Wednesday 10 August 2022


< back | business | images | knowledge | library | rail unveiled | home


::: Test message -_— £ $ ‘’

Railhub Archive
2001-11-15 TfL-001
Transport for London


Letter to Sir Malcolm Bates from Robert Kiley

keywords: click to search
London Transport
Transport for London
public-private partnerships

Phrases in [single square brackets] are hyperlinks in the original document

Phrases in [[double square brackets]] are editorial additions or corrections

Phrases in [[[triple square brackets]]] indicate embedded images or graphics in the original document. (These are not usually archived unless they contain significant additional information.)

Transport for London

Letter to Sir Malcolm Bates from Robert Kiley

related documents

Mayor's letter to Stakeholders

2001-03-27 TfL to issue legal challenge to PPP (Transport for London)

2001-02-23 Report to Ken Livingstone, Mayor of London, on the London Underground’s proposed PPP (Transport for London)

2001-02-02 TfL / DETR agreement on the way forward on the London Underground PPP (Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions)


14 November 2001
source Transport for London
type Letter

Sir Malcolm Bates
[Title and Address]

Dear Malcolm,

In preparation for the upcoming round of contract consultation, we have
undertaken a detailed analysis of the contemplated PPP performance regime of the PPP
contracts. We have focused on the performance regime because it has not been subject to
critical scrutiny yet it represents the lynchpin of the PPP. I am sure every PPP advocate
would agree that if the performance regime proves unworkable in practice then the PPP
will fail. This letter sets out the results of our analysis, expressing concerns and raising
questions about some of the areas where the documents are unclear.

The performance regime taken as a whole is staggering in its complexity. And
deploying it – placing the very future of the Underground and indeed London’s lifeblood
and economy at its mercy – is a very risky endeavour.

Because the PPP contract does not provide for payment to the Infracos based on
concrete deliverables -- a new fleet of cars, or carrying out specific and routine track
maintenance, for example -- LUL is forced to resort to paying the Infracos based on how
the Underground is performing and whether the Infracos are responsible for improvement
or deterioration of performance.

It sounds simple and maybe even promising in theory. But how can one really tell
how a system as complex as the Underground is performing for purposes of
administering a contract, and who is responsible for that performance?

[[for full text click on link in related documents]]

Railhub Archive ::: 2001-11-15 TfL-001


Not logged on

112 stories

27 collections

5 documents