London Assembly committee sets out checklist for future decision-making

Major transport projects in London could be delivered between 20% and 50% cheaper if it followed the example of its European peers, a London Assembly committee has claimed.

The budget and performance committee has published a report urging policymakers in the capital to follow processes in place in countries like Spain.

shutterstock_1439789576

Source: Shutterstock

In the Spanish capital, Madrid, the metro system was extended by 35 miles between 1995 and 1999 at an equivalent cost of £2.1bn in 2024 prices. By comparison, the Jubilee line extension cost 10 times as much per mile.

The committee’s report, called ‘Minding the Gap’, called for Transport for London to review the delivery of its biggest infrastructure projects since 2015 against a checklist it has developed, in order to produce a cost audit.

Committee chair Neil Garratt said: “We have seen some highly successful schemes delivered in recent years, but have now seen a number of schemes stall for varying reasons.

“Through our investigation, we sought to understand how major cities in other countries are delivering large scale transport infrastructure projects, at a fraction of the cost we seem to face here in London.

“We are urging the Mayor to implement our cross-party recommendations, which could help London deliver the transport network the city wants and needs.”

As well as the checklist, the report recommends that the mayor and TfL restart the promotion and development of Crossrail 2, with a focus on minimising delivery costs and exploring how the project could be financed.

It also said the pair, along with the Department for Transport, should produce and publish a strategy for funding new infrastructure through private finance, including a standard model for the long-term that allows tax increment finance from new revenue streams.

The committee’s checklist, intended to be considered by TfL when it plans and develops new infrastructure projects:

  • Reducing the length of development periods
  • Avoiding ‘stop-start’ delivery
  • Phasing of delivery where appropriate, rather than delivering ‘all in one go’
  • Reducing the length of project delivery periods, which can reduce risk
  • Avoiding over-scoping of projects
  • Reducing the length of environmental impact reviews
  • Addressing the complexity of the supply chain
  • Improving the capacity of planning officers
  • Developing a strategic view