§ Mr. Mark FieldTo ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the(a) total passenger capacity and (b) the theoretical maximum capacity of London Underground was at peak periods in 1996–97 and 2001–02; and what changes in capacity resulted from (i) new lines, (ii) new trains, (iii) signal upgrades, (iv) speed restrictions, (v) signal failures, (vi) supply failures, (vii) line failure and (viii) structural problems. [54264]
§ Mr. JamiesonThis is an operational matter for London Underground (LU).
- (a) LU advise me that they do not measure, as part of their regular monitoring, the number of passengers which they are able to carry on the tube network as a whole. Instead, they have information which shows that in 1996–97 and 2001–02, during peak hours, the busiest short sections of the underground's lines carried totals of 133,450 and 142,401 passengers per hour respectively.
438W - (b) LU have figures for the design capacity of their rolling stock. This is the number of customers the rolling stock can physically carry and is defined by the manufacturer without taking into account the quality of the journey. An assessment can be made of the design capacity of trains scheduled per hour, at peak times on the same busiest short sections of each line. This gives figures of 308,278 for 1996–97 and 315,514 for 2001–02.
(i) to (viii) LU inform me that this information does not form part of their regular monitoring and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
§ Chris GraylingTo ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the application of the phrase "minimum ambiguity" to deciding who is responsible for tube assets under the PPP. [54287]
§ Mr. JamiesonLondon Underground is responsible for development of the PPP plans for the modernisation of the underground's infrastructure. I understand that when London Underground was restructured into an operating company and three infrastructure companies in April 2000, that restructuring was effected by an asset transfer scheme. It is correct to say that the requirement of "minimum ambiguity" as to the responsibility for asset maintenance within the underground has been a guiding principle for the development of the PPP Service Contracts with the infrastructure companies following the asset transfer scheme. During the period of shadow running since April 2000 there has been considerable work carried out to develop detailed asset information, with clear allocation principles to be incorporated in the contract documents, the application of which will enable responsibility for maintenance and renewal of underground assets to be determined.
§ Harry CohenTo ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the results of the recent consultation regarding the proposed Private Public Partnership for the London Underground; and if he will place a full report of it in the Library. [55809]
§ Mr. JamiesonLondon Underground Ltd. has addressed London Regional Transport's consultation with the Mayor of London and Transport for London in its "Update to Final Assessment Report". This document is available on London Underground Ltd.'s website.