On 9 Mar, 08:00, "Bob" wrote:
http://www.building.co.uk/story.asp?...de=3082525&c=0

Quote
A stand-up row :Ian Yule
Building 2007 Issue 10
'I can't think of any PFI project we have inherited that wasn't
dysfunctional in one way or another." So said Ken Livingstone, in
typically forthright fashion. On this occasion he was aiming his ire
at Tramtrack Croydon, the company that operates the Croydon Tramlink,
a light rail system procured under the PFI. The mayor went on to say
that Transport for London would provide extra bus services to
alleviate overcrowding on the busiest sections. The operator, he
alleged, had shown no willingness to increase capacity in the face of
rising demand.
Tramtrack rejected the criticism. The PFI contract, it said, made it
the responsibility of London Bus Services (the corporation) to fund
any enhancements to operations. In support of its case Tramtrack was
able to point to a decision of the Court of Appeal reported just
before Christmas. Although the decision is not straightforward it is
clear that the corporation failed to obtain a declaration that
Tramtrack was obliged to provide, and pay for, enhancements to
capacity.
The case contains important points for those drafting output
specifications - especially PFI ones.
A key clause in the specification stated that, for the purpose of
determining the number and size of tram cars, at least 30% of the
passengers had to be able to sit down. Also, the number of standing
passengers was not to exceed four for each square metre, or five in
the rush hours (the trial judge drily noted that nobody seemed willing
to guess what the corresponding figures were at the busiest times on
London Underground).
The corporation argued that, as these levels were being exceeded,
Tramtrack had to provide increased capacity at its own cost. The trial
judge disagreed. Merely showing that there had been instances of six
passengers standing in one square metre of space could not trigger an
obligation to add capacity. For example, there might be a sporting
event that would increase demand. What's more, the judge was not
prepared to imply into the contract some form of testing regime when
the parties had not drafted one. The criteria as to passenger space,
he said, were therefore design objectives, not performance
obligations.
When the case came to the Court of Appeal, the corporation adjusted
its position. It no longer argued that Tramtrack was in breach of
contract whenever more than five passengers were standing in one
square metre of space. However, it still maintained that the contract
required Tramtrack to put on extra trams if there was overcrowding.
The court asked itself: if the parties had intended that the
specification should contain an obligation on Tramtrack not to permit
excessive overcrowding, where would that obligation be? Not hidden
away in the part of the document dealing with design, it concluded. It
also agreed with the judge that one would have expected to have found
terms about how overcrowding was to be measured, and over what
period.
Counsel for Tramtrack argued bluntly that there was no breach of
service levels even if trams were repeatedly overcrowded. If either
party wanted to increase the capacity or frequency of trams, he said,
that party would have to pay for it. The court described this as a
"pretty unattractive scenario" but were not prepared to say that he
was wrong.
A point for those drafting specifications, particularly in PFI, is to
consider whether a criterion is to be merely a broad-brush design
objective or a performance standard. If the answer is a performance
standard, it is essential to set out a scheme for evaluating
performance together with the financial consequences of failure.
Unquote


Thanks for posting that article - I think it's actually a very clear
summary of the real root of the problems with Tramlink. Whilst TfL and
Tramtrack Croydon Ltd (the operators of Tramlink) are in a war of
words - both claiming that the other party is the obstacle to
expanding capacity (amongst other things) - it would seem that the
fundamental problem is that the contract for the 99 year concession to
run Tramlink is itself a pretty duff bit of paperwork, as it is
woefully inadequate in specifying who is obliged to do what with
regards to providing extra capacity on the system.

It would seem that the authors of the 1996 Tramlink Concession
Agreement failed to foresee the current "pretty unattractive
scenario", in the words of the judge. The article suggests to me a
number of possible ways forward...
(1) TfL pays for the increased capacity themselves;
(2) The contract is re-negotiated somehow, though I'm sure this
wouldn't be at all easy;
(3) TfL and TCL agree some kind of Memorandum of Understanding that
goes above and beyond what is set out in the inadequate contract, so
that progress can be made - the problem of course is that any such
agreement wouldn't be backed up by the force of law.

Of course I am not a lawyer so there's probably umpteen various other
options that I haven't considered. Regardless, some way forward from
this impasse must be found as Tramlink is immensely successful and
needs to add capacity - at peak times parts of the system are bursting
at the seams.