Transport

Frank Dobson answers your questions on the tube o Why is the Tube in such a mess? The Tories allowed fares to soar but did nothing to invest in improving the underground over nearly two decades in power. And if we're honest, we know that even the GLC in the 1980s failed to make the necessary investment too. o How would you modernise the Tube? The Tube needs a huge increase in investment - at least £7 billion in fact. I'm acutely aware of the scandalous delays and over-runs that have marked too many Tube projects in the past. I've always taken a common sense approach to how we raise the money provided that passengers benefit from a better service, that the operation of the Tube remains in public hands, that safety is protected and that we get value for money. Of the options on the table, a public-private partnership is clearly the best way forward. o What would a public-private partnership involve? It would mean bringing private finance and expertise in to provide the investment which the Tube needs. London Underground would continue to concentrate on running the day to day service - including signals, stations and safety. The private sector would ensure that track, signals and stations were modernised and upgraded. They would take the risk and meet the cost of any over-runs. Once the improvements are made, they would return to public control. o Won't a public-private partnership mean privatisation of the Tube? No. The partnership will mean that all aspects of the Tube stay in public hands. Even Ken Livingstone now accepts that you need a private sector firm to manage the improvements as senior management at London Underground is not up to the task. They can't even ensure the escalators are fixed on time. With a public-private partnership, London Underground would continue to run the trains, the signals, the stations - and safety. Only the Tories want to privatise the tube. o Wouldn't bonds be a cheaper way of modernising the Tube? No, quite the opposite. With the bonds proposal put forward by Jeffrey Archer and Ken Livingstone, the private sector would not be responsible for maintenance or have to pay for any unforeseen costs. With the Jubilee line, those costs would have been an extra £1.5 billion. Bonds to fund the tube plans could mean every Londoner having to pay an extra £1,000 a head if the project cost more than expected. Price Waterhouse/Coopers, the leading accountants say the bonds plan would cost Londoners £2-3 billion pounds more than a public-private partnership. o But the public-private partnership approach is untried, isn't it? No. The Docklands Light Railway was built in this way. It was delivered on budget and opened two months ahead of schedule. What a contrast with the Jubilee Line extension - £1.5 billion over budget and 18 months late! o Would Railtrack be responsible for safety with a public-private partnership? No. I've never been a Railtrack fan and was pleased when John Prescott removed them from the bidding process. But Railtrack would never have been given that responsibility - it is London Underground's job and will remain so.