9 ms·

Arpit Gupta put it very well -- we need Value Capture for transit financing: https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/562077-value-capture-is-the-infrastructure-pay-

Arpit Gupta put it very well -- we need Value Capture for transit financing: https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/562077-value-capture-is-the-infrastructure-pay-for-everyone-is-missing/ https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/562077-value-capture-is-... When you put in a transit line, the surrounding land values go up -- it's as old as the railroads. The governing body needs to capture the increase in those land values. This is how transit is funded in many Asian countries -- the transit project goes from being a cost boondoggle to a profit center that pays for itself, either by taxing the uplift in land values, or the governing body owning that land and leasing it out to e.g. shops.

baby 4y ago
That is if the land there actually wants the traffic and is ready to adapt. Here in SF it feels like no one wants public transport to get to them, and they definitely don't want to build housing or reserve ground units for shops and restaurants
- jxf 4y ago
  In NYC, all the places along the new Second Avenue line shot up immediately once it looked like construction was beginning again, and shot up even more once it opened.
  - yuppie_scum 4y ago
    Same in Boston (Somerville/Medford) with the Green Line Extension. It’s now unaffordable
- mikysco 4y ago
  I feel like SF residents' aversion to new transit projects is unfortunate but totally reasonable... walk anywhere in SF near a BART (subway) stop and you face open drug use, trash, and other problems nobody wants in the neighborhood they call home. It's not like these are intractable problems - other major cities manage to keep their subway stops and surrounding areas clean & pleasant to use. The case against BART expansion is made by the experience & externalities of existing BART.
  - diebeforei485 4y ago
    It's pretty simple - don't tolerate this sort of behavior around public transit stations. Transit riders deserve a safe and clean commute. In the absence of that, they'll retreat to the safe clean cocoon of their cars.
    - logifail 4y ago
      > It's pretty simple - don't tolerate this sort of behavior around public transit stations (I hope it's not seen as outrageous to suggest this, but) perhaps one shouldn't tolerate this sort of behavior anywhere, ever? Everyone deserves safe and clean public spaces.
      - mikysco 4y ago
        You're correct, of course, but the public good from improving the safety/cleanliness of shared infrastructure like transit has a much higher ROI than your "average" public space. Both have societal good but improving transit stops (especially rail) deserves higher priority than your average sidewalk
        logifail 4y ago
        Our eldest (just turned 13 :eek:) walks down an "average sidewalk" to the railway station, rides a train (alone) into town, and walks an "average sidewalk" to his school, and back. Every weekday. He commented on drunks hanging around the (in-town) station in the late afternoon just a few days ago. Everywhere should be safe.
      - rhaway84773 4y ago
        No one thinks “hey every place should not be safe”. That’s obviously what everyone wants. However, given that in practice we have huge swathes of places that are in bad condition you need to start by prioritizing. And it obviously makes a lot of sense to prioritize a public transit station, which not only has much higher usage than a random sidewalk, and is far easier and cheaper to keep safe because it has a much more limited geographic footprint and the major sections are not wide open easily accessible spaces but are controlled by gates that require tickets, than it is to do a wide open sidewalk. It obviously makes sense to start with the space that gives you the most return for the lowest cost and that would be any public space that has the highest usage and density, such as public transit stations. Even better, imposing safety in those transit stations will also have a significant effect in improving safety through the length of the actual BART train ride because access to the train is limited to the few stations. This is not true of a random sidewalk.
- thethethethe 4y ago
  > Here in SF it feels like no one wants public transport to get to them I call BS on this. San Francisco residents just voted 2-1 to fund transportation more. See measure L in: https://sfelections.sfgov.org/measures https://sfelections.sfgov.org/measures The only people who really don't want more, better transit live in Pac Heights and Sea Clif if you look at a precinct voter heatmap.
steve76 4y ago
[dead]
robomartin 4y ago
