"Downtown Core Line" - Possible Alignments?

[scarberiankhatru]

Ideally, relief should not be the driving force behind the DRL, but that is why it's getting built. If we're just looking at relief, it doesn't matter where it goes...any line going anywhere from the B/D line to the YUS loop would offer substantial relief - Wellington, Dundas, Wellesley, whatever, stopping wherever. If we're looking at how to best serve neighbourhoods along the way, that's really where alignments and stations and effects on existing routes get more complicated and actually matter.

The reality is that some combination of relief and better downtown service will be looked at, but since there's no way to objectively measure and compare every pro and con, the balance will almost assuredly be dictated and the deadlock broken by something as quick and crude as a politician looking at whichever map he sees first or listening to whichever voice in his ear is loudest and saying "Queen," or "Front," or wherever...this choice is then magically supported by further studies.

 

[kEiThZ]

In order to convince me of the validity of your position, you will need to spell out precisely what "relief" means in measurable, concrete terms. You will also need to demonstrate that this "relief" should be the sole or over-arching objective in the construction of any further line. Unfortunately, neither have been satisfactorily done so far.

Fair enough. If I have not been clear:

Relief - The primary purpose of the Downtown Relief Line to avoid a rebuild at Yonge-Bloor. The DRL is meant to relieve Yonge-Bloor station by diverting Bloor-Danforth riders from the east away from Yonge-Bloor.

Measure of Relief - Amount of reduction in the number of passengers transferring at Yonge-Bloor.

Why should it be over-arching factor? Because the politicians have decided that we aren't going to spend 500 million or more relieving Yonge-Bloor but are instead going to build the DRL instead. If we can't get both that presumably relief to Yonge-Bloor needs to maximized to avoid returning to current overcrowding after the DRL comes into service.

You'll also need to properly explain what you mean by "potential". As it stands, your use of this term seems to be a signpost for speculation. Ultimately cold, hard numbers will win the day, not only for me, but for the folks who will fund it. By failing to do this, your points are unconvincing.

I would presume that an agency managing transit can come up with a ridership forecast and can figure out how many fewer riders there will be at Yonge-Bloor. You might consider my definitions fuzzy, but I am fairly sure that everyone else understands what relief in "Downtown Relief Line" stands for.

You're using a commuter model of transit in your reasoning, which to be fair, is what the mid-1980s DLR plan was based upon.

And you are assuming that I support a Front/Rail Corridor alignment....

Unfortunately that model is now 30 years out of whack, and it's fair game to question the ongoing validity of its assumptions. This is clearly one of the reasons the whole plan is going back to the drawing board.

If you consider that 30 year old plan out of date, then what does that make pre-WWII era ambitions for a Queen subway? I would suggest that in the intervening 30 years, we have actually seen much of the development that would strengthen the case for the proposed Front St. alignment. I am surprised they proposed it 30 years ago. But I am not all that surprised that it's been on the table since.

And I should also point out that the waterfront and Liberty village are going to be further served by LRT lines already approved by the TTC, Toronto Council, and Metrolinx.

The same map that shows the DRL going to Union?

To be fair, I might as well ask why you're being so emerald-coloured. When I look at the waterfront, port lands, CityPlace, and the Fort York area, it sure appears that 15-25 years is the norm from start to finish, depending on precisely how large the land is, and how from-scratch the development will be. If I understand your position correctly, you're dependent on a high degree of optimistic projections occurring that even you admit you can't accurately ascertain or forecast. I disagree with this approach and instead advocate a more concrete, pragmatic one that assumes less risk.

What's so optimistic about CityPlace? Do you not see the buildings there? And if the timeframe you suggest is 15-25 years than most certainly most of these developments will be complete by the time the line gets built. Big Move doesn't even have the DRL in the 15 year plan after all.

To be fair, I think the reason for this is a tendency to misconstrue their points and turn them into straw men. Clearly the whole city will intensify and grow. The difference is that Queen won't start from scratch, has existing mixed use sections throughout, runs (more than) the intended length of the downtown core line, has proper established destinations, lots of development and redevelopment potential, and would hit the ground running with a pre-existing ridership base that will allow it to be fiscally viable far sooner that the other alignment options discussed so far.

