Britain is spending heavily on transport infrastructure but receiving substantially less for its investment than comparable countries, according to a new Centre for Policy Studies report which calls for wide-ranging changes to the way rail and other major projects are planned, procured and delivered.
The Lowering Infrastructure Costs report, authored by CPS Head of Housing and Infrastructure Ben Hopkinson, identifies eight areas it argues are contributing to higher UK infrastructure costs, spanning planning, environmental regulation and judicial review through to procurement, technical capability and the centralisation of decision-making.
For rail, the report raises questions extending well beyond HS2. It points to the cost of electrification, metro and tram construction, procurement practices and the industry’s approach to standards, while arguing that Britain needs stronger long-term engineering capability within the public sector.
Its central contention is that Britain’s challenge is not simply the amount being invested in infrastructure, but the amount of infrastructure ultimately delivered for that investment.
HS2 at centre of international cost comparison
HS2 provides the report’s most prominent example.
CPS puts the latest estimate at up to £102.7bn for 140 miles of railway and calculates a cost of approximately £734m per mile. It compares that with around £28m per mile in Spain, based on its analysis of international data.
The report says the entire Spanish high-speed network, covering approximately 2,500 miles, was constructed for around £75bn when converted into 2025 prices.
But CPS argues the problem extends across British rail and urban transport.
Its analysis finds that the Jubilee and Northern line extensions were delivered at around twice the average per-mile cost of comparable projects in France and Italy and six times the Spanish average. It also estimates that the proposed £10.9bn, 4.7-mile Bakerloo line extension would become one of the world’s most expensive underground projects on a per-mile basis.
British tram projects are also estimated by the report to cost more than twice the European average per mile.
Rail electrification highlighted as another cost challenge
The report also turns its attention to electrification – an area where the rail industry has spent several years examining how to bring down unit costs.
CPS argues that electrifying a mile of railway in Britain costs around three times as much as comparable schemes in Germany and Denmark.
It points to the Great Western Main Line electrification programme, where costs increased from £874m to £2.8bn and elements of the original programme were subsequently removed.
One explanation put forward by the report will be familiar to the rail supply chain: continuity.
Germany and Denmark are cited as examples of countries maintaining rolling electrification programmes, allowing engineering expertise, equipment and delivery knowledge to be retained. Britain, CPS argues, has instead operated a “feast and famine” model in which lengthy gaps between major programmes contribute to lost capability and higher costs when investment accelerates again.
That argument has implications beyond electrification. A consistent pipeline gives contractors and suppliers greater confidence to invest in people, equipment, manufacturing capability and innovation, while stop-start investment can require capability to be rebuilt for successive programmes.
Planning burden has continued to grow
Planning is the first of eight areas identified by CPS.
The report says average decision times for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects increased from 2.6 years in 2012 to 4.2 years in 2021, while the average number of documents associated with applications increased from 381 to 1,143.
Portishead is used as a rail example. CPS says the 3.3-mile reopening required a 79,187-page planning application and took eight years between initial surveys and approval.
Environmental assessment is considered separately. The report says the Jubilee line extension’s Environmental Statement in the early 1990s ran to fewer than 400 pages, compared with a 17,912-page Environmental Statement for Portishead.
CPS recommends reforms including turning Development Consent Orders into a more comprehensive “one-stop shop”, specifying more precisely what Environmental Impact Assessments must contain and introducing faster processes for projects considered environmentally beneficial, including public transport.
Procurement comes under scrutiny
For rail contractors and suppliers, some of the report’s most significant recommendations concern procurement.
CPS argues against both an excessive focus on lowest-price tendering and the increasing use of procurement to achieve wider policy objectives.
It recommends giving greater weight to previous contractor performance and technical capability, breaking major projects into smaller packages where appropriate, moving away from cost-plus contracting and strengthening the public sector’s ability to act as an informed client.
The report points to Madrid Metro, where it says tender evaluation used a 30% weighting for cost, 20% for time and 50% for technical merit and previous performance.
CPS also recommends removing social value from procurement, arguing that additional requirements can increase bid costs and disadvantage smaller suppliers that lack specialist teams dedicated to demonstrating social value.
