I used that term to refer to the one DBFOM procurement that appeared to wrap in many capital and design decisions - electrification and hydrail be ing one example - which appeared to firewall critical decisions beyond either public oversight or accountability.
I have no objection to use of contractor operators to deliver GO operations.... or DBFOM in general. But ML and the Minister must earn their pay by building and managing an organization that has the skills and processes to plan and manage the system with appropriate separation of technical and political inputs.
I have heard whispers that the upcoming Treasury meeting may clip ML’s feathers, not because of any anti transit animus from the Ford camp.... but rather because there is a longer-standing consensus among key bureaucrats (Eg DM and ADM level types) that ML had been overresourced and overforgiven, solely as a source of photo ops for the Wynne party, and now that Wynne is gone the chickens are able to come home to roost.
If those rumours are true, and these bureaucrats are free to air some rational and deserving objections to ML’s rosy and arguably extravagant modus operandus, that’s a good thing. That exercise is aligned to Ford Nation values, to be sure, and will likely be welcomed at the political level..... it may cost us some promised fantasy projects, but it may be a step in the right direction.
- Paul