PPP Pathetic, Pathetic, Pathetic

RARELY can a government commitment to spend billions of pounds on public investment have produced such a resounding raspberry. Despite months of effort by ministers, civil servants and London Underground bosses, the public private partnership (PPP) for the Tube remains unloved and, more problematically, impossible to describe.

Sure, there was a two-page feature in the Evening Standard on Wednesday. In a laudable effort to find out what exactly the PPP is expected to buy, Dick Murray asked the two preferred bidders - Metronet and Tube Lines - to describe what they intend to spend the PPP cash on. This they did, listing a number of "pledges" to spend particular sums on trains, signals and, in particular, station improvements. Sadly, the companies' lists of projects are a triumph of spin over reality.

Tube Lines' promise to raise the number of trains per hour on the Jubilee Line from 22 to "24 or more" is evidence of desperate poverty of ambition within the PPP. Metros in cities such as Paris and Moscow routinely run 40 trains an hour through their elderly systems, as the London Underground itself did in the early part of the 20th century.

Moreover, the contract originally signed for the new signalling put in as part of the 4 billion Jubilee Line extension required at least 35 trains per hour. It has failed on many days to achieve even 20. Now the best the PPP can offer is perhaps 24 trains per hour.

Truly pathetic.

Then look at Metronet's commitment to increase capacity on the Bakerloo, live in? In the London that Tube passengers know, there are relentless signal and escalator failures, day in, day out. There were more than 3,500 signal and points failures on the Underground in 2000- 01, plus a staggering 14,448 train breakdowns. In the parallel universe occupied by PPP negotiators and their preferred bidders, washing platform walls and tarting up stations seems to be the priority.

In fact, the station buildings, platforms and booking halls are among the leastworst of the Tube's assets.

They are kept surprisingly clean and well-lit, with plenty of CCTV. It would be madness to spend billions more on stations before every single signal, escalator, lift and set of points on the system has been made to work.

Other elements of what is promised to passengers by the PPP consortia and LU suggest an attempt to con the public with carefully crafted half-truth. For example, the Central line trains are seen as "among the most modern on the system" by the bidders, and thus in no need of replacement at any time during the 30 years of the full PPP. In fact, these trains are far less reliable than, say, the elderly District line stock.

Indeed, the Central line trains - bought by LU in 1992 - are already dropping to bits because they were so badly made. Which is also, of course, why they break down so often.

Tube Lines claims it will attempt to replace Northern line signalling so as to "increase the number of trains from 27 to 33 an hour".

This is hopelessly misleading because it applies only to the short section of track south of Kennington. The central London sections will be lucky to see 22 trains an hour, as will the Barnet and Edgware branches. Of course, all these figures refer to the rush hour. At all other times there will be even fewer trains. Welcome to the PPP Department of Creative Statistics.

PUBLIC-PRIVATE partnership has been designed in such a way that the PPP companies are not required to deliver particular output targets, such as, say, a 90 per cent reduction in signal or train failures.

There are no known output or outcome targets for particular lines. It would be impressive indeed if, for example, the PPP were going to deliver 36 trains an hour on all lines. But it won't.

There will, it seems, be little increase in the Underground's capacity during the first seven and a half years of the contracts.

To add insult to injury, the PPP is running years late. It would be a miracle if the contracts are signed before July 2002. Whatever work is undertaken - even cosmetic refurbishments of stations - will take a long time to show any improvement. It is probable that the daily misery of points, signal, train and track failures will show little, if any, sign of diminishing for years ahead.

Labour will almost certainly fight the next election with the Tube in worse condition than it is today. No wonder efforts to sell this particular muddle have failed.

Tony Travers is director of the Greater London Group at the LSE.

Copyright 2001
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.