In some countries the transit companies (public or private) also become the landowners of the adjacent areas - this would be the "rail plus property" model.

In fact, the rail plus property model allows the rail operate to better capture their added value, so it applies even in "private" scenarios. The most famous example would be Tokyo.

The goal shouldn't be for the public to be able to reap direct financial benefits from the induced activity around transit hubs, the goal should be to firstly to incentivize and maintain affordable, high quality, sustainable transit, secondly to provide more and better economic opportunities.

This is the case in Hong Kong as well. The subway company is also involved in the malls built on top of them.

There are malls and neighborhoods built entirely around the subway station

Same in Switzerland, with the added quirk/bonus that shops in train stations are allowed to open on Sundays, when shops outside of train stations usually can't open due to employment laws. This wasn't originally meant as a way to increase attractiveness of businesses in train stations and other public transit places, rather as a way to make sure that people travelling have services available while on their way. But nowadays it's definitely a big reason for people to come specifically shop in train stations on the weekend.

A version of this is common now in the US through Tax Increment Financing.

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/value_capture/defined/tax_incre...

I don’t see how that is a version of what llamaimperative posts.

If anything, TIF increases rewards for landowners who do nothing or otherwise underutilize land. Taxing the product of work to make a piece of land beneficial for society is amazingly backwards.

The proper direction to go in is marginal land value tax rates, with increasing penalties the longer a spaces remains unused.

> Just imagine if the public could capture the (financial) upside it produces...

Like through taxes on the sale of the property or the increased business income it produces? The public will.

> Like through taxes on the sale of the property

That just encourages corporate ownership of property (unless you mitigate that), but overall I don’t know why we’d disincentivize moving closer to a new workplace or into a smaller home once it will do for you.

It also disincentivizes speculation, which is just a flurry of repeated transactions.

Spec can be loooooong term, even longer than natural person

Perfect is not the enemy of good.

In a lot of places, due to tax revolts there are now property tax caps which effectively prevent this from happening.

Then the people have spoken. They can speak again and differently if they like.

This typically goes to the higher level of government. Not the local one that manage and build that transit system.

Why should the transit system butt into the jurisdiction of the traditional government just because transit is built somewhere?

As a silly dystopia, imagine that a transit agency could grab revenue as you suggest it might. Then everything becomes a transit land grab.

No, taxes on the unimproved value of the land

Property taxes include that, generally.