I think Scarberian has refuted your suggestion about Queen's development potential. I won't go any further.

Unless you're a developer and not disclosing it, I think you're probably making a baseless assertion here. Personally, if I was a developer, I'd have to think that Queen would be far more preferable because there would be (a) far less risks, (b) lower infrastructure-type costs, and (c) it would be much an easier sell.

No I am not a developer. But as a decently trained engineer, I would suggest that building in a crowded Cityscape is at least a wee bit more expensive than starting with a fresh canvas. As for your judgement about being easier to sell...well the Condofront seems to be doing quite well and it held up during the recession. And this is without serious transit. Let me know if you see any 50 storey condos popping up on Queen.

Ok, but in the course of your considerations, you may wish to familiarize yourself with the policies of Metrolinx and the province's Places to Grow plan. They're somewhat different than where you're coming from, and ultimately they're what count.

The same document that merely lists "Downtown Toronto" as an urban growth centre? What does that have to do with Queen St. specifically? It's probably far more likely that all the Don Mouth/Waterfront stuff is in line with the Province's Places to Grow vision than anything on Queen street today.

Well ok, but do you realize that by saying this you're admitting that your reasoning is based on pure conjecture and speculation?

What is conjecture and speculation about buildings going up right now? I merely postulated that we'll have real ridership in 5 years instead of theoretical per unit averages. But there's no speculation or doubt on my part that those areas are developing and those riders will go from paper to flesh in short order. Cityplace is still not finished and needs three streetcar lines today. In most other places, that would be a great candidate for a subway stop.

I should also, however, point out that CityPlace is currently served by three existing streetcar lines and one future one is in the final stages of planning. According to Metrolinx, this would necessarily be viewed as duplication, which precludes funding.

You do realize that avoid duplication does not mean not having complimentary services right? The duplication they are referring to is things like non-integrated overlapping services (ie VIVA and TTC on Yonge for example). They aren't referring to limiting the number of lines going to a given area. If that was the case, they most certainly would not have proposed the Yonge subway extension and improved service on the Richmond Hill GO line.

As far as I can ascertain, Queen proponents are more concrete in their approach and rely far less on speculation and future projections.

Really? What happen to the claims that Queen will develop? And where's high rise condos popping up on Queen today? On the other side, I suggested that based on today's ridership alone on the King streetcar, at King, Union and St. Andrews stations that the line should be somewhere in that area through the core (and I have stated that it could be Queen east of the Don). What's speculative or forward looking about that? The case for King or lower is only bolstered by the fact that there will be added ridership coming from the southern portions of the catchment area. If Queen's doing so well today, how come it does not draw the ridership that King does?

As an added benefit, this would seem to be more in line with the methodology used by the folks who will fund it.

I suggest you do a word search in your link. The only avoidance of duplication that's referred to has to do with work on the EA.

Given that the Metrolinx BCA methodology heavily favours the reduction of driving, and time savings, the process will give significantly more weight to the riders diverting from Yonge-Bloor than riders travelling down Queen. If you want to hope that the BCA will save you, be my guest. I am most certainly hoping that BCA will finally bring some real clarity and hard data to the table.....that'll probably bolster the case for locating the line south of Queen.

You're straw man-ing yet again in your second sentence. In order to be built, any new transit lines must be fiscally self-sustaining, which means significant Day One ridership. Notwithstanding your straw man claim, however, you are actually inadvertently agreeing that the ridership of a Queen alignment would be very high, or in other words, a success.

And you don't actually read more than a sentence at a time do you? It's not a mark of success for a subway line to max out on potential on day one.

 

[kEiThZ]

Um, are you suggesting it won't be able to recoup its costs then? Again, that's not something that the folks who will pay for it will build.

In case you haven't kept up with the various threads here and what's been in the media, that's most definitely a concern. A line meant to relieve a node under pressure risks not having a positive return. However, that applies to all alignments of the DRL. After all, they are all getting built to relieve Yonge-Bloor. The only question is which one offers less off a hit.

