Waterfront Transit Reset Phase 1 Study

[steveintoronto]

Just spit-balling here, but why does the N-S segment of this line have to be Bay St?
Put the portal in the newly opened-up park space on the NE corner of QQW & York. Run under York to Bremner, then make the right turn and go under the ACC Atrium like was planned at one point for the WWLRT. That would also give greater flexibility in terms of where to build the loop at Union.

Yes, Bay may be the most direct path, but if it forces too many design compromises than maybe looking at an alternative N-S corridor may be an option.

Put the portal in the newly opened-up park space on the NE corner of QQW & York. Run under York to Bremner, then make the right turn and go under the ACC Atrium like was planned at one point for the WWLRT. That would also give greater flexibility in terms of where to build the loop at Union.

I understand a few of your references, and certainly support your gist on new ways to approach this, whether you're talking of a new portal into the same Bay St tunnel up to Union or another, I'm unsure. The one a few of us mentioned was 'daylighting' the present tunnel to just north of QQ. Eliminate the tunnel opening onto QQ, and do it on Bay just north of QQ to allow a 'Wye' on the surface.

We really need some sketches of these excellent ideas, anyone suggest a good prog for drawing on top of Google map?

The Bremner option was mentioned briefly by Munro a few days back, and confirmed as to a route (gist) "roughed in through the basement of the ACC" and fully agreed, we should be looking at all possibilities, that one included, and doing a run-through of the new GO bus terminal and out to Yonge and south to form a loop. Cumbersome? Yes, but highly affordable and quick to build.

That would also give greater flexibility in terms of where to build the loop at Union.

Maybe no loop at all, save the present one to still serve the Spadina leg. We've got to make a meal with what we have, and it might all be there, save a few flourishes.

Just spit-balling here, but why does the N-S segment of this line have to be Bay St?

No, albeit it looks like one of the easiest options for a surface line to continue up Bay north of Union. Any and all reasonable options should be examined. As abstract as some of these ideas are, looking at the 'best' plan at Munro's site immediately allows entertaining many other options.

Merging the two lines may make some sense now that the DRL is closer to reality.

Yeah...and that opens a number of possibilities that I thought of but didn't mention before, not least if they share the same track gauge, and allow interlining. What would be asinine is to not consider how they can be combined, operational symbiosis, even if it's until the RL is continued further north than Danforth, and run by LRTs in tunnel makes perfect sense to consider. Now I prefer a totally different option, standard gauge rail hosting single deck EMU RER run by GO, but all options should be on the table. Posters are coming up with far better ones than have been suggested by Waterfront, the TTC/City and others.

Have two terminals in the west (Spadina, and Exhibition) and two in the east (the proposed east harbour station, and ??? Cherry???)

Could you resubmit that suggestion with more detail? Another case where even a crude diagram would say what a hundred words would and still better.

DRL doesn't have stations that make it a good connection for those who live on the waterfront and work downtown, or those in 80% of Toronto trying to get to the Harbour center or ferry terminal. It could run as a through line, but something north/south from Union is still required; breaking YUS into 2 separate lines with one terminating at Union and the other at Queens Quay would probably work okay though.

Yeah...this would be where a continuous LRT down Bay (partly or completely) to QQ and across would 'connect; the waterfront much better. Best to leave the subway as is...unless! that's part of a much larger reconfiguration of the subways. Doubtful in the case of Toronto. I do see massive projects happening, but to completely bypass the subway, not chop it up and reuse it in parts of a greater new whole,

What has been on the table from day one would see TTC running a line from Broadview Station to the EX, bypassing Union Loop by Cherry Street and QQE.

Now this speaks to a much bigger and bolder vision, and surprisingly, affordable in the big picture. Some of the 'institutional ideas' for redoing the Union Loop look good, but at close to $1B, they better do far more than just 'fix the loop at Union'. It has to be part of a much grander vision. And this would be one.

And just to prove the worth of the many ideas above, and more to come, with Sidewalk's 'new approach' I think we'll be seeing a QQE LRT sooner than later...and lol...watch for a few heart attacks at City Hall and QP when it's announced how it's going to be financed, built, and operated.

