Stimpy wrote:
Cast_Iron wrote:
"Dr. Sunil" wrote in message
...
Cast_Iron wrote:

With one exception all transport systems in the UK are
privately owned and/or managed.

Why should the roads be any different?

http://www.transportforlondon.gov.uk...contract.shtml

"A13 Thames Gateway

"Design, Build, Finance and Operate (DBFO) Contract

"The works are being undertaken under a Design, Build,
Finance and Operate (DBFO) contract on behalf of
Transport for London (Tf L) Street Management by Road
Management Services (A13) plc (RMS). RMS is a
wholly owned subsidiary of RMS Holdings, owned equally by
AMEC, Alfred McAlpine, Halliburton Brown & Root and
Dragados."

Which road will be 24.3 kms long. When set against 397412
kilometers of road nationaly it's not even a layby.

The trunk road network is, of course, operated and
maintained by private companies on behalf of the HA. New
trunk roads or major improvements are now often carried out
os DBFO's

Perfectly true, but my question was about ownership and management not who
does the work to keep them in good order.

In article ,
(Mark Hewitt) wrote:

"MeatballTurbo" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
Blackpool Transport is a wholly-owned part of Blackpool Council,
IIRC, operating both trams and buses. They are run as a separate
business in practical terms, however.

Warrington Buses too are independant.

But do they also own the road on which they run on?

Within their borough boundary they will be the highway authority, yes.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Cast_Iron wrote:
Stimpy wrote:
Cast_Iron wrote:
"Dr. Sunil" wrote in message
...
Cast_Iron wrote:

With one exception all transport systems in the UK are
privately owned and/or managed.

Why should the roads be any different?

http://www.transportforlondon.gov.uk...contract.shtml

"A13 Thames Gateway

"Design, Build, Finance and Operate (DBFO) Contract

"The works are being undertaken under a Design, Build,
Finance and Operate (DBFO) contract on behalf of
Transport for London (Tf L) Street Management by Road
Management Services (A13) plc (RMS). RMS is a
wholly owned subsidiary of RMS Holdings, owned equally by
AMEC, Alfred McAlpine, Halliburton Brown & Root and
Dragados."

Which road will be 24.3 kms long. When set against 397412
kilometers of road nationaly it's not even a layby.

The trunk road network is, of course, operated and
maintained by private companies on behalf of the HA. New
trunk roads or major improvements are now often carried out
os DBFO's

Perfectly true, but my question was about ownership and management
not who does the work to keep them in good order.

Hence (part of) my last sentence... "New trunk roads are now often carried
out as DBFO's"

Stimpy wrote:
Cast_Iron wrote:
Stimpy wrote:
Cast_Iron wrote:
"Dr. Sunil" wrote in message
...
Cast_Iron wrote:

With one exception all transport systems in the UK are
privately owned and/or managed.

Why should the roads be any different?

http://www.transportforlondon.gov.uk...contract.shtml

"A13 Thames Gateway

"Design, Build, Finance and Operate (DBFO) Contract

"The works are being undertaken under a Design, Build,
Finance and Operate (DBFO) contract on behalf of
Transport for London (Tf L) Street Management by Road
Management Services (A13) plc (RMS). RMS is a
wholly owned subsidiary of RMS Holdings, owned equally
by
AMEC, Alfred McAlpine, Halliburton Brown & Root and
Dragados."

Which road will be 24.3 kms long. When set against 397412
kilometers of road nationaly it's not even a layby.

The trunk road network is, of course, operated and
maintained by private companies on behalf of the HA. New
trunk roads or major improvements are now often carried
out
os DBFO's

Perfectly true, but my question was about ownership and
management
not who does the work to keep them in good order.

Hence (part of) my last sentence... "New trunk roads are
now often carried out as DBFO's"

Fine, but DBFO does not confer ownership.

Cast_Iron wrote:

Hence (part of) my last sentence... "New trunk roads are
now often carried out as DBFO's"

Fine, but DBFO does not confer ownership.

Agreed but the OP used the phrase "With one exception all transport systems
in the UK are privately owned and/or managed." Note the 'or' in 'and/or'.

ALL UK trunk roads are privately managed and most new trunk roads are, in
addition, designed and built privately.






--
The presence of this sig indicates that I'm under the influence of
excess alcohol. Until I'm sober enough to remember to switch this sig
file off, please treat the above as merely drunken ranting.

I apologise in advance for any offence caused :-)

Nathaniel Porter wrote:
"Cast_Iron" wrote in message
...
With one exception all transport systems in the UK are privately
owned and/or managed.

Why should the roads be any different?


Agreed. Let's renationalise the railways, buses etc.

Yeah, that'd work, wouldn't it?

--
http://www.speedlimit.org.uk
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." (William
Pitt, 1783)

"Cast_Iron" wrote in message
...
With one exception all transport systems in the UK are privately owned
and/or managed.

Why should the roads be any different?


Agreed. Let's renationalise the railways, buses etc.

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 17:43:07 -0000, "PeterE"
wrote:

Yeah, that'd work, wouldn't it?

It'd work better than the current mess.

At *least* reregulate bus services outside London. Those using buses
in the capital don't know they're born compared with the shambles
elsewhere in the country.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
is a valid email address, but is sent to /dev/null.
Try my first name at the above domain instead if you want to e-mail me.

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 18:49:06 GMT, (Neil
Williams) wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 17:43:07 -0000, "PeterE"
wrote:

Yeah, that'd work, wouldn't it?

It'd work better than the current mess.

At *least* reregulate bus services outside London. Those using buses
in the capital don't know they're born compared with the shambles
elsewhere in the country.

Ok I think some of us do know we are born! I occasionally look at the
shambles that is now transport in Tyne and Wear and despair when I
remember how well it worked when it was integrated and properly funded.
I'm sure Stagecoach, Arriva and Go Ahead would disagree with me though
as their current networks and fares are, of course, completely
wonderful.

The only places in the country where deregulation *seems* to have
provided some sort of benefit are those well known bright spots of
Brighton, Oxford and York. However I don't use those networks so am only
going on commentary in the industry press.

The contrast between London and Surrey bus services is quite amazing and
in some respects an indictment of this government's mistreatment of
public transport. You could, of course, argue that all those car owners
in Surrey would never catch a bus so why bother even thinking about
providing a service.
--
Paul C
Admits to Working for London Underground!

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 18:49:06 GMT, (Neil
Williams) wrote:
At *least* reregulate bus services outside London. Those using buses
in the capital don't know they're born compared with the shambles
elsewhere in the country.
What and knock my one every five minutes bus service into the city
back to every fifteen no thinks plus we would be back to where one
operator had a monopoly once more . Here in Lancashire Ribble Motors
served most of Lancashire and what a shower they where NO leave the
buses has they are .
Grant .