DOCSLIB.ORG

The Basics of Concession Contracts

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Basics of Concession Contracts Designing Transit Concession Contracts to Deal with Uncertainty by MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE Tara Naomi Chin Blakey OF TECHNOLOGY B.S., Civil Engineering (2004) ARE62009 University of Florida LIBRARIES Submitted to the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Transportation at the MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY June 2006 ©2006 Massachusetts Institute of Technology All rights reserved Signature of Author............ ... Civil and Environmental Engineering May 26, 2006 Certified by.......................... ............ Prof Nigel H. M. Wilson Professor of Civil aid Environmental Engineering - The1 is Supervisor Accepted by.............................................. And? 4. Whittle Chairman, Department Committee on Graduate Studies 1 BARKER Designing Transit Concession Contracts to Deal with Uncertainty By Tara Naomi Chin Blakey Submitted to the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering On May 25, 2006 in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Transportation ABSTRACT This thesis proposes a performance regime structure for public transit concession contracts, designed so incentives to the concessionaire can be effective given significant uncertainty about the future operating conditions. This is intended to aid agencies in designing regimes that will encourage continually improving performance through the use of relevant and adaptive incentives. The proposed incentives are adjusted annually based on actual circumstances. An adaptive regime can also allow the incentives to be more cost and resource efficient and is especially well-suited to so-called "gross-cost" contracts when the public agency retains the fare revenue and absorbs the revenue risk for the services. The motivation for this research is the anticipated transfer of the oversight responsibilities for the Silverlink Metro regional rail services, in outer London, from the UK Department for Transport to Transport for London. This new service will undergo substantial infrastructure and service upgrades in the next several years and an innovative operating contract is required to maintain and improve service levels during this transitional period. The Proposed performance regime is composed of two major components: 1. A "bundled" set of specific performance measures based on which the concessionaire can earn annual bonuses or incur penalties based on a set of adaptive targets; and 2. An excess revenue and/or ridership incentive which is designed to capture all of the intangible actions that a concessionaire can bring to bear to produce more effective service. Together these components should encourage concessionaires to improve upon the major aspects of service under their control as well as pay close attention to strategies which can alter the quality and effectiveness of service. Additionally, the performance regime proposed is expected to provide efficient incentives so that a better overall outcome for the public will result. Thesis Supervisor: Nigel H. M. Wilson Title: Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering 2 Contents C hapter 1: Introd uction ........................................................................... 8 1.1 Background 8 1.2 Objectives 13 1.3 Contracting for North London Railway Service 14 1.3.1 Background 14 1.3.2 Responsibility Allocation 17 1.4 Approach 18 1.5 Organization of Thesis 19 Chapter 2: Basics of Concession Contracts................................................ 21 2.1 Risk and Resposibility Allocation 21 2.2 Alternative Contract Structures 23 2.3 A Theoretical Approach to Structuring Incentive Contracts 25 2.4 The Elements of a Performance Regime 27 2.4.1 Performance Measures 28 2.4.2 Performance Level Target 30 2.4.3 Performance Target Dates 31 2.4.4 Bonuses & Penalties 31 2.4.5 Regime Specification 32 2.5 Performance Measures for the North London Railway 32 2.6 Differences Between Bus and Rail 33 Chapter 3: Case Studies of Current Practice in Concession Contracts.............. 35 3.1 Melbourne 36 3.1.1 Nature of the System 38 3.1.2 Organizational Structure 39 3.1.3 Performance Regime 40 3.1.4 Analysis and Conclusions 45 3.2 Copenhagen 47 3.2.1 Nature of the System 48 3.2.2 Organizational Structure 49 3.2.3 Performance Regime 50 3 3.2.4 Analysis and Conclusions 54 3.3 London 57 3.3.1 Nature of the System 58 3.3.2 Organizational Structure 59 3.3.3 Performance Regime 60 3.3.4 Analysis and Conclusions 62 3.4 General Findings 65 3.5 Potential Performance Regime Structures for the NLR 67 3.6 Desired Characteristics of Performance Regime 70 Chapter 4: The Proposed Performance Regime........................................... 