I have been absolutely flummoxed and gobsmacked at each step along the way by the need to revisit basic design and project proposals seemingly endlessly. Committees, meetings, submissions, redesigns, revised proposals, resubmissions, knockbacks from unheard-of working groups and other bunches and mobs of rail staff who collectively and individually appear to have no idea what they are employed to achieve.

As the years roll by and the costs mount, these fellows restructure their dunghill and then declare that the previous approvals must be reviewed - restarted - whatever. Endless delays occur due to the non-availability of key staff in civil design, signals, survey - whatever. They seem to spend more time at conferences than contemplating actual productive work.

My solution:
1. Obtain an externally driven functional review of the processes involved in rail design and construction. Sideline all those who don’t earn a ticket to the party. There is no need for them in the room, either early or later. No mates, no stocking fillers. Maximum staff permitted at any meeting to be strictly limited and this limit to be enforced. No assistants, no padding. 2. Now that the business makers are gathered together, enforce a “no sitting down” rule during meetings. Table documents, follow agenda, swap opinions, conclude decisions, depart. Say 30 minutes per meeting max. If the contribution is not documented in advance or is otherwise not relevant and productive, rule it out.

3. For major projects (say >$100M), arrange for an impartial disinterested chair to run meetings.

The government was keen to “spread the work around”. I was told that the tendering process was largely the work of an engineer co-opted from their roads department. This last fact is interesting because these days roads departments have a huge body of continuous experience in managing projects, whereas rail authorities or a mob like TIDC have only discontinuous experience, simply because such a small amount of rail gets built and so many projects are cancelled.

There are many mysteries in NSW and the taxpayers deserve an explanation.

It’s bad enough that until recently the roads lobby had access to unlimited private investment funds for its PPP roads projects, decoupling the NSW road building agency (the Roads and Traffic Authority) from the constraints of the state balance sheet, resulting in lots of motorways that have given a competitive advantage to the road freight industry but which have left vast areas of Greater Sydney with no ready access to the rail system. It’s no wonder families need four or more cars to get around (Mum, Dad, adult children each need a car).

But to have the supposed proponent for rail-based public transport actively white-anting its own proposals by unfavourably skewing their benefit cost analyses beggars belief. The Sydney train system is over capacity and struggling to cope following years of underinvestment. NSW Treasury has been a bitter critic of rail for years, epitomised by former Treasurer Michael Costa’s comment that “every time someone steps on a train it costs me money.”

Did the NSW Treasury know what TDIC was doing? Did they encourage it? Did they prioritise making their balance sheet look better over the necessary capital investment needed to maintain and improve the rail system for the people of Sydney?

There is something seriously broken in the NSW government to allow (encourge?) this state of affairs to develop and fester. Cui bono? What’s needed is a Royal Commission to expose who was responsible for this fiasco, what was their motivation, and why successive Ministers for Transport have done nothing about it.

The Royal Commission could also examine why NSW has the deepest bureaucratic silos, the most disaggregated, dysfunctional and corrupt planning culture in Australia. This may well reflect the ALP’s deal-based culture, but it’s a recipe for poor community outcomes and a third-rate transport system. We all lose.