 

[steveintoronto]

With zero personal transit planning knowledge I’d love it if Yonge and Church up to Bloor were car-free with wider sidewalks and the waterfront streetcars looping. Make Bay and Jarvis the car only streets.

I agree, one of the major north-south arteries mid-town has to become a transit-way, but you haven't quite explained your case:

and the waterfront streetcars looping.

Where? And as much as I despise cars uber all, we can only afford to do a transitway on one of the major n-s midtown streets. And since Yonge already hosts a subway, Church and Bay are the only ones left save for York in the southern flank, and Church is very awkwardly placed to do what needs to be done as per QQ. Church is touted to be connected through to QQ at some point, but it gets us away from the immediate challenge: The Union Loop or The Alternatives.

The more I think about it, the more a Bay Transitway with surface LRT makes sense, and it being the QQE line turned north, and being built in such a way as to let the present underground Spadina Loop remain fully functioning uninterrupted, save for passenger platform and passenger tunnel improvement.

The Ferry Station would have to have some tweaks done to it when the upper level is opened, and passenger change between the two accentuated.

Some of Tweed's points on York are growing on me, not as an alternative to what Bay offers, but in conjunction with it, at the least, in terms of having an alternate loop to start operations of QQE with the Bay extension opening later, and the York Loop acting as a short turn when needed later.

Unless double ended stock is to be used, short turn loops will be necessary. This is a point I disagree with Munro on. There are downsides to double ended stock, but the longer the consist, the greater the upside and less the down. It means the ability to install switch-backs at regular distances along lines, and also allows blockage bypasses.

 

[BurlOak]

How about Yonge for Northbound and York for Southbound (haven't really thought this through).

QQW (eastbound) goes to Yonge, up Yonge to Edward (just north of Dundas), across to Chestnut and down Simcoe to continue on QQE (eastbound).
QQE (westbound) goes to Yonge, up Yonge to Edward (just north of Dundas), across to Chestnut and down Simcoe to continue on QQW (westbound).

Alternate QQW and QQE train just continue going straight on QQ.

 

[dowlingm]

A Church-Cooper connection would need track from Wellington to Queens Quay to join QQ to the wider network. It would be a damn side easier than pushing under Bay. But the TTC doesn’t want to fight through traffic and after Al Carbone’s antics we can see how little fight the City has to take on cars in this town.

 

[steveintoronto]

after Al Carbone’s antics we can see how little fight the City has to take on cars in this town.

Nothing demonstrates that clearer than the King St Pilot. The City had the chance with the Wynne regime in power to apply for changes to, and use of extant sections of the HTA to innovate better ways of doing things.
PART XVI
PILOT PROJECTS

There's immense power in that section. Not a word from the City to QP on it. And now any request is met with deaf ears.

If we discuss any north-south transitways (and it will be crazy to consider surface LRT without one) the best we can hope for for this generation is one, and one only. So best we get it right.

And Bay Street is exquisitely positioned to ferry city subway relief north and south in the core. The question really is how much of it can be used by diverting vehicular traffic flow from it. And at the end of the day, that vehicular diversion is going to be a hell of a lot cheaper than trying to put a new cut-and-cover LRT route north from QQE to Union and ostensibly further north. To not get it up to at least the proposed Relief Line would be insane.

The King Street Pilot could/should hold a lot of answers as to how that can be done. And at this rate, City Hall is demonstrating the athletic prowess of a Sloth.

God help me for stating this, it shouldn't have to be this way, but the best answer might be Sidewalk Labs privately financing the QQE LRT and using the powers of Section 92 of the Constitution to do it with a Federal Charter. ("tramways and street railways" are covered under various federal acts, including the Constitution Act, if applied-for upon incorporation) Trying to do anything of this calibre with the City or QP at this juncture in time is next to impossible.