Um, nope. I think you're missing the point. What option anyone will choose will depend on where they come from and where they are going. Little things like being able to get a seat or not be crammed will count too. And no matter what the alignment, it'll be in the core.

People ride the subway today without getting a seat. What makes you think they won't keep using Yonge and Bloor when its equally crowded after a badly planned DRL opens?

As for missing the point....in case you haven't noticed, the only reason the DRL is being advanced by the politicians and the media these days is because of concerns about the Yonge extension overwhelming Yonge-Bloor. Queen was hardly a driving concern. It's just that Queen subway proponents have managed to conflate what should be two separate initiatives.

Well actually, I think that before too long Bloor-Yonge will need to be renovated no matter what.

The mayor, and most of city council disagrees with you. But whatever.

 

[kEiThZ]

The reality is that some combination of relief and better downtown service will be looked at, but since there's no way to objectively measure and compare every pro and con, the balance will almost assuredly be dictated and the deadlock broken by something as quick and crude as a politician looking at whichever map he sees first or listening to whichever voice in his ear is loudest and saying "Queen," or "Front," or wherever...this choice is then magically supported by further studies.

And after that, we'll spend a billion bucks not on extending a subway somewhere but on rebuilding a single station. Only in Toronto, do we build rapid transit lines not based on current and projected ridership but on who screams the loudest.

 

[Northern Magus]

Gweed: KEITHZ' sooner than expected response got my immediate attention, but I hadn't forgotten about you.

A few quick points to clarify things that you may have misunderstood:

Northern Magnus: A large portion of your case is based on "real vs projected" evidence. However, you yourself state that Queen has "development potential". Is this not projected evidence in itself?

Nope, I think you're confusing "projected evidence" (which I would agree with) versus "pure speculation" (which KEITHZ keeps relying on). Like I said, cold, hard numbers will always prevail.

At least CityPlace has concrete plans in place, your evidence is merely "it'll happen someday if we put a subway in".

Um, no, if anything I'd say you have it backwards.

And I agee with Keithz, the development potential of the Waterfront sites (CityPlace, East Bayfront, etc) FAR exceeds development potential along Queen. I seriously doubt that City Council would let Queen St be turned into Yonge St (ie the pockets of condos the entire way up).

From reading your many posts on this thread, I'm quite familiar with your ongoing tag-team relationship with KEITHZ. Nonetheless, I have to point out that what carries the day for the people who pay for these things is ridership. Unfortunately you're mistakenly elevating a collateral matter into the over-arching issue. Development and intensification are the objectives of both the city and the province, and will necessarily happen on Queen. They're certainly related to ridership, but in my eyes your unprojected "potential" goes into the same category as invisible friends: they may be nice to have, but they're really insubstantial.

Queen street needs local service in order to be effectively served. This means close station stops, which on a DRL designed to be a faster route downtown, largely negates this purpose. These new communities along the Waterfront can be designed to be Nodal TOD points, as opposed to corridor TOD like Queen St is.

Unfortunately you're ignoring the fact that the 1980s DRL plan is 30 years out of whack and is not being studied. What is being studied is a "downtown core line" which is already on Metrolinx' 25-year plan. Furthermore, Metrolinx' criteria for funding are somewhat different from the approach you and KEITHZ have taken, and ultimately theirs is the view that will prevail.

Queen St supporters seem to also be ignoring the fact that a DRL along Wellington (or Front, or King) will bisect Queen St at 2 points, GREATLY relieving the Queen streetcar. It's not as if a DRL someplace other than Queen will not affect Queen at all, far from it.

All plans are based on projections. If you're planning for the now, you aren't really planning.

Yawn. My (very clear) point was that a Queen alignment offers more bang for the buck from Day One onwards and is far less risky. We'll see what Metrolinx says, but it would appear to fit their goals and objectives better than the other options.


(PS I also wanted to say congratulations on recently graduating from university and I hope you were able to buck the recession and land your first full-time job.)

