Funding on the Line? Understanding community preferences for value capture - the case of Melbourne’s Suburban Rail Loop

Source abstract

Debates on land value capture (LVC) often lack empirical evidence on public acceptance of specific funding instruments. This study develops and applies a replicable adaptive choice-based conjoint (ACBC) survey framework to estimate community support and willingness to pay (WTP) for hypothecated levies to fund major public transport infrastructure. Using Melbourne’s Suburban Rail Loop (SRL) as a case study, we administered a panel survey of 637 respondents drawn from predefined catchment and matched control postcodes in September–October 2021, and estimated part-worth utilities using hierarchical Bayesian (HB) methods. Respondents evaluated levy packages varying across four attributes: levy base (area-wide flat, distance-tiered, or uplift-based), payment term (fixed versus ongoing), delivery timing (0 to 3 years sooner), and price (annual amount chargable per household). Results show that price is the dominant attribute, although directionally consistent preferences for other attributes are also evident. Respondents strongly prefer fixed-term charges and demonstrate positive WTP for accelerating project delivery by one to two years. At the aggregate level, levy-base differences are less certain, with credible intervals overlapping zero for all comparisons; however, area-wide flat levy designs show broader acceptance across distance bands, while support for value-uplift-based levies is sensitive to planned station proximity. We further identify disparities in awareness, support, and WTP: women, non-English-speaking respondents, and those uncertain of their property’s value show lower awareness or support, while non-owners and residents outside the project catchment exhibit lower levy tolerance. Importantly, support levels measured after the conjoint tasks are contingent on specific levy designs, suggesting that public attitudes are highly sensitive to funding instrument design. Findings suggest that area-wide flat, fixed-term levies with a short delivery acceleration window are most likely to achieve broad community acceptance. Policymakers should account for heterogeneity in awareness and proximity when delineating beneficiary areas and designing communication strategies. The ACBC framework demonstrated in this paper is transferable to comparable infrastructure funding contexts, subject to adaptation for local institutional conditions.