See:

Sidewalk Labs in talks with investors for Toronto smart-city infrastructure, document shows

Internal report to parent company Alphabet shows urban-planning firm is also in talks with Canada Infrastructure Bank

www.theglobeandmail.com

 

[W. K. Lis]

From link.

March 2019 Public Meeting​

​

​

On March 4, 2019, we held a public meeting to gain feedback on the transit-technology options and finds of analysis for the link between Union Station and Queens Quay. The public meeting included a presentation and display panels.​

​

 

[steveintoronto]

From link.

March 2019 Public Meeting​

​

​

On March 4, 2019, we held a public meeting to gain feedback on the transit-technology options and finds of analysis for the link between Union Station and Queens Quay. The public meeting included a presentation and display panels.​

​

Just skimming through that, and this is very relevant to our discussion here, and the ostensible advantage of QQE doing a surface run up Bay to the Relief Line:

https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/8ed3-AODA-Compliant-4-March-Public-Presentation-Boards_v3_Reduced.pdf

And I include this to show @dowlingm 's point and that of others as to how 'car-centric' this city is. Note the consideration of a 'transitway' doesn't even cross their minds:

https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/8ed3-AODA-Compliant-4-March-Public-Presentation-Boards_v3_Reduced.pdf

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

I understand a few of your references, and certainly support your gist on new ways to approach this, whether you're talking of a new portal into the same Bay St tunnel up to Union or another, I'm unsure. The one a few of us mentioned was 'daylighting' the present tunnel to just north of QQ. Eliminate the tunnel opening onto QQ, and do it on Bay just north of QQ to allow a 'Wye' on the surface.

We really need some sketches of these excellent ideas, anyone suggest a good prog for drawing on top of Google map?

The Bremner option was mentioned briefly by Munro a few days back, and confirmed as to a route (gist) "roughed in through the basement of the ACC" and fully agreed, we should be looking at all possibilities, that one included, and doing a run-through of the new GO bus terminal and out to Yonge and south to form a loop. Cumbersome? Yes, but highly affordable and quick to build. Maybe no loop at all, save the present one to still serve the Spadina leg. We've got to make a meal with what we have, and it might all be there, save a few flourishes.
No, albeit it looks like one of the easiest options for a surface line to continue up Bay north of Union. Any and all reasonable options should be examined. As abstract as some of these ideas are, looking at the 'best' plan at Munro's site immediately allows entertaining many other options.

Yeah...and that opens a number of possibilities that I thought of but didn't mention before, not least if they share the same track gauge, and allow interlining. What would be asinine is to not consider how they can be combined, operational symbiosis, even if it's until the RL is continued further north than Danforth, and run by LRTs in tunnel makes perfect sense to consider. Now I prefer a totally different option, standard gauge rail hosting single deck EMU RER run by GO, but all options should be on the table. Posters are coming up with far better ones than have been suggested by Waterfront, the TTC/City and others.
Could you resubmit that suggestion with more detail? Another case where even a crude diagram would say what a hundred words would and still better.
Yeah...this would be where a continuous LRT down Bay (partly or completely) to QQ and across would 'connect; the waterfront much better. Best to leave the subway as is...unless! that's part of a much larger reconfiguration of the subways. Doubtful in the case of Toronto. I do see massive projects happening, but to completely bypass the subway, not chop it up and reuse it in parts of a greater new whole,
Now this speaks to a much bigger and bolder vision, and surprisingly, affordable in the big picture. Some of the 'institutional ideas' for redoing the Union Loop look good, but at close to $1B, they better do far more than just 'fix the loop at Union'. It has to be part of a much grander vision. And this would be one.

And just to prove the worth of the many ideas above, and more to come, with Sidewalk's 'new approach' I think we'll be seeing a QQE LRT sooner than later...and lol...watch for a few heart attacks at City Hall and QP when it's announced how it's going to be financed, built, and operated.

Here is a map of my suggested routing.

Lakshore Streetcar service. - Google My Maps

Suggested routing of a Lakeshore line bypassing Union Station.

drive.google.com

Taking a second look there is not an obvious second station in the East after East Harbour. So I've modifyed it slightly to have one branch serve Broadview instead of Cherry as I initially mentioned.