 

[Fresh Start]

Scarberian: Sorry if we misunderstood eachother's perspective. I was making referrence to the merits of a Queen alignment vs. a Front Street alignment, which are roughly 10 minutes walking distance apart. It's not extremely difficult to cover that distance with the right motivation driving you especially through a climate-free environment (extended PATH network). But while downtown Toronto symbolically ends at Front Street towards the south, downtown extends onwards significantly north of Queen Street. Meaning that more riders- specifically those of the 505/506- will desire the new subway to be closer to those corridors to deter them from having to use B-D/Y-U-S as part of their commute.

Doing such would lead to a drop in overall patronage for those streetcar routes as the majority of commuters could transition to new Queen/DRL passengers, then while walk via secure underground PATH walkways to their end-destination within reasonable distance. For everyone else, the transfer onto a northbound bus or the 510/511 may be less time-consuming than awaiting the east-west streetcars, whose longer routes equate longer wait arrival times. I feel that a Queen alignment could, therefore, siphon away some riders who usually transfer off/on from the Bloor-Danforth, alleviating B-Y only now with emphasis on the B.

Could a southernly Front alignment offer up the same benefits to innercity downtown riders?

But this is the issue. People are trying to shoehorn an East-West core subway line onto a line that supposed to help commuters have quick access to the core. I would suggest that for Queen, a short tunnel through the core combined with a St. Clair style ROW would achieve most of what Queen Street riders want at a fraction of the price.

I think any DRL alignment that's selected will be of benefit to both local and regional/long-hauler interests. The issue is: to what extent and where does it best fit. I don't think it'd be easy to do anything more rapid to the Queen corridor unless it's completley underground. And if we're willing to try an underground streetcar ROW, why not a subway if the cost points are roughly the same? I can't even think of where a 512-style ROW could work, perhaps Leslieville, but the area from Roncessvalles to Carlaw is way too concentrated to handle the required roadway expansion.

If you consider it important enough to serve the West Don Lands, Distillery, St. lawrence market, Union, Skydome and Cityplace, then most certainly your subway would be the Queen subway in name only. That's essentially the Front alignment that repeatedly comes up. It only serves Queen East for a few clicks through Riverdale (which would happen regardless of the alignment) and for a few clicks in the west. Your plan would also make for one hell of a PG rated roller coaster ride. There are, however, many elements of your plan that I agree with.

Thanks for the critiques. I do feel that servicing the new waterfront communities with higher order is important, but that should be a secondary priority to serving the innercity where the King Car is choking on 54,000 passengers a day with the 501; 505; and 506 not that far behind in ridership. Collectively the bulk of 200,000 riders within the central core urgently require better than what streetcar service can offer on its own.

I actually was typing out an essay with diagrams listing the merits of building a more unconventionally aligned DRL (it varies significantly from Network 2011, although Mt Dennis and OSC are still the theoretical terminii). In essence, the more fan-shaped line(s) could target specific stable but high-density residential-commercial neighbourhoods within downtown without disrupting streetlife and with minimal expropriation required. Best of all it's fast (only 7 stops between B-D and Union on either leg). I just have to edit it then I'll publish my observations here.

 

[jwill]

I just want to note that development doesn't equal "50 storey condo towers". The potential along Queen (mostly to the south) and King (both sides) lies in the existing underused industrial buildings, as well as various small and large lots along the line.

I don't think East Bayfront, West Donlands, Cityplace, etc. will ever have the mix of residents, jobs, and attractions which can support a subway all day in both directions. I could be wrong, but I just dont see these areas having the fine grain of urban diversity and overall density that King and Queen already support.

 

[kEiThZ]

I think any DRL alignment that's selected will be of benefit to both local and regional/long-hauler interests.

Agreed. As passionate as I am about getting this done right (and for me that's whatever alignment avoids spending half a billion on rebuilding Y-B), half of me would rather just see the thing built already regardless of alignment. Yonge-Bloor needs relief now...not a decade from now. But sadly our politicians don't agree.

The issue is: to what extent and where does it best fit. I don't think it'd be easy to do anything more rapid to the Queen corridor unless it's completley underground.

Are you referring to just the core or the length of Queen here. I think a tunnel through the core and then some (say Parliament to Spadina or Bathurst roughly) combined with some ROW improvements would significantly improve service and avoid the need for a parallel bus/streetcar service on top of a subway.