74 4.1 Specific Performance Measures 75 4.1.1 Default, Initial, and Maximum Thresholds 76 4.1.2 The Adaptive Process 77 4.1.3 "Floors" and "Ceilings" for the Penalty and Incentive Levels 81 4.1.4 Calculation of Payments 83 4.1.5 Incentive and Penalty Pools and Weights 93 4.1.6 Restarting Target Setting 96 4.2 The Ridership/Revenue Incentive 96 Chapter 5: Implementation of the Proposed Regime..................................... 101 5.1 Contract Design 101 5.1.2 Scenario Testing and Development 102 5.2 Procurement 105 5.3 Performance Monitoring 107 Chapter 6: Conclusions and Suggestions for Further Research..................... 108 6.1 Summary 108 6.2 Further Research 110 A p p e n d ix A ....................................................................................... 113 A p p e n d ix B ....................................................................................... 123 4 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1: Silverlink Metro Rail Lines Map 15 Figure 3-1: Tram Service Monitoring 41 Figure 3-2: Incentive Payment Calculation 43 Figure 3-3: OPR Targets by Year 44 Figure 3-4: Bus Costs per Hour, 2002-prices, DKK 55 Figure 3-5: Excess Wait Times 62 Figure 3-6: Millions of Passenger Journeys by Year 63 Figure 3-7: Average Number of Tenders per Route by Year of Award 64 Figure 3-8: Cost per Vehicle Mile of Bus Operations by Year 64 Figure 4-1: Default, Expected and Maximum Levels 76 Figure 4-2: Incentive Threshold Upward Adjustment 78 Figure 4-3: Incentive Threshold Downward Adjustment 79 Figure 4-4: Floor and Ceiling Levels 81 Figure 4-5: Increasing Slope Payment Method 85 Figure 4-6: Cumulative Increasing Slope Incentive Payments, Multiple Scenarios 87 Figure 4-7: Cumulative Increasing Slope Payments, Multiple Ceilings 88 Figure 4-8: Constant Slope Payment, Year One 89 Figure 4-9: Cumulative Constant Slope Payments, Multiple Scenarios 91 5 LIST OF TABLES Table 3-1: Customer Satisfaction Service Charter Compensation 45 Table 3-2: Performance Statistics by Assessment Period 45 Table 3-3: Quality Index Calculation 51 Table 3-4: Satisfaction Survey Response Weightings 51 Table 3-5: Percent of Bonus Awarded by Service Level 54 Table 3-6: Performance Payments by Year 63 Table 4-1: Possible Default, Expected, and Maximum Levels for Customer Satisfaction Scores 77 Table 4-2: Possible Floor and Ceiling Designation for Customer Satisfaction Scores 82 Table 4-3: Concessionaire Performance Scenarios 86 Table 4-4: Revenue Incentive, 1 99 Table 4-5: Revenue Incentive, 2 99 6 Acknowledgements This work represents the efforts and support of many individuals and a few organizations. Among those who contributed, I would especially like to acknowledge: - Nigel Wilson and John Attanucci, - Fred Salvucci, - Giorgia Favero, - the Transit Reseach Group - Transportation for London, - the Chicago Transit Authority - the Transportation Students Group, and - Ginny Siggia. I would also like my friends and family for their invaluable encouragement throughout. 7 Chapter 1: Introduction This thesis proposes a performance regime structure for public transit concession contracts, designed so incentives to the concessionaire can be effective given significant uncertainty about the future conditions. Because it is important to deal with unexpected conditions so service quality can be maintained, this work intends to aid agencies in designing regimes that will encourage continually improving performance through the use of relevant and adaptive incentives. An adaptive regime can also allow the incentives to be more cost and resource efficient. 1.1 BACKGROUND A trend towards privatization began in the post World War 11 era and became more dominant in the 1980's and 1990's, where "privatization is the process of transferring property from public ownership to private ownership and/or transferring the management of a service or activity from the government to the private sector" (Wikipedia, 2006). Forms of privatization have been used to restructure a range of government services, from energy provision to health and education programs. The deregulation of the bus industry in the United Kingdom in the 1980's is credited as the first major privatization of urban transit services. Before deregulation of the UK bus industry, British public transport was provided entirely by the government. Like most American systems today, all infrastructure and assets in pre-reform UK was publicly-owned, and all services publicly managed and operated. The British government, under Margaret Thatcher, initiated a program to privatize the provision of bus services in order to achieve reductions in the subsidy those services required, expecting little to no negative effect on quality of services (Rye & Wilson). Deregulation in the United Kingdom took on a different form for systems outside the Greater London metropolitan
