And watch the businesses move as fast as they can.
"Value capturing"...is another term for a tax. On a value that is unrealised and probably make believe.
So Australia should never develop further economically?
That sort of view would be laughed at in Japan, Turkey, Spain, France, mainland China, Taiwan and Singapore to name a few.
Those who take risks with capital are often rewarded. We do this at a micro level if we extend our homes: often that occurs with borrowed money.
Many increases in 'value' are 'unrealised': investors who hold shares may not sell for long periods (or at all) but they can benefit from any increase in 'value' by selling some or all of their portfolio. They might also receive growth in dividends.
Levying an amount on beneficiaries has already occurred to a limited extent in Australia with previous infrastructure projects. No one even mentions it today among those businesses that paid such a levy at the time years ago. The value uplift has often been a huge multiple of any levy.
High speed rail has been very successful in multiple countries, including over some Australian lower east coast equivalent distances. The technology is continuing to advance. We have the population on the lower east coast to support it. Importantly, we also have the travel demand.
The alternative is to continue to be stuck with suboptimal air travel that while in theory great will never attract the number of intercapital or intrastate passenger journeys that a competently built and operated - note use of the word 'competent' - high speed rail network would induce. Nor does air travel aid the development of smaller cities in the way that true high speed rail does.
We have many hindrances: the CFMEU, unbelievably high building costs in the unionised larger commercial (and industrial) sectors, incredibly detailed, burdensome and bureaucratic planning, environmental, native title and noise emissions requirements and multiple layers of governments.
Can we still build today's equivalent of the Snowy Mountains Scheme in high speed rail? Open question, but naysayers (some of whom include airlines and airport managers because they know the experience overseas in how high speed trains, depending on distance have either knocked them for six or at the very least on longer routes caused moderate loss of market share) should not be allowed to control the debate.
We need foreign expertise to assist. Companies are lining up to undertake the work even though the project is not even at an 'EOI' stage.
It is not impossible that a company such as Qantas or whatever form Virgin Australia (Singapore Air Inc?) or a second domestic airline takes in future years may want to get on board and become part of a consortium.
