On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 15:57:46 -0000, "Recliner"
wrote:

Is it really true that Tube Lines is so much more efficient than the
now in-house run ex-Metronet contracts? Is this simply because it
takes a while to unwind Metronet's inefficiencies, or just that Bechtel
and Ferrovial are very tough, efficient project managers? If so, why
does Chris Bolt think that the project should be £1.35bn cheaper than
Tube Lines reckons?


I don't think we'll ever know the answers to these questions.

What is clear is that PPP was just about the worst possible way of
modernising the Underground. It was inflexible and extremely
expensive, and Metronet in particular used it as an excuse to award
contracts to its own constituent companies without competition, and
therefore at very high prices. It was a licence to print money.

In unwinding Metronet, what few economies there were as a result of
using the private sector disappeared. A TfL-owned Metronet is the
worst of all possible worlds. It has all the disadvantages of a
private sector PPP plus all the disadvantages of being run by the
public sector.

At least Tube Lines seem to want to make a go of it for Chris Bolt's
£4.4 billion figure. The reduction of £1.35 billion from Tube Line's
claimed costs makes it look like a bargain. But is it? I don't think
we will ever know.

What we do know is that PPP was an unholy mess, and the TfL version of
PPP (as seen in the TfL-owned Metronet) is a different kind of unholy
mess, but still an unholy mess. Gordon Brown has a lot to answer for.
Let's hope he reaps the rewards at the General Election for his dogged
determination to do the job in the worst and most expensive way
possible.