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Kings Cross to Liverpool Street Via 13 Stations Walk
    Saturday Walkers Club www.walkingclub.org.uk Kings Cross to Liverpool Street via 13 stations walk All London’s railway terminals, the three royal parks, the River Thames and the City Length 21.3km (13.3 miles) for the whole walk, but it is easily split into smaller sections: see Walk Options below Toughness 1 out of 10 - entirely flat, but entirely on hard surfaces: definitely a walk to wear cushioned trainers and not boots. Features This walk links (and in many cases passes through) all thirteen London railway terminals, and tells you something of their history along the way. But its attractions are not just limited to railway architecture. It also passes through the three main Central London parks - Regent’s Park, Hyde Park/Kensington Gardens and St James's Parks - and along the Thames into and through the City of London*. It takes in a surprising number of famous sights and a number of characteristic residential and business areas: in fact, if you are first time visitor to London, it is as good an introduction as any to what the city has to offer. Despite being a city centre walk, it spends very little of its time on busy roads, and has many idyllic spots in which to sit or take refreshment. In the summer months you can even have an open air swim midway through the walk in Hyde Park's Serpentine Lido. (* The oldest part of London, now the financial district. Whenever the City, with a capital letter, is used in this document, it has this meaning.) Walk Being in Central London, you can of course start or finish the walk wherever Options you like, especially at the main railway stations that are its principal feature.
    [Show full text]
  • Greater London Authority London Assembly – 6 September 2000
    Greater London Authority London Assembly – 6 September 2000 Greater Greater London Authority London Authority London Assembly Minutes of the meeting of the London Assembly held on Wednesday, 6 September 2000 at 10 a.m. In Room AG16 at Romney House, Marsham Street, Westminster Present: Trevor Phillips (Chair) Sally Hamwee (Deputy Chair) Jennette Arnold Victor Anderson Tony Arbour Richard Barnes John Biggs Louise Bloom Graham Tope Brian Coleman Lynne Featherstone Roger Evans Toby Harris Nicky Gavron Meg Hillier Samantha Heath Andrew Pelling Jennifer Jones Elizabeth Howlett Eric Ollerenshaw Bob Neill Angie Bray Darren Johnson Valerie Shawcross 16jul00version 1 Greater London Authority London Assembly – 6 September 2000 00/50 APOLOGIES Apologies for absence were received from Len Duvall and for lateness from Nicky Gavron, Roger Evans and Bob Neill. 00/51 MINUTES OF MEETINGS HELD ON 24, 27 and 28 JULY 2000 The Minutes of these meetings were confirmed as a correct record subject to the following amendments: 24 July 2000 That Graham Tope and Elizabeth Howlett be recorded as attending the meeting. Minute 35/00 - replace "group" with "party" in the last line of the first paragraph. That the Deputy Chair be given authority to approve the correction of various typographical errors in the minutes. 28 July Resolution 3 (3) (iv) to read: To obtain Leading Counsel's opinion where necessary on all of (i) to (iii) above. Resolution 3 (3) (v) to read: To act and instruct the relevant Chief Officers to act, on Leading Counsels' advice including recruitment based on that advice. 00/52 CHAIR’S BUSINESS With the agreement of the meeting, the Chair deferred consideration of the minutes of the previous three Assembly meetings until the end of the proceedings, and announced the intention to allow two urgent items: (i) Notting Hill Carnival The Chair introduced the matter of the Notting Hill Carnival by referring to the deep concern over the events that took place there over the weekend of XXXX.
