^There’s lots of literature demonstrating that large infrastructure projects are risky. Only a tiny minority come in on time and budget.
The problem is the political pressure that governments face when projects hit bumps. A lot of the motivation behind P3 is so that in theory, politicians and bureaucrats can use P3 to insulate themselves from risk. “The contract is air tight, the contractor has to deliver on time and on budget or they don’t get paid” kind of thing. In theory, it’s a silver bullet for the knee jerk “heads must roll” rabble that emerge whenever something goes wrong. Frankly I partly blame the media who get far more sales from reporting the bumps as major scandals than by trying to sort out the fine points. (How many of us remember how much of the TYSSE overruns and delay came from which problem?)
Unlike TYSSE or, just to pick an example, the Florence LRT network or the Oslo airport train, or the Seattle road tunnel, Crosstown has never faced a major shutdown-and-regroup event. It is proceeding pretty well. Its painful impact on the surface community was pretty predictable, although the pols did little to set expectations. I don’t think one can paint it as a project fiasco. But.... lawyers..... and a political organization (ML) that puts a high priority on positioning themselves as a lily-white fountain of unending good news, truth being dispensible.
I’m not advocating low standards, but “On time and on budget” is a claim that can seldom be achieved. If Crosstown turns out well, it won’t have been as big a wait as some might claim. What has been missing all along is transparency.
- Paul
