> Ends are important. But for the amount of money spent, so are the bloody means. If the alternative was proposing to do the full project but address all those

> Ends are important. But for the amount of money spent, so are the bloody means. If the alternative was proposing to do the full project but address all those concerns that would be wonderful. But that is not the choice we have. And it may not be a realistic choice at all. Every single large project like this that has ever been undertaken has had these kind of problems. Look at the east west link in Melbourne - no business plan, no (public) cost benefit analysis, the whole thing commercial in confidence. I agree it's disgusting and in my view ideally would be unconstitutional (when it's our money, we get to see how it's spent - even if that inflates costs, that's the price of democracy, suck it up). But the bigger problem is that we've manufactured a political environment where it's more expedient to hide all this stuff than to openly talk about problems, uncertainties and vision far into the future. Even your own words reflect that - you're criticizing them for problems in planning a project that is a one of a kind - never been undertaken before anywhere, and never will again. It's just an unrealistic expectation at some level that it can ever go perfectly.