And if we're willing to try an underground streetcar ROW, why not a subway if the cost points are roughly the same?

It all depends on who you talk to. Some want a Queen street subway that run virtually the entire length of Queen or at least Pape/Coxwell to about Dufferin. A 2.5-3.5 km tunnel would cost nowhere near as much as that. But it would do a ton to improve service along Queen.

I can't even think of where a 512-style ROW could work, perhaps Leslieville, but the area from Roncessvalles to Carlaw is way too concentrated to handle the required roadway expansion.

I think it could. Traffic might suffer a bit. But that's a fair trade-off for improved streetcar service.

Thanks for the critiques. I do feel that servicing the new waterfront communities with higher order is important, but that should be a secondary priority to serving the inner city where the King Car is choking on 54,000 passengers a day with the 501; 505; and 506 not that far behind in ridership. Collectively the bulk of 200,000 riders within the central core urgently require better than what streetcar service can offer on its own.

That's why I've suggested that if anything King should have priority over Queen. And the 200 000 riders traveling to the core will get a reprieve even if the line isn't on Queen. Riders intercepting the line at the east at west Queen stations will most certainly choose to ride it into the core unless their destination is on Queen itself or north of it.

I actually was typing out an essay with diagrams listing the merits of building a more unconventionally aligned DRL (it varies significantly from Network 2011, although Mt Dennis and OSC are still the theoretical terminii). In essence, the more fan-shaped line(s) could target specific stable but high-density residential-commercial neighbourhoods within downtown without disrupting streetlife and with minimal expropriation required. Best of all it's fast (only 7 stops between B-D and Union on either leg). I just have to edit it then I'll publish my observations here.

Can't wait to read it! And even better if it's that fast! That's finally some love for the beleaguered Scarborough commuters.

 

[kEiThZ]

I just want to note that development doesn't equal "50 storey condo towers". The potential along Queen (mostly to the south) and King (both sides) lies in the existing underused industrial buildings, as well as various small and large lots along the line.

I don't think East Bayfront, West Donlands, Cityplace, etc. will ever have the mix of residents, jobs, and attractions which can support a subway all day in both directions. I could be wrong, but I just dont see these areas having the fine grain of urban diversity and overall density that King and Queen already support.

Well the DRL isn't even on the radar for another decade at least.....so we'll have that much time to see which of us is wrong! I see these new areas as something akin to Canary Wharf in London. I am disappointed that the city didn't push for more mixed use. But the 75/25 split is not all that bad.

As for supporting the subway though....it won't be them or residents on Queen who will be supporting the subway. It'll be the 9-5ers occupying the vertical cubicle farms in the Financial District who will be making the line viable. And more particularly it'll be commuters traveling from the east who will be making the line viable.

 

[waterloowarrior]

Here's the urban structure from the OP since we've heard a few points about future growth

The land use plan

Places to Grow

 

[Second_in_pie]

Relief - The primary purpose of the Downtown Relief Line to avoid a rebuild at Yonge-Bloor. The DRL is meant to relieve Yonge-Bloor station by diverting Bloor-Danforth riders from the east away from Yonge-Bloor.

I'm not really arguing with you, but if Relief was the key factor, we'd just be rebuilding Bloor-Yonge. It'd cost about $1 billion less than building the DRL, and could conceivably achieve the same results.

But they're not, they're pushing for the DRL. Why? Because it gives us an opportunity to relieve B-Y and provide local-ish downtown service. But the two should be balanced, and I think the front/railway alignment balances that perfectly. It gives people a choice when going downtown; transfer at B-Y or take the DRL, and if the DRL was to give a clear advantage to those going to the CBD, it'd take a lot of strain off the system. I've calculated out, and a Front/Railway alignment would (timewise) be able to serve people everywhere south of Queen with a time advantage over B-Y, and I think that's pretty reasonable. A huge amount of people could be drawn from Bloor-Yonge with that, more than enough to relieve it for decades. Of course, total relief of Yonge would require the DRL to go further north than Bloor (I think Finch would be the best terminus for that,) as well as many, many, many Go improvements. But it'd easily relieve Yonge-Bloor at least.

