Taxpayers lose out in transport projects rush Marion Terrill Lachlan Fox Australia's state and federal governments have developed a costly habit of rushing major transport projects to market. The premature decisions are often made for political purposes, but invariably the taxpayer is left to pick up the tab. The pork barrelling and cost blowouts on suburban train station car parks are only the latest example. A recent Auditor General report on the selection and funding of car park projects through the 4.8 billion federal Urban Congestion Fund concluded the approach used "was not designed to be open or transparent", and steps taken to identify and fund projects was not appropriate". Instead of making proper assessments, the Morrison government rushed. In a search for votes, it paid $42 million up-front for four commuter car park projects, "prior to any of the four projects being fully scoped". Rushing to market means risks are not identified or mitigated, and problems are not fixed Grattan Institute research shows 28 per cent of major infrastructure projects - those valued at $1 billion or more -- end up costing more than governments claimed when contracts were signed, and when they do the average blowout is more than $600 million When governments pursue risky infrastructure projects, they must at least set themselves up for success by doing adequate planning and discovery, Failing to do so only leads to expensive mistakes that could have been dealt with far more cheaply at the project's conception Governments rush projects for various reasons. Winning votes is one. In the case of the commuter car park funding the decision was made the day the 2019 federal clection was called, and the money overwhelmingly directed at Liberal or marginal seats But governments also rush projects in the pursuit of the image that they get things done", and because they cannot tie the hands of future governments. Ifa government fails to get a pet project started within its term, there's every chance the next government might cancel the microther cancel the project altogether A decision to rush only leads to hurt in the long run. The commuter car park scheme has already blown out by $20 million, before construction has even begun on three of the four projects. This example of rushing projects is not an isolated incident The Victorian government failed to notify utilities of the West Gate Tunnel project's status under the Major Transport Projects Facilitation Act 2009. The result has been significant delays, and cost increases, which have led to arbitration between the government, Transurban, and the construction consortium In Sydney, the NSW Auditor-General criticised the CBD and South East Light Rail project's inadequate planning and tight timeframes", after the construction company claimed the government failed to pass on crucial information about underground conditions. In June 2019, the NSW government paid the contractors an extra $576 million in compensation The Queenstand government rolled out its New Generation Rollingstock trains in December 2017, to meet a timetable dictated by the 2018 Commonwealth Games The trains failed to comply with the government's ows disability legislation, and ultimately required refining, ata cost of 8361 million Governments sometimes post if they didn't move quickly, nothing would ever get built. But when governments rush it's often unclear whether there is a genuine imperative to build the project Cost increases caused by rushing to market may mean the cost-benefit equation used to justify building the project no longer stacks up. As the Grittan Institute has shown, cost overruns are far more likely than cost underruns, and this is particularly the case when projects are rushed What can be done to break this costly habit of rushing megaprojects to market? Instead of grasping for vores governments need to assess projects on their merits and only fund those that can withstand scrutiny. Problems often arise due to site conditions, such as contaminated soil. Governments should do better discovery of underground conditions before building, and should certify these results to potential bidders Where it is conomical to reduce future risks and costs, governments should also conduct more curly work on sites Governments have a responsibility to spend public money wisely. Rushing into political projects or nation building" megaprojects neglects this. To get value for money on transport projects, we need governments to go back to basics-plan, prepare, and justify before a shovel hits the dirt Marion Terrill is the program director and Lachlan Fox is an associate in the Transport and Cities Program at the Grattan Institute The Age Wednesday 7 July 2021 - http://digitaleditions smedia.com, au apl.proxy.open athens.net/theage.todays-paper/Default.aspx Long Answer Questions - (Approximately 1 page each) Question 1 This case illustrates the pressure project managers face in ensuring projects fulfil promises made by governments on infrastructure projects. These promises include what will be produced, when it will be produced and how much the project will cosi Use any project management theory, framework, or model provided in this course, explain how you would manage these stakeholder expectations. Explain what issues project managers need to overcome to achieve what is expected. You need to be critical, use relevant course concepts, reflect on the case, and provide examples to support your answer. Use APA referencing as required. [10 marks) Question 2 This case poses the question "What can be done to break this costly habit of rushing megaprojects to marker? Use any project management theory, framework, or model provided in this course, to explain how you would manage the rushing of projects to market. You need to be critical, use relevant course concepts, reflect on the case, and provide examples to support your answer. Use APA referencing as required [10 marks) Question 3 This case identifies governments as significant stakeholders in infrastructure projects. Consider the topic of stakeholder management and discuss what other stakeholders are important for the project manager to manage. Why are these stakeholders important? What strategy would you recommend managing these relationships? You need to be critical, use relevant course concepts, reflect on the case, and provide examples to support your answer. Use APA referencing as required. [10 marks] Question 4 This case presents a scenario that project managers need to deal with as part of their role. Considering the issues presented in this case, and reflecting on topics covered this semester, identify three critical skills required of any project manager. Explain how each of these skills can be used to address the issues in the case. You need to be critical, use relevant course concepts, reflect on the case, and provide examples to support your answer. Use APA referencing as required. [10 