 

[steveintoronto]

Here is a map of my suggested routing.

Lakshore Streetcar service. - Google My Maps

Suggested routing of a Lakeshore line bypassing Union Station.

drive.google.com

Taking a second look there is not an obvious second station in the East after East Harbour. So I've modifyed it slightly to have one branch serve Broadview instead of Cherry as I initially mentioned.

Excellent as per map drawing! It would have taken a massive amount of text to explain that, and still lend itself to misunderstanding. I've got to learn to use that app.

Will pore over your prior post and the map and comment later. Must run...

Clarification: I wrote:

The one a few of us mentioned was 'daylighting' the present tunnel to just north of QQ.

"Daylighting" is the wrong term, that infers still leaving the track in a ditch in lieu of the tunnel being roofed over. In fact I should have stated 'filled and shortened to'. In the event, I'm more than ever of the opinion that leaving the present tunnel as is, and running QQE LRT on the surface turning north up Bay over the present tunnel, and not connecting QQE and QQW at all via tracks (just passenger interchange at the Ferry Station by going upstairs/downstairs) and so avoiding a lattice of tracks at the intersection is the best way to do this. As to whether QQE LRT will be single or double ended vehicle/consists also takes on a whole new dynamic with the following:

I'm of the opinion with the Sidewalk/Infrastructure Bank announcement of consultation going back months that QQE will be a private initiative and much more likely to be 'stand-alone' apart from the TTC, save for perhaps an operating agreement. Think Docklands Light Rail in the London, UK (although now part of TfL, the same gov't body that oversees the Underground/Overground etc).

I suspect we'll be seeing more 'proprietary' proposals for QQE LRT in the next while.

 

[drum118]

Here is a map of my suggested routing.

Lakshore Streetcar service. - Google My Maps

Suggested routing of a Lakeshore line bypassing Union Station.

drive.google.com

Taking a second look there is not an obvious second station in the East after East Harbour. So I've modifyed it slightly to have one branch serve Broadview instead of Cherry as I initially mentioned.

You need to add Broadview extension to Commissioners St, Commissioners to Cherry, Cherry along the QQE. No plans to add tracks on Parliament St to King St as it would require rebuilt the overpass like it has to be for Cherry St.

Broadview is to go over the Shipping Channel down the road.

As I noted before, until the land owners between Parliament and Cherry come up with a development plant, the QQE can't be built there so say the City.

 

[gweed123]

I understand a few of your references, and certainly support your gist on new ways to approach this, whether you're talking of a new portal into the same Bay St tunnel up to Union or another, I'm unsure. The one a few of us mentioned was 'daylighting' the present tunnel to just north of QQ. Eliminate the tunnel opening onto QQ, and do it on Bay just north of QQ to allow a 'Wye' on the surface.

I'm talking about a new portal on the west side of the park on the NE corner of QQ & York, running N-S. Basically, the intersection of QQ & York would feature a surface wye, from which QQW eastbound trains would turn left into the portal, and QQE westbound trains would turn right into it. The existing portal at Bay would be abandoned, with tracks running on the surface straight through the intersection.

The secondary benefit of this would be that the existing Bay tunnel could actually be used for the People Mover that was originally proposed. While that option may not make sense as a substitute for a rail connection, it may make sense as a supplement to it, particularly if that tunnel infrastructure would be abandoned otherwise.

 

[thettctransitfanatic]

You need to add Broadview extension to Commissioners St, Commissioners to Cherry, Cherry along the QQE. No plans to add tracks on Parliament St to King St as it would require rebuilt the overpass like it has to be for Cherry St.

Broadview is to go over the Shipping Channel down the road.

As I noted before, until the land owners between Parliament and Cherry come up with a development plant, the QQE can't be built there so say the City.

It would be interesting if that all ends up getting built. Hopefully the city redevolops that large swath of land to accommodate.

