arise in a project are eventually over ridden.

But 1 million extra people travelling is just not going to happen. In the unlikely event that they did, East West rail would not be a major priority. Putting the fares up, discouraging leisure travel etc. would kick in first, then maybe extra carriages on what train are running, with some platform extensions. Is your journey really necessary?

 

[a_c_skinner]

It think the point is (and this thread is about progress after all) that glacial could be accelerated to merely slow without loss of democracy if the will were there. As it is all the people involved have a vested interest in making it as slow as possible as when they finish they need to find another job. Back more on topic the Eastern part of E-W has a lot of options (which seem still unresolved despite 25 years elapsed) and the Western part had basically one option plus the question of Bletchley and Bedford station arrangements, the latter largely contingent on the result of the three decades of fevered thought about the Eastern section. Back completely on topic where are we with the plans for Bletchley, Bedford and the Eastern section?

Edit: To be clear the desire to be so thorough by those planning is subconscious not venal.

 

[hooverboy]

It think the point is (and this thread is about progress after all) that glacial could be accelerated to merely slow without loss of democracy if the will were there. As it is all the people involved have a vested interest in making it as slow as possible as when they finish they need to find another job. Back more on topic the Eastern part of E-W has a lot of options (which seem still unresolved despite 25 years elapsed) and the Western part had basically one option plus the question of Bletchley and Bedford station arrangements, the latter largely contingent on the result of the three decades of fevered thought about the Eastern section. Back completely on topic where are we with the plans for Bletchley, Bedford and the Eastern section?

thanks. pretty much nailed it,even if I was going off on a bit of a rant.
Some have vested interests because they make a lot of money out of confusion and acrimony(sounds just like divorce lawyers!).

Some also have vested interests in slowing things down for a myriad of political reasons...despite the fact that such a conduit is likely to reduce congestion/pollution etc etc.

I think heathrow suffers the same. environmentalists say no more runways,but how much extra pollution do you cause by having said aircraft going round in circles over london for hours on end rather than actually landing?
(you can expect typically a 20-30 minute wait before given the go ahead,and at how many kg of kerosene per second being burned?)

 

[Bald Rick]

I have a little bit of time now, although I really should be doing something else, and Mrs BR is looking menacingly over my shoulder.

A typical process for a new railway, or road for that matter is as follows. This assumes it is of a decent size, eg Hitchin flyover size or more, and needs land take outside the ownership of the promoter, and/or the works be outside the line of defined limits (e.g. limits of deviation as defined in the original Act for the construction of the railway).

1) a problem needs resolving. Identify the problem. (Start the clock)

2) identify potential solutions at high level, and the potential benefits they bring. This will take a couple of knowledgeable people about half a day. Then work out how much it will cost to do some initial feasibility. This bit will take a couple of weeks - you can’t just say “oooh, £100k”, you need to work out who is doing what and when. This is the crayon stage.

3) discuss with potential funders the results of 2) and how the next stage of study (feasibility) might be paid for, another half day, albeit a couple of weeks later.

Before we have even started, we are at least 2 months down the line. This is where the fun starts.

4) get the money from the funder for the initial study. This needs a formal agreement, as even if it is a few tens of thousands, the people who are giving you the money want to be sure it will be well spent. At least 2 months, possibly 6. Let’s say 2.

5) Procure the necessary services to do the work. Let’s assume a framework contract is already in place; it will take at least a month, maybe two, to set the remit, contractualise it (to make sure you get what you want), and then get the right people mobilised on to the job. Let’s be very optimistic 1 month.

6) do the early feasibility work. This depends on the scale of the project, the number of options to be examined, and the type of benefits to be assessed. Will include: some site visits, discussions with major stakeholders (eg local authorities, the train operators), and of course doing some drawings which have to be checked and approved. These drawings are not done with crayons. Concurrent with this, and assuming Government are paying for at least some of the project, is the preparation of the Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) Minimum 3 months for a simple scheme, possibly 18 months for the most complex. Let’s say 3.

