Reading the article I got them impression that when the author said: > "If the idea is viable and the people behind it are competent, it should have attracted

Reading the article I got them impression that when the author said: > "If the idea is viable and the people behind it are competent, it should have attracted private investment, as there should be a potential to make profit selling the technology. After all, the proposal has been around for 23 years." They are referring specifically to the development of the technology I.E. the trains and rail equipment. Not to an actual infrastructure project. The argument being that governments should find the infrastructure, and buy technologies developed using private funds. Indeed this what we see in the rail industry where companies like Siemens develop rail “packages” which are then sold to multiple infrastructure projects with only minor customisation and modifications. This is in contrast to the example project where a team wanted $250mil to develop new technologies, and also deploy them. Rather than just deploying an already developed technology.