 

[steveintoronto]

I'm talking about a new portal on the west side of the park on the NE corner of QQ & York, running N-S. Basically, the intersection of QQ & York would feature a surface wye, from which QQW eastbound trains would turn left into the portal, and QQE westbound trains would turn right into it. The existing portal at Bay would be abandoned, with tracks running on the surface straight through the intersection.

The secondary benefit of this would be that the existing Bay tunnel could actually be used for the People Mover that was originally proposed. While that option may not make sense as a substitute for a rail connection, it may make sense as a supplement to it, particularly if that tunnel infrastructure would be abandoned otherwise.

OK, I've located the ostensible new portal location as you describe

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

www.google.ca

But where's the connection to the (a) tunnel to Union? I've mentally modelled a number of scenarios with the portal there, none of which appears superior to the just Bay option. Have reread your proposal a few times, and can only assume you mean for there to be an LRT loop close to QQ with a People Mover transiting the existing tunnel minus the southern portal to Union?

I'm still thinking best option is a stand-alone QQE surface LRT on Bay to Union and perhaps beyond. And what might be limiting our options is the assumption that the QQE LRT will in fact be an LRT!

The Docklands Light Railway model offers solutions not easily available with LRT, like running up onto guideways to loop into Union Station Trainshed south side and back out a different route.

Consider the striking parallels:

[...]
The government created the London Docklands Development Corporation (LDDC) in July 1981 to coordinate the redevelopment of the Docklands. The need to provide a cheap public transport solution led to it commissioning London Transport to evaluate a number of exclusively light rail options. The core of the route ran alongside the Great Eastern line out of London and south along the former London & Blackwall Railway line through the Isle of Dogs. Three terminus options were proposed at the west end, at Tower Hill, Minories and Aldgate East. The Tower Hill option would have required a low-level interchange to be constructed alongside the existing Underground station, but this would have been a very costly venture. The Minories option, a high-level station virtually on the site of the old Minories railway station, was selected and became the current Tower Gateway DLR terminus.[13] Aldgate East would have been perhaps the most ambitious of all of the options, as it originally envisaged a low-level connection with the District line that would have allowed DLR trains to run on Underground tracks to a variety of central London destinations. However, it quickly became apparent that there was no capacity on the existing network for integrating the DLR into the Underground.[14]
[...]

Docklands Light Railway - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If Sidewalk was going to propose a light rail option, it would not meet TTC policy and union agreements if it's 'state of the art'. In fact, the Province would also have to amend the Metrolinx Act and others to allow this. But on the assumption the Infrastructure Bank sets this up to incorporate federally, the City and Province would either agree, or have it imposed. Secretly, both the City and Province would breathe a huge sigh of relief, pun fully intended, as this could/would be a model to be extended as the Relief Line and more. And being neither TTC or Metrolinx!

[...]
In 1981 in a scheme dreamed up by the Conservative minister Michael Heseltine, the “London Docklands Development Corporation” (LDDC) was set up. This took planning (zoning) powers away from the five London boroughs that the LDDC spread over parts of. It also guaranteed companies moving in relief from local taxation for a fixed period.

This strategy however depended on there being good public transport links between the new office areas and other areas of London. There were no passenger railway services to the largest of the areas nearest to central London, the Isle of Dogs. Mainline railway lines into the eastern London termini skirted its north. The lower part of the Isle is (still) only road accessible by two bridges over the old dock entrances.
[...]

London's Docklands Light Railway at 30 - Case Study for Transport Links Fueling Regeneration

So, as that pertains to our suggested ideas for getting QQE LRT into Union: Once the above ground guideway option is considered, a lot becomes possible that wouldn't have before.

The new GO bus station still has options that can be explored, as well as the old ACC (whatever it's called now), both of which have (will have) excellent connections to Union's rail platforms.

Let's flip this over for a second: If you were Sidewalk Labs (or similar ilk) looking to build a 'light rail of the future' state of the art connection, what would you choose?

