The construction of Canberra has always been a unique project for Australia. After Sydney and Melbourne could not resolve their differences and the decision was taken to build a new capital for a newly federated country, the question of Canberra's construction was largely artificial.
Unlike cities which form naturally over time, where streets follow the contours of the generally fertile and resource-rich landscape that supports a growing economy and population, Canberra has relied on top-down planning and infrastructure projects to lay out a city for residents well in advance of their arrival.
When the Commonwealth was picking up the tab for the new roads, schools, shops, sewers and footpaths, as well as directing their public servants to work, spend and live in areas under development, Canberra could be built at a serious clip.
This is no longer the case. The ACT government, which has had responsibility for much of the capital's expansion for the better part of 40 years now, has to balance the demands of a fast-growing population, the high expectations of a well-serviced population and the limitations of its own budget.
It is hardly a surprise Chief Minister Andrew Barr has said ahead of Wednesday's budget that his government would try to save $700 million over four years from its infrastructure spend, formally bringing to an end the ACT's high-spending, low-interest COVID-era infrastructure boom.
The territory budget is under significant pressure and, as independent economist Saul Eslake has observed, the bulk of the deterioration is a direct result of the government's conscious decisions. The ACT government needs to change course. It cannot keep spending at the same rate, and certainly not without the prospect of steep tax increases.
But Mr Barr and his treasurer, Chris Steel, also must prove they can strike the balance between targeted savings from the infrastructure pipeline and stripping out necessary investments for a growing city, where many citizens already feel the government is failing to keep up with the city's needs.
While large projects, like the light rail extension and a future stadium, dominate the headlines, many of the smaller works keep the capital moving and growing. The opportunity cost of delaying footpaths, sewer upgrades, shops and schools also needs to be accounted for alongside touted up-front savings in any balance sheet.
Mr Eslake recommended the government articulate and adopt a more disciplined fiscal strategy before the end of the decade. The economist, who came to the task with the high regard of all sides of politics in the Legislative Assembly, also said the government should determine each year how much it can afford to spend on infrastructure over the forward estimates.
The government should "then determine which projects are to be funded by 'ranking' them in descending order of benefit-cost ratios", Mr Eslake said.
Of course, a cost-benefit ratio cannot be defined for every government infrastructure project. Governments are often left to build things because the market never would. But with more transparent information, voters can better cast judgement on which projects should and should not proceed, and Mr Barr's government can better outline what it intends to build - and when.
Blocking up the infrastructure pipeline to fix the budget on paper would be the worst kind of false economy for the capital. Adjusting the flow of works and spending needs to be managed with care and consideration - and with full transparency of its opportunity costs.