> The governing body needs to capture the increase in those land values. No. The governing body needs to not burn taxpayer funds like it's candy. Justifying the grotesque over-spending and timelines of these projects by saying "we'll come up with a way to charge you more money in taxes to make-up the difference is the root of all problems with so many projects. Why is it that the first reaction isn't to say do not spend my money that way! EDIT: Interesting to see how this is misunderstood. Let's see if I can make it simpler to understand. 1- There is nothing wrong with demanding that government use our money efficiently. This should not be controversial at all. Would you pay 4x or 10x for someone to build you home or sell you a car? Why not? Why can't we demand the same fairness from government? 2- Do not give more drugs to a drug addict. You are not going to improve the cost-effectiveness of government projects by giving them ore taxes. First make them more efficient. Then we can talk about using the savings for other projects. 3- No. Our (people) reason for existing isn't to pay taxes. Taxes should be the minimum required to do the business we require, not a cent more. That's the problem. Nobody is interested in holding government accountable for the way they conduct business.
- birdyrooster 4y ago
  It is necessary to cede some of your autonomy for cooperation. Cooperation is required for projects that benefit your environment which may serve other people. You have to cede some of your autonomy to serve other people. Anything less is a fantasy and it will hurt you.
- rnk 4y ago
  How do you pay for infrastructure without taxing someone? Mass transit has other goods than the immediate user.
  - ROTMetro 4y ago
    Bonds against future revenue.
    - pas 4y ago
      isn't that what governments already do? they issue bonds then collect taxes for the coupon payments (debt service). raising money this way results in very small risk premiums (so low interest rates) if every project would have to do it separately it'd probably cost even more. and to solve the obvious problem of efficiency a prediction market could be used to decide what to fund with the "cheap" money.
rnk 4y ago
We do tax them, but it's indirect, because property taxes go up. You could do it by say taking 25% of increased property taxes and remitting them to transit costs. That's an interesting idea I never heard of before.
- throwawaymaths 4y ago
  No, I believe the way it's done in Asian countries is that public transportation is run by (usually) private companies that have the right to develop the land. Thus the incentive is to put things on top of transit which align with what commuters need. In Singapore, for example the pad around every station typically has a hawker stand (food court), drugstore, supermarket, which are the things you might need on your way home.
  - NegativeLatency 4y ago
    The US used to work like this, developers would build streetcars to connect suburbs of cities and make it profitable to sell lots to build houses on. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetcar_suburb https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetcar_suburb I live in one but unfortunately there’s no streetcar anymore.
  - nephanth 4y ago
    Tokyo works that way. Here's a good article I read about it: https://pmpstrategy.com/en/insights/publications/item/725-tokyo-est-il-l-avenir-des-transports-europeens-2 https://pmpstrategy.com/en/insights/publications/item/725-to... They do, however, mention some bad externalities at the end
- thescriptkiddie 4y ago
  This exists, it is called tax increment financing.
- 0_____0 4y ago
  In California this is broken -- property taxes are assessed using the price when last sold, plus a 2% annual increase. Any property in California that hasn't changed hands recently is likely very under-taxed. Basically it amounts to a subsidy for sitting on property and not developing it.
rsj_hn 4y ago
Finding more ways to spend even more doesn't solve the problem of why it costs so much.
- pas 4y ago
  luckily it does solve it, because most of the cost is due to low volume. construction in the US is very labor intensive and has low-productivity. plus the permitting process is also very low-throughput. (too many possibilities to stop the process by appeal/suing, and the whole jurisprudence of what is considered a sufficiently detailed environmental assessment is fucked up. the law needs a bit of tweaking to focus more on cost-benefit, include cost of rejecting a project, etc.) and this is also why nuclear power plants are super expensive.
  - rsj_hn 4y ago
    I mean, there is correlation -- whatever we do spend on is extremely expensive, so we get less, whereas other nations that spend more efficiently get more, and therefore there is a correlation between efficiency of spending and quantity obtained, but that's not an argument that if we spent a lot more, we would get better value. A case needs to be made beyond this correlation. A good example is bus service. One can't plausibly argue that US cities have no experience with bus service. Or that it's a difficult engineering problem (unless maybe, you are talking about trolleylines in the Swiss Alps) - but let's see how efficient they are. San Francisco spends 1.3 Billion on SFMTA, with 5700 employees and average weekday ridership (pre-pandemic) of 800K. That's 1 employee per 140 weekday riders. Let's compare to the canton of Zurich, which has 1.5 million people, and 670 square miles (of Swiss mountains). VBZ (Verkehrsbetriebe Zürich) is responsible for all of the transit in this canton - bus, trolley, light rail. It provides rides to 900K daily riders (post-pandemic) that travel 1.7 million kilometers per day, but this is achieved with only 2300 employees, or 1 employee per 390 daily riders, and a budget of $560 million dollars (converted to USD). Now maybe it's "like a nuclear power plant" and if San Francisco were to spend a lot more on bus service, they'd eventually figure out how to deliver it efficiently. But my guess is that if San Francisco were to spend a lot more on bus service, they would deliver it even less efficiently than they are now. So you still have a problem of inefficient delivery in the U.S. Then we can talk about why it cost the city over $300 million to create a single BRT line along Van Ness. Perhaps painting a lane red is like building a nuclear power plant, but I suspect that's not the issue here. https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/S-F-s-Van-Ness-transit-project-is-ready-after-17027218.