The proposal is likely to generate debate across a rail supply chain where social value has become an increasingly prominent part of procurement and contract delivery. It raises a wider question about how the industry balances whole-life value, wider economic and community outcomes, and keeping procurement accessible and competitive for SMEs.
CPS calls for stronger in-house engineering capability
Another major theme is what the report describes as insufficient technical capability within government.
CPS argues that successful infrastructure clients need enough engineering, commercial and legal expertise to challenge contractors and consultants, control scope and make informed decisions as projects develop.
It cites international research suggesting countries with lower infrastructure costs typically maintain stronger in-house capability.
Madrid’s metro expansion and Milan’s municipally owned engineering company are highlighted as alternative models. CPS says Madrid trebled its metro network at around one-tenth of London’s per-mile costs, while Milan delivers new metro infrastructure at roughly 20% of London’s cost.
The report proposes establishing a permanent public-sector engineering unit within the Department for Transport which would retain technical expertise across successive infrastructure programmes.
That organisation would maintain standardised designs, capture lessons between projects, support procurement and oversee technical delivery, with specialists encouraged to build long-term careers rather than moving frequently between government roles.
Network Rail Standards Challenge highlighted as model for reform
The report also examines whether standards themselves contribute unnecessarily to project costs.
Rather than attempting to review individual Network Rail requirements, CPS proposes expanding the existing Standards Challenge mechanism, which enables suppliers and employees to challenge requirements they believe create additional cost without corresponding benefit.
According to the report, around 70% of challenges have resulted in agreement to modify a standard. CPS proposes introducing a financial incentive for successful challenges and extending the principle across other transport sectors.
For light rail, it recommends establishing national tram standards rather than different systems repeatedly developing bespoke requirements for areas such as platform heights, track design and operations.
More power for regional transport authorities
The final area examined is devolution.
CPS argues that England’s system separates responsibility for proposing local transport infrastructure from many of the powers required to fund and approve it.
The report points to Transport and Works Act Orders, noting that Birmingham’s approximately one-mile Eastside Extension took three-and-a-quarter years to secure its order.
It proposes allowing metro mayors to approve TWAOs, giving promoters the option of seeking approval regionally rather than exclusively through the Secretary of State.
CPS also advocates greater local control over infrastructure funding, arguing that placing responsibility for raising and spending money closer together would create stronger incentives to control scope and costs.
Forty recommendations aimed at getting more infrastructure for every pound
Ben Hopkinson, CPS Head of Housing and Infrastructure and author of the report, said: “Without reform, Britain will continue to spend vast sums on infrastructure while receiving comparatively little in return, and only that after significant delay.
“Our neighbours do not experience the same problems, there are ways to deliver the infrastructure a country needs quickly and efficiently, without enormous cost to the taxpayer. The recommendations I’ve outlined would help speed up the process of delivering new infrastructure significantly, for less than we currently spend, and allow the economy to unlock the wider benefits of better public transport, greater airport capacity, and more roads.”
Shadow Transport Secretary Richard Holden said: “Sky-high infrastructure costs have plagued Britain’s transport system for far too long, leaving taxpayers paying more while getting less and less.
“50 years ago, Britain faced a similar malaise and the CPS developed many of the ideas that turned Britain around. This report is in that same tradition and is a vital contribution to the mission Conservatives under Kemi Badenoch have today to get Britain moving and working again.”
The report’s individual recommendations will inevitably attract debate, particularly proposals concerning environmental regulation, judicial review and social value. Its wider challenge to the rail industry, however, is about productivity: why major transport infrastructure costs substantially more to deliver in Britain than in a number of comparable countries, and what can realistically be learned from those that build for less.
For rail, that makes the debate broader than HS2. Electrification costs, stop-start investment, procurement models, standards, planning times and the strength of the client organisation all determine how much railway can ultimately be delivered from a constrained investment budget.
With major spending decisions ahead on electrification, mass transit, network enhancement and renewal, reducing unit costs could ultimately determine not just whether individual schemes remain affordable, but how much railway Britain is able to build at all.