    [Show full text]
  • Crossrail 1 Corridor 6 (Richmond/Kingston/Norbiton) Proposal
    Crossrail 1 Corridor 6 (Richmond/Kingston/Norbiton) Proposal Response by London Borough of Hounslow February 2003 Crossrail 1 Corridor 6 (Richmond/Kingston/Norbiton) Proposal: Response by London Borough of Hounslow February 2003 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Context This submission constitutes the London Borough of Hounslow’s response to an invitation to provide initial comments on the Crossrail project’s proposal for a new corridor for Crossrail 1: Corridor 6 – Norbiton, via Old Oak Common, Acton, Chiswick, Richmond and Kingston. The submission considers the proposal in terms of service and amenity for the borough’s residents and businesses, and within the context of the Council’s published policies. In addition to the two options that constitute the Corridor 6 proposals, this submission provides two further options for Crossrail’s consideration. While the Council must record its disappointment that an effective period of less than two weeks was offered for preparation of this submission, the Council also wishes to record its appreciation for the assistance given by the Crossrail consultation team during the preparation of the submission. 1.2 Council Policies The London Borough of Hounslow Unitary Development Plan’s objectives relating to transport and land use development are summarised below: • To promote sustainable transport modes (walking, cycling, public and waterborne transport) which improves access for all members of the community and enhances public transport provision in London as a whole, while reducing car traffic and the demand for road space. • To encourage a pattern of land use, and provision of transport which minimises harm to the environment and reduces the need to travel, especially by car, whilst maximising development opportunities in the Borough.
    [Show full text]
  • 131 . David A. Hensher.Pdf
    BUS TRANSPORT: ECONOMICS, POLICY AND PLANNING RESEARCH IN TRANSPORTATION ECONOMICS Series Editor: Martin Dresner Volumes 1–6: Research in Transportation Economics – B. Starr McMullen Volume 7: Railroad Bankruptcies and Mergers from Chicago West 1975–2001: Financial Analysis and Regulatory Critique – Michael Conant Volume 8: Economic Impacts of Intelligent Transportation Systems: Innovations and Case Studies – Evangelos Bekiaris and Yuko Nakanishi Volume 9: Road Pricing: Theory and Evidence – Georgina Santos Volume 10: Transportation Labor Issues and Regulatory Reform – James Peoples and Wayne K. Talley Volume 11: Interurban Road Charging for Trucks in Europe – Jose´Manuel Viegas Volume 12: Shipping Economics – Kevin Cullinane Volume 13: Global Competition in Transportation Markets: Analysis and Policy Making – Katsuhiko Kuroda and Adib Kanafani Volume 14: Measuring the Marginal Social Cost of Transport – Christopher Nash and Bryan Matthews Volume 15: Procurement and Financing of Motorways in Europe – Giorgio Ragazzi and Werner Rothengatter Volume 16: Port Economics – Kevin Cullinane and Wayne K. Talley Volume 17: Devolution, Port Governance and Port Performance – Mary R. Books and Kevin Cullinane RESEARCH IN TRANSPORTATION ECONOMICS VOLUME 18 BUS TRANSPORT: ECONOMICS, POLICY AND PLANNING BY DAVID A. HENSHER Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia Amsterdam – Boston – Heidelberg – London – New York – Oxford Paris – San Diego – San Francisco – Singapore – Sydney – Tokyo JAI Press is an imprint of Elsevier JAI Press is an imprint of Elsevier The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford OX5 1GB, UK Radarweg 29, PO Box 211, 1000 AE Amsterdam, The Netherlands 525 B Street, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101-4495, USA First edition 2007 Copyright r 2007 Elsevier Ltd.