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/S-F-s-Van-Ness-transi... - - - https://www.stadt-zuerich.ch/vbz/en/index/vbz/facts_figures/number_of_passengers.html https://www.stadt-zuerich.ch/vbz/en/index/vbz/facts_figures/...
twelvechairs 4y ago
> taxing the uplift in land values Need to be clear on this as theres a lot of bad assumptions below The best answer is not a standard 'tax' but a payment that is required when land surrounding new transit is redeveloped to higher density. This is the clearest, cleanest solution. Homeowners dont have to pay if they stay and developers just factor the cost in when buying property which removes the problem of money just ending up with existing landowners when they sell the land. This idea has been around for a long time but not widely implemented in the west yet because the politics is hard. Whichever country does it first will have a massive head start for the future imo
- mjmahone17 4y ago
  Isn’t this a disincentive to densifying the land? It seems like the tax should occur at least on any sale, not just when redevelopment happens. A single family home near transit is far more valuable than a single family home away from transit. There’s no reason existing homeowners should capture all of the value of that increase when they’ve paid nothing and done no work to make it happen.
  - throwaway22032 4y ago
    There are holes regardless. Imagine a railway line/station is built 10 mins walk from me. I'm not interested in the railway line. So I rent out my home and use the proceeds to buy or rent a larger one in a different location without said railway line. Trying to capture that value I think would result in some sort of weird rent control / rent tax central planning nightmare that would have pretty bad side effects. It'd probably end up looking a bit like California's Prop 13(?) where people just stay put.
    - cheriot 4y ago
      I'll be the LVT guy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax
      - deleted 4y ago
a_square_peg 4y ago
This is correct - I think it's called R+P (Rail + Property). The government doesn't pay for the project at all and grants exclusive development right to the transit operator, which in case for Hong Kong is MTR. They then negotiate revenue sharing with commercial and residential developers on rent etc. This works well and these transit operators make more money from real estate (about 2/3) than transit fare (about 1/3). The tricky thing (other than population density) is that the developer will have to assume the risk of the revenue forecast not panning out. I doubt that any transit operators in North America would be willing to do this.
- bobthepanda 4y ago
  It is worth noting that the HK model only works because of artificially high land prices. Virtually all land in Hong Kong is leasehold and the government uses lease revenues to keep taxes low. Hong Kong’s projects are also not immune to cost issues. Per km they have the same cost issues described in the article. Recent projects have had massive cost blowouts, and even before then scope was dropped from projects to save money. The recent Sha Tin to Central Link dropped a station in Central to save money, and the new stations were only built to handle 9 cars instead of the rest of the line’s 12 cars to save money.
  - hker 4y ago
    > The recent Sha Tin to Central Link dropped a station in Central to save money, and the new stations were only built to handle 9 cars instead of the rest of the line’s 12 cars to save money. One speculation is that, it is harder to move 12 cars uphill, than to move 9 cars uphill, after the train crossed the harbor.
    - bobthepanda 4y ago
      The trains are multiple units, so each car has its own powered motors. (Other than trailer cars, but it's pretty trivial to just add more motors.) The logic is pretty simple. Less train cars means less people per train, which means you can have shorter/narrower platforms, less escalators, fewer exits, etc. and significantly reduce the structure size.
msla 4y ago
> either by taxing the uplift in land values This will have to be handled very carefully, lest people catch on and vote against rail expansions for this reason. Maybe don't raise taxes on residential properties, only commercial and industrial.
twobitshifter 4y ago
Another option is what cdpq did with Montreal REM project. We’ll see how that plays out. https://www.cdpqinfra.com/en/news/articles/cdpq-infra-a-better-understanding-of-the-model https://www.cdpqinfra.com/en/news/articles/cdpq-infra-a-bett...