7) present SOBC to the funder, along with estimate for the next phase (detailed feasibility to single option decision), and initial estimate for the whole job. This can take up to a month or two to make sure everyone who is funding knows the detail. Funders typically get lots of these requests, and don’t drop everything to deal with you. They also go on holiday occasionally. Let’s say 1 month.

8) await approval of funding for next stage from funder. Depending on the value, this may have to go a long way up the chain. Anything of the scale we are talking about here needs the approval of the Secretary of State. A big new railway will go to Cabinet, having already been approved by the Secretary of State and Chancellor. Easily two months. Much more for big or politically contentious schemes.

11 months so far. Note this is includes only 3 months of pure technical work.

Steps 5-8 now repeat at the next stage of development, (note this is not GRIP stages), resulting in an Outline Business Case (OBC). The timescales for 5 and 6 stretch a little as the value is higher. Concurrent with this you will do an initial public consultation, which runs like this:

a) Prepare consultation material (by translating the technical reports) book venues, create website etc, recruit the consultation team and put in place the necessary system to manage and record responses. Three months.

b) Hold consultation. 1-2 months. Note timing is further constrained by Christmas, elections, summer hols etc.

c) Collate responses, identify issues, prepare report detailing them. Depends on size of response; minimum 2 weeks, can be three months if you get thousands of responses. let’s say 1 month.

d) Use consultation output to start amending the proposal. This feeds in to the next stage of development. Therefore you may not start the next stage of development until this 6 months of consultation activity is completed. You will be able to do the procurement activity in parallel, and perhaps some non-contentious work also.

A key part of the technical work is to start to prepare all the detailed material for the consents. This will include detailed drawings, an Envirmomental Statement, Environmental impact Assessment, traffic assessments (for construction traffic), and tons of other things.

Including the consultation, this OBC phase will take 12-24 months, depending on project size; the decision process at the end is also a little longer as you are deciding on a final option to take forward, balancing expected costs, risks and benefits. This also assumes that you don’t get significant issues in the consultation and need to change the scheme sufficiently that a second consultation is necessary.

Note we are now a minimum of 2 years in, and no consents process yet....

Assuming all is well, you can now start the consents process. A big project (eg HS2) will need a hybrid bill. Smaller projects can have a Development Consent Order (DCO) or an Order made under the Transprt and Works Act. These latter two need a more refined design than a hybrid bill, so will take longer to prepare for. However the process for these two once started is quicker. Let’s go with that:

i) Detailed designs, and final documents for consents process prepared 3-6 months

‘Public information round’ - like a consultation, but saying ‘this is our final proposal’ 6 months as per a) to c) above.

ii) Submit consents application(s) 10 minutes

iii) application is considered and checked by the relevant authority (1-3 months, possibly longer)

iv) opportunity for members of the public / organisations to make representations in support or in objection. There are always objections. 2 months

v) Representations checked for legitimacy, decision on public inquiry 2 months at best

vi) Public inquiry arranged, then held (advance notice required, obviously) 2 months at best.

vii) Inquiry chair writes report, usually having taken legal advice on points of planning law. 2 months at best.

viii) Report submitted to Secretary of State for consideration; SoS considers and decides whether to make the necessary orders or not, with reasoning. 2 months at best.

That’s another 20 months at best, with 11 of those in the consents process from application to approval.

So, we are nearly at 4 years from the starting gun, and we have our consent. But wait, we don’t have the money....

Development of the Full Business Case (FBC) - the decision to invest - can run in parallel with the consent scheme process. However the decision on that cannot be made until the consent is granted; or, rather it can’t be made without acknowledgement of the significant risk that the incomplete consents process may require a change to the project scope or programme. Tidying up the FBC and gaining approval can be relatively quick once consent is granted, assuming no major change. Note however there will still be the need for senior politicians to approve. Assume a very optimistic 3 months.

And there we have it, we can start building 4 years after the idea. Of course you can’t roll up with the bulldozers the next day, you have to mobilise team Orange, conclude the purchase of land (anyone who has ever bought a house knows this isn’t quick), possibly even procure the main works, and do the legals of contractualising several multi hundred million contracts. That can take from a month to over a year.

For more info, contact my agent, I’m sure we can reach an agreement on a rate per hour (or part thereof) of my time.