Yes there are projects and projects. i.e., the Greeks would have spent less mothballing their national railway, and paying taxi fares for all their fare paying passengers!

Conversely, a very rapid rail system along our eastern seaboard would surely run at a profit.

And as the years went on by, more and more, until all the borrowings were repaid.

And all doable if the national government were on board; and we created self terminating thirty year infrastructure specific bonds; and used some of the resumed and then rezoned land to pay for the bulk of the projects?

Which given the current air traffic along that route, would have to be profitable.

And think one could go from CBD to CBD, and at speeds up to 900 KLM's PH, and at far greater safety than by air.

I think monorails and moving walkways are worth persisting with, but only if they service rapid rail!

I'm not fussed about light rail, which can be rendered unusable by flooding rain/pooling water.

And the hugely expensive overhead wires have to remain a worry, both in terms of outlays, safety, cost and maintainence!
Rhrosty.

"There's a common view that a key warrant for major public transport investments is the positive impact they'll have on the rate of global warming."

This is the politically correct view.

There is no empirical scientific evidence to substantiate the hypothesis that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions cause dangerous global warming. Consequently, there is no scientific or economic justification for governments to spend on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Rhosty: Conversely, a very rapid rail system along our eastern seaboard would surely run at a profit.

The claim is not new. However, it has not been borne out by rigorous cost-benefit analysis.

I understood the light rail was to deal with congestion on the existing bus network.
Nothing to do with saving the planet.