Alan B.,
Graphene ever powering busways is unlikely IMO. Without a common core, induction chargers are inefficient and limited. Graphene is likely to find its way into the busways because of its physical properties, but not its electrical properties. Its electrical properties may, though, be useful in the power storage system of the buses, particularly if they use supercapacitors as well as just batteries.

If battery power isn't enough, overhead wires (or in Adelaide's case, fourth rail) would be far more viable.

As to how competitive buses are with rail, that depends on the numbers of passengers using it. Few railways are very busy from day 1!

> Sydney Harbour Bridge wasn't designed to reduce boat congestion in Sydney Harbour!
Do you have any evidence for that claim?
(Please keep in mind I never said that was its only purpose).

Anyway, you don't have to convince me of the advantages of rail – I probably know more about it than you ever will. I also know that rail has its disadvantages, and is not such a good option when demand is low or dispersed.

Being forward thinking should not be sufficient for an infrastructure project to get built - there's also the matter of addressing needs. The VFT line is arguably more visionary than the SRL, but the demand for the VFT is much greater - shouldn't it get priority?

Please don't assume that an understanding of the issue is anti rail bias - I'm as keen to get railways built as you are (possibly more so) but I know that viability is far from automatic. Australia built many railways to serve population projections that never eventuated. Most of the railways that closed weren't "vastly more economical" - they were an expensive option, often because of overstaffing. The competing roads are usually uncongested, though road maintenance costs are a significant issue. Big haulage companies were not usually a major issue in their closure, though one was a major factor in the failure to standardise the Mount Gambier line.