    [Show full text]
  • LTS Modelling to Inform Work on the Mayor's Transport Strategy
    LTS Modelling to inform work on the Mayor's Transport Strategy Prepared for Transport for London November 2001 Document Control Project Title: LTS Modelling to inform work on the Mayor's Transport Strategy MVA Project Number: C3895022 WP Reference: cmp\tm Directory & File Name: l:\london\lts\c8950.22\summary\mtsnote.doc Document Approval Primary Author: Richard Stanley Other Author(s): Reviewer(s): Paul Hanson (MVA) Henry Abraham (GLA) Issue Date Distribution Comments 1 16/11/01 THu, HAb, PHa First Draft for Review 2 23/11/01 THu, HAb Second Draft 3 26/11/01 HAb Published Version Contents Chapter Page 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Overview 1 1.2 Objectives of the Study 1 1.3 Structure of this Note 1 2 Modelling Approach 3 2.1 Background to the LTS Model 3 2.2 Modelling Goods Vehicles 5 2.3 Modelling Public Transport Reliability 5 2.4 Modelling Public Transport Crowding: LTS Crowding factors 5 2.5 PiXC as used in the Rail Industry 6 2.6 PiXC as used in the LTS model 7 3 Planning Data Assumptions 8 3.1 Introduction 8 3.2 B2.11 Borough Level Planning Data 8 4 Transport Network Assumptions 14 4.1 Scenarios 14 4.2 2001 Reference Case Scenario 14 4.3 2011 Reference Case Scenario 14 4.4 2011 Test MTS (Mayor's Transport Strategy) Package 16 4.5 2011 Test MTS Package - Road-Based Improvements 16 4.6 2011 Test MTS Package - Radial Rail Infrastructure Improvements 17 4.7 2011 Test MTS Package - Orbital Rail Infrastructure Improvements 17 4.8 2011 Test MTS Package - Underground Service Improvements 18 4.9 2011 Test MTS Package - DLR Improvements 19 4.10 2011
    [Show full text]
  • Part 2 of the Bibliography Catalogue
    Bibliography - L&NWR Society Periodicals Part 2 Titles - LR to Z excluding Railway Magazine Registered Charity - L&NWRSociety No. 1110210 Copyright LNWR Society 2014 Title Year Volume Page Locomotives & Railways LNWR "Bloomer" Engines 1900 1/1 9 Review of Locomotive building for British Railways during 1899 - LNWR 1900 1/1 10 Mr.J.Ramsbottom's "Lady of the Lake" Class LNWR 1900 1/10 142 Mr. J.Ramsbottom's Lady of the Lake Class LNWR 1900 1/10 142 The North Western "Precedents" 1900 1/2 17 The North Western "Precedents" 1900 1/3 37 The North Western "Precedents" 1900 1/4 40 The North Western "Precedents" 1900 1/4 54 North Staffordshire Goods Engine Four DX Goods Engines recently sold by LNWR 1900 1/8 113 Railway & Locomotive Notes. Accident at Holmes Chapel. 1901 2/03 44 Railway & Locomotive Notes. Continuing list of Jubilee engines. 1901 2/03 45 Advert. Working & Management of an English Railway by Sir George Findlay. 1901 2/03 48 LNWR "Problem" Class 1901 2/19 85 North London Rly. Inside cylinder locomotives 1901 2/21 101 The Britannia Tubular Bridge, North Wales 1901 2/23 123 Outside cylinder tank engines "Metropolitan Railway Type" LNWR 1901 2/24 135 The Britannia Tubular Bridge 1902 3/25 9 The North Western Compound Locomotives 1902 3/27 24 The Britannia Tubular Bridge 1902 3/29 43 4ft 3in 8 Coupled 4 Cylinder Compound Mineral Locomotive LNWR 1902 3/29 47 The North Western Compound Locomotives 1902 3/30 57 The Britannie Tubular Bridge 1902 3/32 44 LNWR 6 Coupled Coal Engines 1902 3/33 90 The Britannia Tubular Bridge 1902 3/35 105 The North Western Compound Locomotives 1902 3/35 107 The Britannia Tubular Bridge 1902 3/36 115 Engraving and notes on McConnell "Patent" Type under the heading Supplement 1903 4/38 18 L&YR 4 Coupled Passenger Engines (LNWR Newtons) 1903 4/39 27 Outside Cylinder Bogie Tank Engines LNWR Metroploitan Tank rebuilds 1903 4/41 49 6 Coupled Saddle Tank Engine LNWR 1903 4/41 52 The North Western Compound Locomotives series not concluded 1903 4/42 61 London Railway Record Ten Years After.
    [Show full text]
  • Barking-Gospel Oak Line User Group
    BARKING-GOSPEL OAK LINE USER GROUP www.barking-gospeloak.org.uk RESPONSE TO CROSS-LONDON RUS CONSULTATION Introduction The Barking-Gospel Oak line (BGOL) is one of the few unelectrified routes in an otherwise electrified area. Electrification would be highly desirable, yet it does not feature in the RUS. This is very disappointing, as it would bring a number of advantages: electric-hauled freight trains would be able to use it, and the operator of the Silverlink Metro/North London railway passenger concession would only have one type of rolling stock to maintain. An added advantage is that 3 or 4-car electric units would cope better with increasing passenger loadings than the existing 2-car DMUs, which have difficult coping with peak loadings even now. We believe that without investment in the electrification of the Barking – Gospel Oak Line and other link lines considered in this RUS (Cricklewood to Acton Wells, Acton Wells to Acton Main Line and the Kew Curves) that many of the benefits that this RUS seeks to achieve will not be achievable. We strongly urge Network Rail to upgrade the Felixstowe- Ely – Nuneaton line to the W10 standard loading gauge, so that freight which has no need to pass through London can avoid it altogether and free up much-needed space for additional passenger services and additional freight traffic originating from the planned new Shellhaven development, which is envisaged on both the Barking – Gospel Oak and North London Lines. The same applies to reinstating Cambridge-Bletchley-Bedford. (NB – some existing freight paths on Barking-Gospel Oak have never been used!).
