TUBE MAINTENANCE COMPANIES FAILING TO DELIVER PROMISED IMPROVEMENTS

12.01.00am BST (GMT +0100) Tue 24th May 2005

New information revealed by the London Assembly Liberal Democrats today shows that the PPP companies maintaining the Tube are failing to deliver the improvements promised in their tendering bids.

The information, revealed in documents presented to the Transport for London Board, show that:-

· Improvements are falling short of the upgrades forecast by the Infracos in their original bids

· Transport for London now does not believe that Infracos will be able to deliver what they promised

· Eight stations, that were meant to be modernised by the end of the financial year 2004/05, are running on average 15 weeks late

· Metronet are 'significantly behind' in delivering promised track renewals

· Infracos are delaying and 'backending' Tube renewal work until the end of their current contracts

London Assembly Transport Spokesperson Lynne Featherstone said:-

"The Tube maintenance firms are failing miserably to deliver on the pledged improvements for the underground. Metronet in particular appear to have over promised and overstretched themselves on what upgrades they could realistically deliver for passengers.

"All the evidence shows that the deal struck by this Labour Government on the Tube was ill-judged, ill-conceived and poorly implemented. It has led to many Londoners' questioning why the Tube was privatised in the first place.

"Investment in our crumbling transport infrastructure has been welcome, but unless transport users start to see the private contractors delivering on time and on budget, then they will question why they are being forced to pay higher fares.

"Mr Kiley and Mr Livingstone should act now to prevent commuters suffering even more. The responsibility of maintaining the infrastructure of the Tube should be brought back in house and run by Transport for London if it does not hit the pockets of London's taxpayers."

ENDS

Notes to editor

In Transport for London Board Papers discussed on Wednesday 18th May 2005, Agenda Item 5, Page 12, Paragraphs 4.7, 4.8 and 4.10, it states:

"Improving London Underground Services

PPP Review

4.7 Some progress was made during the year on the renewal of the Tube's stations. Tube Lines completed the refurbishment of five stations (Northfields, South Harrow, Arnos Grove, Kilburn and West Hampstead) and the modernisation of two (Burnt Oak and Borough). At the end of the year modernisation of Tufnell Park station was complete awaiting London Underground approval and Kennington reached this position in early April. A revised date for Acton Town is being negotiated. Eight stations that were due to be modernised or refurbished in 2004.05 under the BCV and SSL contracts remained unfinished at the end of the year; on average these are running some 15 weeks behind the contractual delivery date.

4.8 Some 23 kilometres of track was renewed in the year, an increase of more than 60% on the length of track renewed in the previous year. While Tube Lines are broadly in line with the phasing of track renewals in their bid, Metronet are significantly behind, particularly on the sub-surface lines. During the year, 26 escalators were either refurbished or replaced, and 6 new mobility impaired passenger lifts were installed.

4.10 PPP performance measures show that the core contractual measures are starting to be met (refer to the previous paragraphs 3.8 to 3.13), which has contributed to London Underground's improved performance. Total Lost Customer Hours attributed to Infracos showed a 20% reduction compared with the previous year, key contributors being improved rolling stock reliability and fewer track faults. However, the Contract benchmarks and thresholds are based upon the historical performance of London Underground and are still short of the improvement forecast by the Infracos in the their respective bids. Of more concern, however, is the amount of renewals work that is being replanned into the later years of the seven and a half year period by the Infracos in their most recent Annual Asset Management Plans. This coupled with the late delivery on current programmes, is leading to concern as to whether Infracos will be able to deliver what was promised in their bid."

This can also be found on page 26 of

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/downloads/pdf/about-tfl/board-meetings/Agenda-18may2005.pdf