We model mobility infrastructure as a physical asset play. What if platform operators monetise the route itself — making infrastructure owners into utilities with no pricing power?

Uber's European profitability was driven by routing algorithm improvements, not physical network investment. The value capture may be migrating permanently from infrastructure to software, mirroring what happened to music labels when streaming arrived.

Our transit hub investments depend on city government contracts. But if Platform Cities plays out, cities may outsource mobility planning entirely — making us contractors to the platforms, not to the cities.

Three European cities have already issued RFPs that include platform integration requirements, effectively making a MaaS operator the primary contract holder. This was not in our original investment thesis and changes our negotiating leverage significantly.

If Autonomous Sprawl is the dominant outcome, is our investment thesis in urban density a structural mistake — or simply a bet on the 30% of European mobility that will always concentrate in dense cores?

AV regulatory timeline acceleration signals suggest the sprawl scenario may arrive faster in Germany and the Netherlands than consensus expects. Urban density assumptions underpin 65% of our current portfolio. We have never stress-tested the geographic distribution explicitly.

Toyota's robo-taxi announcement may signal OEM re-entry into managed mobility — meaning the competitive dynamic is not platform vs. infrastructure, but OEM-backed platforms vs. independent infrastructure.

Toyota, Volkswagen, and Stellantis have all announced managed mobility initiatives in Q1 2026. If OEMs successfully vertically integrate fleet management, platform, and vehicle, independent infrastructure investors face a concentrated competitive threat with very deep pockets.