Financing and funding metro infrastructure remain persistent challenges for global cities. The Elizabeth line, formerly Crossrail, has been facing significant funding pressures, while its decade-long-standing former partner, MTR, has financed and funded Hong Kong’s metro expansion through an integrated rail-property model with limited subsidy. Why has that module not been translated to London over their partnership?

This study compares how London and Hong Kong capture land and property values around new metro lines and stations, and what these approaches mean for efficiency, equity, design outcomes, and long-term financial sustainability. Focusing on two major projects, the London Elizabeth Line and Hong Kong Tuen Ma Line, it examines how each city’s institutions, planning systems, and taxation arrangements shape value-capture mechanisms. Methodologically, the study combines document analysis of two decades of policy materials, project reports, and planning documents to provide a rigorous comparative assessment.

The study aims to map trade-offs between predictable, rules-based levies and flexible, negotiated development agreements; identify where value increases are missed, fragmented, or misallocated; and assess the role of station–land integration and non-fare revenues. By explaining why similar rail ambitions produce different funding and project outcomes, the findings contribute to more context-sensitive and financially sustainable strategies for metro infrastructure delivery worldwide.