Jabird.
So if it is government led, how can it promise to be so profitable at the same time? Either or on this one please Silver!
A government does not need a project to be 'profitable' in the same way as a company does.
When constructing a huge project, a government gets tax receipts on salaries, lower unemployment costs, corporation taxes from profitable companies, plus an economy that is no longer in recession - which means lower government borrowing costs.
In addition, when looking long term, what do you mean by 'profitable'? Would we be better off without some of those great Victorian constructions that were dubiously economic to start with? Did the Saltash, Clifton and Minai bridges not prove their worth in the end? Were the Great Western and South Devon lines not a national asset in the end? Would we be better off if these magnificent structures were never built?
.