“There is no more miserable human being than one in whom nothing is habitual but indecision,” wrote William James, Henry’s smarter brother, in his Principle Of Psychology.
If he’d been writing a century later, he might have made an exception for the sad wretches who are forced by evil circumstances to use Britain’s public transport system. Or what’s 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’s 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–lose 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’s 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’ve 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 – in the middle of a £2.5bn expansion – 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’s 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’s Dubailand, a £3bn mega-theme park that was announced last week. It may – no, it will – be in the municipality’s inimitable nouveau riche, gold-bath-tap house style, but everyone can bank on it happening and plan accordingly. Compare Gordon Brown’s 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’ government has already handed Dubailand a cheque for more than £400m to get the ball rolling.

OK, so Dubai’s 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’s ours?

Postscript

Phil Clark, deputy editor

Topics