鈥淭here is no more miserable human being than one in whom nothing is habitual but indecision,鈥� wrote William James, Henry鈥檚 smarter brother, in his Principle Of Psychology.
If he鈥檇 been writing a century later, he might have made an exception for the sad wretches who are forced by evil circumstances to use Britain鈥檚 public transport system. Or what鈥檚 left of that system after 10 years of improvement overseen by our wise leaders and administrators. And he might have made another for the contractors and consultants who have to operate it.

Indecision is fatal. We have spend 10 years trying to decide whether the railways should be

run by a nationalised company, a private company with shareholders or a somewhat private

not-for-profit company that nobody really understands, and that keeps doing wildly unpredictable things. Like dropping Balfour Beatty, Carillion and Amey from its maintenance rosters. No wonder contractors are questioning the future of track renewal work (see news).

As the inevitable question mark continues to hang over the government鈥檚 commitment to the Crossrail project, one wonders what Labour will do next. It does not appear to have a principled view on what the relationship should be between private and public realms, to use the modish term. On the overground we have something that looks a bit like renationalisation, whereas London Underground is being handed over to the private sector lock, stock and barrel. Contractors are in a lose鈥搇ose situation. Put in a realistic price and you get hammered for ripping off the taxpayer, your margins get squeezed by the client, then you get put in the stocks when the inevitable accident occurs, in Mark Whitby鈥檚 phrase. No wonder Jarvis jumped.

In a world where risk profiling is king, the government is risking the alienation of its most important infrastructure suppliers. What chance do you give the long-term future of the Tube PPP, given that consortiums Metronet and Tube Lines being blamed for derailments before they鈥檝e even taken their coats off? What are the implications for the PFI?

Compare British havering with the clarity and self-belief of Dubai (pages 26-28). One only has to arrive the airport 鈥� in the middle of a 拢2.5bn expansion 鈥� to see that there is nothing half-cocked about decisions in this monarchy. There is even talk of building another airport to consolidate

the city鈥檚 status as a regional transport hub. The first planes will be landing in the time it would take Britain to sort out the seating plan at the public inquiry. Then there鈥檚 Dubailand, a 拢3bn mega-theme park that was announced last week. It may 鈥� no, it will 鈥� be in the municipality鈥檚 inimitable nouveau riche, gold-bath-tap house style, but everyone can bank on it happening and plan accordingly. Compare Gordon Brown鈥檚 foot dragging on Crossrail. The Treasury is reportedly reluctant to put its hand in its pocket for this unless the private sector does so first; the emirates鈥� government has already handed Dubailand a cheque for more than 拢400m to get the ball rolling.

OK, so Dubai鈥檚 not perfect. For one thing, its public transport is almost as bad as ours, and the speed of development may be at the expense of quality and sustainability. But at least they have a plan, and infrastructure is at the heart of it. Where鈥檚 ours?

Postscript

Phil Clark, deputy editor

Topics