The association between rail infrastructure like High Speed Rail and increases in land value is nothing new; it was there when much of Victoria's rail network was built.
What’s not widely understood is that on both the global level and the Australian scale, this urban growth has been a suburban phenomenon.
And it is a very big elephant; the bipartisan target is over 200,000 for 2015/16, about the population of Hobart.
The best evidence we’ve got indicates that motorists do in fact pay the full financial cost of building and maintaining the roads they require.
Why this obsession with preservation even when it comes to structures that are clearly redundant or structurally deficient?
The 30-minute city is the big urban policy idea both the Government and the Opposition are bringing to the election. But how realistic is it?
Regional development and decentralisation are rhetorical favourites of Australian politicians but they're really promoting regional sprawl over suburban sprawl.
But how far could billions of dollars in new rail infrastructure actually go in improving congestion across our cities? Will cars inevitably win? If so, why?
No government has ever offered to be the primary investor in a significant development project anywhere in the north of our continent.
80% of our land mass is sparsely populated and poorly serviced by internet, hospitals, water, railways, roads and ports.
It already contains the seeds of failure – an existing, ingrained culture of family disability fraud and embezzlement that has been operating openly and arrogantly in Australia for years.
The Prime Minister's embrace of east coast High Speed Rail and his spinning of value capture removes any doubt he's just as cynical and opportunistic as Labor and the Greens.