A Grattan Institute report has identified $28 billion more was spent on transport infrastructure over the past 15 years than taxpayers were initially promised.

The report analyses 836 projects valued at more than $20 million built since 2001 across Australia. It amounts to roughly two billion dollars per year; a lot of roads or railway lines in anyone's language.

While the individual justification for each blowout was not specified what many have in common is a lack of planning at the initial commitment stage. The report identifies premature announcements – most commonly political promises in the run up to an election - as the biggest problems.

Bodies like Infrastructure Australia and more recently Infrastructure Victoria have a key role to play in improving this planning.  These bodies were specifically set up to remove vital nation building projects from the small mindedness of three or four year election cycles, not only by establishing long-term visions and listed priorities but in the extensive investigation into cost benefit analysis of potential projects.  

Ideally a thoroughness in completing this role, a bipartisan approach to the priorities and an acceptance of de-politicised and hopefully objective data, can then inform the decision making.

But so far the reality has not reflected this methodical and less ideological approach. Two key recommendations from the report frame some progressive if elusive improvements in approach.

First, there should be no commitment to transport infrastructure before publicly releasing proper evaluations and underlying business cases. The dubious mask of commercial in-confidence so often used as a smokescreen for inadequate planning cannot be allowed to extinguish a far greater and longer-term public interest.

Second, the same studies and data should be re-evaluated against the reality after completion to better serve future processes, decision making and pursue that even rarer governmental goal of value for money. 

It may sound like wishful thinking in an age of secrecy and savage politicking but the implementation of these points might go some way to greater transperancy of government in general but in particular it would serve the greater objective of leaders uniting to build a better future.