marks] Taxpayers lose out in transport projects rush Marion Terrill Lachlan Fox Australia's state and federal governments have developed a costly habit of rushing major transport projects to market. The premature decisions are often made for political purposes, but invariably the taxpayer is left to pick up the tab. The pork barrelling and cost blowouts on suburban train station car parks are only the latest example. A recent Auditor General report on the selection and funding of car park projects through the 4.8 billion federal Urban Congestion Fund concluded the approach used "was not designed to be open or transparent", and steps taken to identify and fund projects was not appropriate". Instead of making proper assessments, the Morrison government rushed. In a search for votes, it paid $42 million up-front for four commuter car park projects, "prior to any of the four projects being fully scoped". Rushing to market means risks are not identified or mitigated, and problems are not fixed Grattan Institute research shows 28 per cent of major infrastructure projects - those valued at $1 billion or more -- end up costing more than governments claimed when contracts were signed, and when they do the average blowout is more than $600 million When governments pursue risky infrastructure projects, they must at least set themselves up for success by doing adequate planning and discovery, Failing to do so only leads to expensive mistakes that could have been dealt with far more cheaply at the project's conception Governments rush projects for various reasons. Winning votes is one. In the case of the commuter car park funding the decision was made the day the 2019 federal clection was called, and the money overwhelmingly directed at Liberal or marginal seats But governments also rush projects in the pursuit of the image that they get things done", and because they cannot tie the hands of future governments. Ifa government fails to get a pet project started within its term, there's every chance the next government might cancel the microther cancel the project altogether A decision to rush only leads to hurt in the long run. The commuter car park scheme has already blown out by $20 million, before construction has even begun on three of the four projects. This example of rushing projects is not an isolated incident The Victorian government failed to notify utilities of the West Gate Tunnel project's status under the Major Transport Projects Facilitation Act 2009. The result has been significant delays, and cost increases, which have led to arbitration between the government, Transurban, and the construction consortium In Sydney, the NSW Auditor-General criticised the CBD and South East Light Rail project's inadequate planning and tight timeframes", after the construction company claimed the government failed to pass on crucial information about underground conditions. In June 2019, the NSW government paid the contractors an extra $576 million in compensation The Queenstand government rolled out its New Generation Rollingstock trains in December 2017, to meet a timetable dictated by the 2018 Commonwealth Games The trains failed to comply with the government's ows disability legislation, and ultimately required refining, ata cost of 8361 million Governments sometimes post if they didn't move quickly, nothing would ever get built. But when governments rush it's often unclear whether there is a genuine imperative to build the project Cost increases caused by rushing to market may mean the cost-benefit equation used to justify building the project no longer stacks up. As the Grittan Institute has shown, cost overruns are far more likely than cost underruns, and this is particularly the case when projects are rushed What can be done to break this costly habit of rushing megaprojects to market? Instead of grasping for vores governments need to assess projects on their merits and only fund those that can withstand scrutiny. Problems often arise due to site conditions, such as contaminated soil. Governments should do better discovery of underground conditions before building, and should certify these results to potential bidders Where it is conomical to reduce future risks and costs, governments should also conduct more curly work on sites Governments have a responsibility to spend public money wisely. Rushing into political projects or nation building" megaprojects neglects this. To get value for money on transport projects, we need governments to go back to basics-plan, prepare, and justify before a shovel hits the dirt Marion Terrill is the program director and Lachlan Fox is an associate in the Transport and Cities Program at the Grattan Institute The Age Wednesday 7 July 2021 - http://digitaleditions smedia.com, au apl.proxy.open athens.net/theage.todays-paper/Default.aspx Long Answer Questions - (Approximately 1 page each) Question 1 This case illustrates the pressure project managers face in ensuring projects fulfil promises made by governments on infrastructure projects. These promises include what will be produced, when it will be produced and how much the project will cosi Use any project management theory, framework, or model provided in this course, explain how you would manage these stakeholder expectations. Explain what issues project managers need to overcome to achieve what is expected. You need to be critical, use relevant course concepts, reflect on the case, and provide examples to support your answer. Use APA referencing as required. [10 marks) Question 2 This case poses the question "What can be done to break this costly habit of rushing megaprojects to marker? Use any project management theory, framework, or model provided in this course, to explain how you would manage the rushing of projects to market. You need to be critical, use relevant course concepts, reflect on the case, and provide examples to support your answer. Use APA referencing as required [10 marks) Question 3 This case identifies governments as significant stakeholders in infrastructure projects. Consider the topic of stakeholder management and discuss what other stakeholders are important for the project manager to manage. Why are these stakeholders important? What strategy would you recommend managing these relationships? You need to be critical, use relevant course concepts, reflect on the case, and provide examples to support your answer. Use APA referencing as required. [10 marks] Question 4 This case presents a scenario that project managers need to deal with as part of their role. Considering the issues presented in this case, and reflecting on topics covered this semester, identify three critical skills required of any project manager. Explain how each of these skills can be used to address the issues in the case. You need to be critical, use relevant course concepts, reflect on the case, and provide examples to support your answer. Use APA referencing as required. [10 marks]