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Response to the Mayor of London
    (APPENDIX TO KEY DECISION REPORT - ‘THE COUNCIL’S RESPONSE TO THE MAYOR OF LONDON’S DRAFT AMBIENT NOISE STRATEGY’) [Final text to be transferred onto Councillor Moylan’s letterhead] Ken Livingstone Esq Mayor of London (Ambient Noise Strategy Consultation) Greater London Authority FREEPOST 15799 LONDON SE1 2BR [First date after implementation period to be inserted] Dear Mr Livingstone The Royal Borough’s response to the draft London Ambient Noise Strategy Background noise caused by road traffic, trains, or low flying aircraft is part of daily life in central London, but in some parts of the Royal Borough, where noise levels are unduly high, it is a source of considerable annoyance to residents. In fact there are few parts of the Borough that do not suffer a certain amount of disturbance from busy roads, although in an overall sense this reflects vibrant activity, the ‘buzz’ that you yourself refer to. This Council welcomes a comprehensive approach to controlling background noise, whether from transport sources, or industrial and commercial operations. An action- orientated noise strategy for London, which prepares the way for the National Ambient Noise Strategy expected in 2007, should put London in a stronger position to influence the controls, such as noise limit values, eventually imposed by Government. We are very much in favour of proactive measures to reduce ambient noise levels that can be achieved without disproportionate costs, and that target the worst affected areas. The Royal Borough together with the London Boroughs of Hammersmith and Fulham and Wandsworth, successfully negotiated a substantial noise mitigation scheme to offset the railway noise impact on line-side residents of Channel Tunnel trains using the West London Line.
    [Show full text]
  • STRATEGIC PLANNING ADVISORY PANEL AGENDA and Papers
    Transport for London STRATEGIC PLANNING ADVISORY PANEL Meeting No. 2 to be held on Monday 14 May 2007 Windsor House, 14th Floor Boardroom at 2pm AGENDA A Meeting of the Panel will be held to deal with the following business: 1. Apologies for Absence 2. Minutes of Previous Meeting held on 16 January 2007 3. Matters Arising and Outstanding Items Business Items Sponsor 4. SPAP Work Plan 2007/2008 Peter Hendy, Commissioner 5. Mayor’s Transport Strategy - Steve Allen, Interim MD Finance Progress Update (Barry Broe) 6. Olympic Transport Projects Steve Allen, Interim MD Finance (Richard Browning) 7. Travel Demand Management - Ben Plowden, Programme Director, TDM Emerging Priorities 8. Any Other Business Date of next meeting (Combined): Wednesday 3 October 2007 Page 1 of 1 TRANSPORT FOR LONDON STRATEGIC PLANNING ADVISORY PANEL MINUTES of the Panel meeting held in the Boardroom, 14th Floor Windsor House, at 10.00am on Tuesday 16 January 2007 Present: Peter Hendy (Chair) Dave Wetzel Honor Chapman Stephen Glaister Sir Mike Hodgkinson Ben Plowden Jay Walder In attendance: Steve Allen Director of Corporate Finance Barry Broe Director of Group Transport Planning & Policy Richard Browning Dir. of Group Business Planning & Performance Howard Carter General Counsel Gareth John Director of Legal & Compliance Jeff Pipe Corporate Governance Adviser Elaine Seagriff Head of Policy & Strategy Shashi Verma Director of Oyster Card Secretary: Horatio Chishimba 01/01/07 Apologies for Absence Apologies for absence were received from Lynn Sloman and Eva Lindholm. 02/01/07 Declaration of Interests None declared. 03/01/07 SPAP Terms of Reference The Panel noted the content of the SPAP Terms of Reference as agreed by the Board on 25 October 2006.