Edit to Add: I must say that rendered space from the dismantled off ramp as per Gweed's 'new portal' linked above is the perfect size for...wait for it...a loop in itself. If an option is taken that involves massive reworking of the present Bay Portal, a loop, even if temporary, would be necessary, and at that plot would be perfect for it. (I don't think this will be an option taken)

 

[44 North]

The Docklands Light Railway model offers solutions not easily available with LRT, like running up onto guideways to loop into Union Station Trainshed south side and back out a different route.

Consider the striking parallels:

Docklands Light Railway - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If Sidewalk was going to propose a light rail option, it would not meet TTC policy and union agreements if it's 'state of the art'. In fact, the Province would also have to amend the Metrolinx Act and others to allow this. But on the assumption the Infrastructure Bank sets this up to incorporate federally, the City and Province would either agree, or have it imposed. Secretly, both the City and Province would breathe a huge sigh of relief, pun fully intended, as this could/would be a model to be extended as the Relief Line and more. And being neither TTC or Metrolinx!


London's Docklands Light Railway at 30 - Case Study for Transport Links Fueling Regeneration

So, as that pertains to our suggested ideas for getting QQE LRT into Union: Once the above ground guideway option is considered, a lot becomes possible that wouldn't have before.

The new GO bus station still has options that can be explored, as well as the old ACC (whatever it's called now), both of which have (will have) excellent connections to Union's rail platforms.

Let's flip this over for a second: If you were Sidewalk Labs (or similar ilk) looking to build a 'light rail of the future' state of the art connection, what would you choose?

Edit to Add: I must say that rendered space from the dismantled off ramp as per Gweed's 'new portal' linked above is the perfect size for...wait for it...a loop in itself. If an option is taken that involves massive reworking of the present Bay Portal, a loop, even if temporary, would be necessary, and at that plot would be perfect for it. (I don't think this will be an option taken)

Something like DLR into the Port Lands I've long been interested in, just because it offers long-term speed, reliability, and capacity. For full build-out, for special events, whatever. It's future-proofed. The more recent dip for the RL that has it strafing the Port Lands at Unilever has made me less interested in the concept for such a metro-like service in lieu of QQLRT - considering said RL alignment solves some of the issues of connecting the east waterfront. Still though can't discount the attractiveness of a system like DLR. It opened up swaths of a city with subway service, at much lower cost than Tube expansion. And does what no Tramlink ever could.

Want to go down a rabbit hole? Recall that Doug Ford waterfront monorail nonsense? The media never did their homework on it, and to this day present it as Doug's personal vision. Well it wasn't. There was a lot of money behind it, almost certainly from key landowners and developers. Not saying I supported the idea or am defending it, however I will note that "monorail" can used as a vague term for any elevated transit line. Literal monorails are a joke, but if we were to switch gears to an elevated LRT, or midsize subway into the EBF, Villiers, and Port Lands, I would give it a listen. It's basically like SLRT, which many support.

 

[steveintoronto]

it offers long-term speed, reliability, and capacity.

And the magic word to fit the Sidewalk vision (and other investors) is:

[...]
The trains were (and still are) unique in London as they are completely automated with no driver. Each train has a “Captain” who main job is close the doors after ensuring the passengers are safely aboard and to check tickets. If the automated system breaks down...there is a control box at the front of the car, on the left hand side. The Captain can then drive the train while in contact with the system’s central control. [...]

London's Docklands Light Railway at 30 - Case Study for Transport Links Fueling Regeneration

Forty years ago great swathes of eastern London were derelict. The docks on which the area’s economy was based were closed, killed off by the container ships that could not reach so far up the Thames. Today the area is thriving. A forest of high...

www.dailykos.com

In the event, there's an even more modern version of these trains, and made by a number of manufacturers, but even the previous generation can be equipped for pantograph operation as LRTs:

(this was for an added branch to the system)
[...] The fleet for the 1987 opening consisted of 11 light rail vehicles (LRVs) built in 1986 by Linke-Hofmann-Busch in Germany and numbered 01 to 11. These were referred to as P86 stock,[12] the 'P' referring to Poplar depot, where they were maintained. These cars had folding doors, which proved to be problematic; later cars had sliding doors. Vehicle 11 made history several times. It was part of a light rail demonstration at Debdale Park, Manchester for which it had a pantograph fitted by Balfour Beatty. The demonstration took place on 9 February 1987 as evaluation trials for a potential tram system in Manchester. P11 was the last unit to be delivered to the DLR at Poplar on 30 March 1987, without the pantograph. [...] It also operated the first revenue-earning DLR service and was the first to move to Essen in 1991.[12]
[...]
Despite having high floors and being highly automated, the cars are derived from a German Stadtbahn design, which was intended for use in systems with elements of street running (as is currently the case with the cars now used in Essen). All the cars that have operated on the system look similar, but there have been five separate types, three of which are still in operation on the Docklands Light Railway. A further car type, with quite different styling, was first displayed in March 2008 and entered service in September 2008.[11]

The DLR stock units have a maximum speed of 100 km/h (62 mph), but the fastest speed reached is 80 km/h (50 mph) in the tunnel under the River Thames to Woolwich Arsenal station. [...]

Docklands Light Railway rolling stock - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If I were Sidewalk Labs, I'd have at least one of my staff in communication with all involved with this, in Essen Germany and in London, to get a feel for what is already a highly developed design to nuance even closer to their needs on the Waterfront.

And any investors looking at Greater Toronto with the massive demand for transit relief, and no sign of it coming from either the City or QP (lots of theory, not reality) I'd think: "If Sidewalk does their homework, and this can be shepherded by the Infrastructure Bank, not only for seed money (roughly 1:4 seed to private investment in usual practice) but for political and regulatory connections as a federally chartered railway (as DLR was in London), then how can you lose investing? It's more the thing for Retirement Pension Funds, but anyone who wants an investment like "Bell Canada used to be" (slow, steady and rock solid) then this would be it.

I'd highly advise Sidewalk, as I'm sure their counsel has already made clear to them, spin this off as a Limited Company. It will attract train builders into a consortium if they are the sole suppliers, and this consortium would be looking for 'more opportunities' once this is built and running.

For the record: I'm a firm believer in Publicly Owned and Operated Transit. But that's becoming a dream in Toronto and the GTHA, as we all know too well. So if it has to be Private, so be it. Anything is better than nothing. And in the event, as many other nations have realized, it can offer greater value per cost if overseen efficiently. And built a hell of a lot sooner...

Addendum: Here's the older stock referenced above street-running in Essen. Again, this design has been taken another generation forward, but even this gen outperform what we have for LRTs in many respects: (Note the pantographs fitted for road running)

These Old DLR Trains Are Running In Germany
BY HARRY ROSEHILL Londonist
LAST EDITED 17 MONTHS AGO

Photo: Stefan Baguette
The DLR has been faithfully serving east and south east London for over 30 years. In that time the network has undergone much change including expansions and new trains. With all new London trains, there's a key question — what happened to the old ones?
The first of the DLR's expansions came in 1991 and with it came an issue.

Here's what they looked like back in London. Photo: Sludge G
To get to Bank, the train had to go through tunnels, but the trains — P86 class — didn't meet British safety standards to run in tunnels. There wasn't much need for trains that couldn't serve a major terminus, so (the) P86s found themselves sold and shipped off to Germany's mining heartland — Essen.
It's fitting when you think about it. The trains moved from an industrial part of London to an industrial part of Germany. Also the trains are German — the P86s were created by Linke-Hoffman-Busche — so they were effectively returning home.

Photo: Stefan Baguette
At first they ran in Essen using the DLR's traditional blue and red colours, but in 2005 they changed things up and now they're yellow and blue. There are also P89s running in Essen, another batch of DLR trains that couldn't keep up with all the changes to the network in the early years so were sold off.
See them in action here:

Here's a look at specifically a P86. Well the video is mainly focused on its doors but aren't they so pretty.
(vids above linked at source )

These Old DLR Trains Are Running In Germany

Do people there fight for the front seat?

londonist.com

"didn't meet British safety standards to run in tunnels" = lack of ends of train emergency exit doors.