baby 4y ago

That is if the land there actually wants the traffic and is ready to adapt. Here in SF it feels like no one wants public transport to get to them, and they definitely don't want to build housing or reserve ground units for shops and restaurants

jxf 4y ago
In NYC, all the places along the new Second Avenue line shot up immediately once it looked like construction was beginning again, and shot up even more once it opened.
- yuppie_scum 4y ago
  Same in Boston (Somerville/Medford) with the Green Line Extension. It’s now unaffordable
mikysco 4y ago
I feel like SF residents' aversion to new transit projects is unfortunate but totally reasonable... walk anywhere in SF near a BART (subway) stop and you face open drug use, trash, and other problems nobody wants in the neighborhood they call home. It's not like these are intractable problems - other major cities manage to keep their subway stops and surrounding areas clean & pleasant to use. The case against BART expansion is made by the experience & externalities of existing BART.
- diebeforei485 4y ago
  It's pretty simple - don't tolerate this sort of behavior around public transit stations. Transit riders deserve a safe and clean commute. In the absence of that, they'll retreat to the safe clean cocoon of their cars.
  - logifail 4y ago
    > It's pretty simple - don't tolerate this sort of behavior around public transit stations (I hope it's not seen as outrageous to suggest this, but) perhaps one shouldn't tolerate this sort of behavior anywhere, ever? Everyone deserves safe and clean public spaces.
    - mikysco 4y ago
      You're correct, of course, but the public good from improving the safety/cleanliness of shared infrastructure like transit has a much higher ROI than your "average" public space. Both have societal good but improving transit stops (especially rail) deserves higher priority than your average sidewalk
      - logifail 4y ago
        Our eldest (just turned 13 :eek:) walks down an "average sidewalk" to the railway station, rides a train (alone) into town, and walks an "average sidewalk" to his school, and back. Every weekday. He commented on drunks hanging around the (in-town) station in the late afternoon just a few days ago. Everywhere should be safe.
    - rhaway84773 4y ago
      No one thinks “hey every place should not be safe”. That’s obviously what everyone wants. However, given that in practice we have huge swathes of places that are in bad condition you need to start by prioritizing. And it obviously makes a lot of sense to prioritize a public transit station, which not only has much higher usage than a random sidewalk, and is far easier and cheaper to keep safe because it has a much more limited geographic footprint and the major sections are not wide open easily accessible spaces but are controlled by gates that require tickets, than it is to do a wide open sidewalk. It obviously makes sense to start with the space that gives you the most return for the lowest cost and that would be any public space that has the highest usage and density, such as public transit stations. Even better, imposing safety in those transit stations will also have a significant effect in improving safety through the length of the actual BART train ride because access to the train is limited to the few stations. This is not true of a random sidewalk.
thethethethe 4y ago
> Here in SF it feels like no one wants public transport to get to them I call BS on this. San Francisco residents just voted 2-1 to fund transportation more. See measure L in: https://sfelections.sfgov.org/measures https://sfelections.sfgov.org/measures The only people who really don't want more, better transit live in Pac Heights and Sea Clif if you look at a precinct voter heatmap.

steve76 4y ago

[dead]

robomartin 4y ago

> The governing body needs to capture the increase in those land values. No. The governing body needs to not burn taxpayer funds like it's candy. Justifying the grotesque over-spending and timelines of these projects by saying "we'll come up with a way to charge you more money in taxes to make-up the difference is the root of all problems with so many projects. Why is it that the first reaction isn't to say do not spend my money that way! EDIT: Interesting to see how this is misunderstood. Let's see if I can make it simpler to understand. 1- There is nothing wrong with demanding that government use our money efficiently. This should not be controversial at all. Would you pay 4x or 10x for someone to build you home or sell you a car? Why not? Why can't we demand the same fairness from government? 2- Do not give more drugs to a drug addict. You are not going to improve the cost-effectiveness of government projects by giving them ore taxes. First make them more efficient. Then we can talk about using the savings for other projects. 3- No. Our (people) reason for existing isn't to pay taxes. Taxes should be the minimum required to do the business we require, not a cent more. That's the problem. Nobody is interested in holding government accountable for the way they conduct business.