    [Show full text]
  • John Fishwick & Sons 1907-2015
    John Fishwick & Sons 1907-2015 Contents John Fishwick & Sons - Fleet History 1907 - 2015 Page 3 John Fishwick & Sons - Bus Fleet List 1907 - 2015 Page 8 Cover Illustration: Preserved 1958 Leyland PD2/40 with Weymann lowbridge 58-seat bodywork. (LTHL collection). First Published 2018. 2nd edition May 2020. With thanks to Roy Marshall, RHG Simpson, Joe Gornall (courtesy Malcolm Jones), Frans Angevaare and Alan Sansbury for illustrations. © The Local Transport History Library 2018. (www.lthlibrary.org.uk) For personal use only. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted or distributed in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical or otherwise without the express written permission of the publisher. In all cases this notice must remain intact. All rights reserved. PDF-119-2 Page 2 John Fishwick & Sons 1907-2015 After a spell working with the Leyland Steam Motor Company in Leyland, John Fishwick decided to start his own haulage business. In 1907 he purchased a steam wagon from his former employers and began hauling rubber from the local works to Liverpool and Manchester. In 1910 he purchased another Leyland vehicle - this time a Leyland X-type with petrol engine that was used as a lorry but could be fitted with a very basic style of wagonette body seating 30 passengers for a Saturday only service to Leyland market from Eccleston, that commenced in 1911. More vehicles followed, most of which had interchangeable bodies for use as a lorry as well as a bus. Soon John Fishwick was operating a number of routes serving Preston, Chorley and Ormskirk.
    [Show full text]
  • Transport Committee
    Transport Committee Value added? The Transport Committee’s assessment of whether the bus contracts issued by London Buses represent value for money March 2006 The Transport Committee Roger Evans - Chairman (Conservative) Geoff Pope - Deputy Chair (Liberal Democrat) John Biggs - Labour Angie Bray - Conservative Elizabeth Howlett - Conservative Peter Hulme Cross - One London Darren Johnson - Green Murad Qureshi - Labour Graham Tope - Liberal Democrat The Transport Committee’s general terms of reference are to examine and report on transport matters of importance to Greater London and the transport strategies, policies and actions of the Mayor, Transport for London, and the other Functional Bodies where appropriate. In particular, the Transport Committee is also required to examine and report to the Assembly from time to time on the Mayor’s Transport Strategy, in particular its implementation and revision. The terms of reference as agreed by the Transport Committee on 20th October 2005 for the bus contracts scrutiny were: • To examine the value for money secured by the Quality Incentive Contracts issued by London Buses to bus operators. This will include o An examination of the penalty/bonus element to the Quality Incentive Contracts o An examination of operator rate of return and operator market share o An examination of the criteria by which the subsidy’s value for money is judged • To compare all of the above with other contracting arrangements within the UK and other international major cities Please contact Danny Myers on either 020 7983 4394 or on e-mail via [email protected] if you have any comments on this report the Committee would welcome any feedback.
    [Show full text]
  • The East London Line Extension Project
    THE EAST LONDON LINE EXTENSION PROJECT After being talked about for so many years, the East London Line Extension Project (ELLP) is now set to become a reality. Back in 1988 when the individual ‘Line General Manager’ concept was created by London Underground, replacing the ‘Divisional’ structure (four groups of lines), the then new General Manager for the East London Line was confident that the proposed scheme was “just around the corner”, having been first seriously proposed in 1985. Sadly, that General Manager did not stay with London Underground long enough to see the project kick off – many years later. (The creation of a General Manager for the East London Line caused a bit of consternation at the time. With its offices soon established at Shadwell, it was soon recognised that the line employed more managers than they operated trains!). From 1991, the management of the East London Line has been tacked on to the Jubilee Line but, more recently, broke away from the Jubilee and instead combined with the Waterloo & City Line. The management of the East London and Waterloo & City lines today still exceeds the number of trains scheduled for service on both lines (six and four respectively) although each line has its own identity and line colour. Prior to becoming a ‘line’ in its own right it had traditionally and unassumedly been part of the Metropolitan Line, having carried that line’s colour until 1988, when it became ‘orange’ (some publicity at the time made references to the Tango orange drink!), as did the Hammersmith & City Line, which became a sort of salmon pink.
    [Show full text]