No.
TfL is a Local Authority in all but name, both in scale and complexity, and the political and legal framework under which it operates.
So it would be like trying to privatise Hackney.
It's why TfL defaulting on loans would have terrible impacts on other council's borrowing
TfL is a Local Authority in all but name, both in scale and complexity, and the political and legal framework under which it operates.
So it would be like trying to privatise Hackney.
It's why TfL defaulting on loans would have terrible impacts on other council's borrowing
https://twitter.com/4soundandfury/status/1461668370059874310
Have TfL THEMSELVES privitised services?
Yes. Sometimes under government pressure: most notably Tube maintenance (Metronet/Tubelines) under PPP deals. These were a disaster and bringing it back in house cost upwards of £5bn.
Yes. Sometimes under government pressure: most notably Tube maintenance (Metronet/Tubelines) under PPP deals. These were a disaster and bringing it back in house cost upwards of £5bn.
More commonly though, most TfL services you use that AREN'T the Tube are essentially privitised. Overground, buses etc - all are delivered by private companies operating under heavy sets of consistent rules set by TfL.
There's nothing inherently wrong with private operation of services. TfL is (mostly) a good example of that done well.
It works if you have people letting the contracts who know what they're doing and give a shit.
It works if you have people letting the contracts who know what they're doing and give a shit.
Bonus fun fact: if the gov let TfL run out of money then legally it has to prioritise specific services and shut down the rest.
Only service specified: Thames Clippers
Nobody bothered writing the other stuff in because nobody thought a gov would be stupid enough to bankrupt TfL
Only service specified: Thames Clippers
Nobody bothered writing the other stuff in because nobody thought a gov would be stupid enough to bankrupt TfL
Clippers is specified simply because it was handed over later and thus the paperwork was done differently (to oversimplify grossly)
Yup. Woolwich Ferry is in there too! Well remembered.
(You probably read my piece on this!)
(You probably read my piece on this!)
https://mobile.twitter.com/stephenbickers/status/1461692609907286016
Woolwich Ferry. Clippers. Couple of other things. It's all down to what got specified later Vs what was assumed at original handover.
https://mobile.twitter.com/philipwhiuk/status/1461693040435814405
Honestly, it really does come down to no-one, in 1998, ever thinking a government of ANY political shade would be so petty and fucking stupid not to fund the operation of transport in the capital city of Great Britain during a crisis.
We've learned a lot since then.
We've learned a lot since then.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