birdyrooster 4y ago
It is necessary to cede some of your autonomy for cooperation. Cooperation is required for projects that benefit your environment which may serve other people. You have to cede some of your autonomy to serve other people. Anything less is a fantasy and it will hurt you.
rnk 4y ago
How do you pay for infrastructure without taxing someone? Mass transit has other goods than the immediate user.
- ROTMetro 4y ago
  Bonds against future revenue.
  - pas 4y ago
    isn't that what governments already do? they issue bonds then collect taxes for the coupon payments (debt service). raising money this way results in very small risk premiums (so low interest rates) if every project would have to do it separately it'd probably cost even more. and to solve the obvious problem of efficiency a prediction market could be used to decide what to fund with the "cheap" money.

rnk 4y ago

We do tax them, but it's indirect, because property taxes go up. You could do it by say taking 25% of increased property taxes and remitting them to transit costs. That's an interesting idea I never heard of before.

throwawaymaths 4y ago
No, I believe the way it's done in Asian countries is that public transportation is run by (usually) private companies that have the right to develop the land. Thus the incentive is to put things on top of transit which align with what commuters need. In Singapore, for example the pad around every station typically has a hawker stand (food court), drugstore, supermarket, which are the things you might need on your way home.
- NegativeLatency 4y ago
  The US used to work like this, developers would build streetcars to connect suburbs of cities and make it profitable to sell lots to build houses on. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetcar_suburb https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetcar_suburb I live in one but unfortunately there’s no streetcar anymore.
- nephanth 4y ago
  Tokyo works that way. Here's a good article I read about it: https://pmpstrategy.com/en/insights/publications/item/725-tokyo-est-il-l-avenir-des-transports-europeens-2 https://pmpstrategy.com/en/insights/publications/item/725-to... They do, however, mention some bad externalities at the end
thescriptkiddie 4y ago
This exists, it is called tax increment financing.
0_____0 4y ago
In California this is broken -- property taxes are assessed using the price when last sold, plus a 2% annual increase. Any property in California that hasn't changed hands recently is likely very under-taxed. Basically it amounts to a subsidy for sitting on property and not developing it.

rsj_hn 4y ago

Finding more ways to spend even more doesn't solve the problem of why it costs so much.

pas 4y ago
luckily it does solve it, because most of the cost is due to low volume. construction in the US is very labor intensive and has low-productivity. plus the permitting process is also very low-throughput. (too many possibilities to stop the process by appeal/suing, and the whole jurisprudence of what is considered a sufficiently detailed environmental assessment is fucked up. the law needs a bit of tweaking to focus more on cost-benefit, include cost of rejecting a project, etc.) and this is also why nuclear power plants are super expensive.
- rsj_hn 4y ago
  I mean, there is correlation -- whatever we do spend on is extremely expensive, so we get less, whereas other nations that spend more efficiently get more, and therefore there is a correlation between efficiency of spending and quantity obtained, but that's not an argument that if we spent a lot more, we would get better value. A case needs to be made beyond this correlation. A good example is bus service. One can't plausibly argue that US cities have no experience with bus service. Or that it's a difficult engineering problem (unless maybe, you are talking about trolleylines in the Swiss Alps) - but let's see how efficient they are. San Francisco spends 1.3 Billion on SFMTA, with 5700 employees and average weekday ridership (pre-pandemic) of 800K. That's 1 employee per 140 weekday riders. Let's compare to the canton of Zurich, which has 1.5 million people, and 670 square miles (of Swiss mountains). VBZ (Verkehrsbetriebe Zürich) is responsible for all of the transit in this canton - bus, trolley, light rail. It provides rides to 900K daily riders (post-pandemic) that travel 1.7 million kilometers per day, but this is achieved with only 2300 employees, or 1 employee per 390 daily riders, and a budget of $560 million dollars (converted to USD). Now maybe it's "like a nuclear power plant" and if San Francisco were to spend a lot more on bus service, they'd eventually figure out how to deliver it efficiently. But my guess is that if San Francisco were to spend a lot more on bus service, they would deliver it even less efficiently than they are now. So you still have a problem of inefficient delivery in the U.S. Then we can talk about why it cost the city over $300 million to create a single BRT line along Van Ness. Perhaps painting a lane red is like building a nuclear power plant, but I suspect that's not the issue here. https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/S-F-s-Van-Ness-transit-project-is-ready-after-17027218.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/S-F-s-Van-Ness-transi... - - - https://www.stadt-zuerich.ch/vbz/en/index/vbz/facts_figures/number_of_passengers.html https://www.stadt-zuerich.ch/vbz/en/index/vbz/facts_figures/...

twelvechairs 4y ago

> taxing the uplift in land values Need to be clear on this as theres a lot of bad assumptions below The best answer is not a standard 'tax' but a payment that is required when land surrounding new transit is redeveloped to higher density. This is the clearest, cleanest solution. Homeowners dont have to pay if they stay and developers just factor the cost in when buying property which removes the problem of money just ending up with existing landowners when they sell the land. This idea has been around for a long time but not widely implemented in the west yet because the politics is hard. Whichever country does it first will have a massive head start for the future imo

mjmahone17 4y ago
Isn’t this a disincentive to densifying the land? It seems like the tax should occur at least on any sale, not just when redevelopment happens. A single family home near transit is far more valuable than a single family home away from transit. There’s no reason existing homeowners should capture all of the value of that increase when they’ve paid nothing and done no work to make it happen.
- throwaway22032 4y ago
  There are holes regardless. Imagine a railway line/station is built 10 mins walk from me. I'm not interested in the railway line. So I rent out my home and use the proceeds to buy or rent a larger one in a different location without said railway line. Trying to capture that value I think would result in some sort of weird rent control / rent tax central planning nightmare that would have pretty bad side effects. It'd probably end up looking a bit like California's Prop 13(?) where people just stay put.
  - cheriot 4y ago
    I'll be the LVT guy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax
    - deleted 4y ago

a_square_peg 4y ago

This is correct - I think it's called R+P (Rail + Property). The government doesn't pay for the project at all and grants exclusive development right to the transit operator, which in case for Hong Kong is MTR. They then negotiate revenue sharing with commercial and residential developers on rent etc. This works well and these transit operators make more money from real estate (about 2/3) than transit fare (about 1/3). The tricky thing (other than population density) is that the developer will have to assume the risk of the revenue forecast not panning out. I doubt that any transit operators in North America would be willing to do this.

bobthepanda 4y ago
It is worth noting that the HK model only works because of artificially high land prices. Virtually all land in Hong Kong is leasehold and the government uses lease revenues to keep taxes low. Hong Kong’s projects are also not immune to cost issues. Per km they have the same cost issues described in the article. Recent projects have had massive cost blowouts, and even before then scope was dropped from projects to save money. The recent Sha Tin to Central Link dropped a station in Central to save money, and the new stations were only built to handle 9 cars instead of the rest of the line’s 12 cars to save money.
- hker 4y ago
  > The recent Sha Tin to Central Link dropped a station in Central to save money, and the new stations were only built to handle 9 cars instead of the rest of the line’s 12 cars to save money. One speculation is that, it is harder to move 12 cars uphill, than to move 9 cars uphill, after the train crossed the harbor.
  - bobthepanda 4y ago
    The trains are multiple units, so each car has its own powered motors. (Other than trailer cars, but it's pretty trivial to just add more motors.) The logic is pretty simple. Less train cars means less people per train, which means you can have shorter/narrower platforms, less escalators, fewer exits, etc. and significantly reduce the structure size.

msla 4y ago

> either by taxing the uplift in land values This will have to be handled very carefully, lest people catch on and vote against rail expansions for this reason. Maybe don't raise taxes on residential properties, only commercial and industrial.

twobitshifter 4y ago

Another option is what cdpq did with Montreal REM project. We’ll see how that plays out. https://www.cdpqinfra.com/en/news/articles/cdpq-infra-a-better-understanding-of-the-model https://www.cdpqinfra.com/en/news/articles/cdpq-infra-a-bett...