And a Front/Railway alignment would actually get a huge amount of local (downtown-downtown) traffic. It'd be able to provide intermediate RT service between the streetcar lines in both the East and West, and would intersect a number of key areas. CityPlace, as a huge concentration of people that (I think) could be as high as 50 thousand within essentially two stations. It'd also directly hit Liberty Village and West Donlands, which are going to be two pretty big neighborhoods in a few years.
Apart from that, there would be two obvious stations in the Distillery District and St. Lawrence neighborhoods, which I'm sure would attract a huge amount of people, especially if it were to use Union Station as a node.
Oh, and it'd hit the CN Tower and Skydome, and would open up that area for people from all over the city to commute in by Subway. It'd also open up an easy route to the Ex from the West End, which would be a huge help all year around, but especially during the Ex.

A Queen alignment might hit the downtown core a lot more broadly, but there are umm 3 problems that I have with Queen.
The first is that it really just doesn't hit as many big neighborhoods as the Front line does. The Front alignment will connect with big neighborhoods like Distillery District, St. Lawrence, straight through the centre of the downtown core, CityPlace, and Liberty Village. Queen can't top that in "really big areas."

The second is that going along Queen would compromise the purpose of the DRL, smashing the beautiful glass swan that the DRL is with a sledgehammer, then putting the remains into a blast furnace. Essentially, it'd choose 2 paths: DRL or Queen line. Choosing the DRL would definitely not serve Queen the best, as it'd result in a patchy subway coverage, that quite honestly would be pretty abysmal, especially for a route like Queen.
And that brings me to the second path of a real Queen line, which'd result in very frequent stop spacing, probably similar to that of the YUS's 400-500m spacing compared to the DRL's ~1 km ish spacing. This would absolutely massacre the point of the DRL because, really, who would want to transfer to another subway line that'd just be slower than taking the YUS to B-Y?
As I've said before, Queen would really be best served by a St. Clair-style LRT making local (400 m) stops, and probably dipping underground for a short portion through downtown.

The third is that... I forgot what it was going to be. But really, marrying a Queen line and DRL is a bad idea. You might think Queen Subway+DRL, what's not to like? But really the two are like oil and water; they just don't mix. Unlike oil and water, the two could be very helpful in supporting eachother, but nobody should get the impression that two for the price of one is going to be astoundingly better. In fact, that's not even true because the rail corridor DRL would actually cost much less than a Queen line.

 

[Whoaccio]

Its worth keeping in mind that most of these options are really quite close. Wellington and Queen are only 500m apart, Anything along Queen, Richmond, Adelaide, King or Wellington will effectively serve anything along Queen, Richmond, Adelaide, King or Wellington. give or take. They all effectively serve the same things. The only route which has any significant difference in markets is along the rail corridor, which (unlike Wellington) could serve waterfront communities well but is generally too far from Queen.

Logically, we would first pick between a Northern alignment (anything between Wellington and Queen) and a Southern alignment (mostly the rail corridor, but also Front) and then further specify which route is better. Generally speaking, a norther alignment wont be walkable from anything south of the rail corridor. The distances are fairly large, and the corridor itself can be a barrier. So it is a really a fairly binary choice between serving the Waterfront and serving the strip of city in between Wellington and Queen.

Assuming we choose a northerly alignment, then we would specify. Due to their strong retail activity, public transit and residential communities, either Queen or King would become impractical to shutdown during construction and to expensive to mitigate. That naturally favors Wellington, Richmond or Adelaide. Richmond is farther north than preferable for the CBD, Wellington has a lot of overlap with the barren rail corridor and that more or less leaves Adelaide. It hits everything north of the rail corridor without wasting coverage on the areas closer to Dundas.

 

[kEiThZ]

^ Interesting take Whoaccio. And that's actually a fair good way of looking at the situation. From that viewpoint, the southern alignment would have to go to Union so that BD riders and Condofront commuters could get access to the rest of the network. But Union is probably less than optimal for most B-D riders....so that makes the choice pretty challenging.

I can't wait for the Metrolinx BCA for this line someday. It'll really be their first effort at subway building. It'll be interesting to see how they view subway in the Toronto context.

 

[Second_in_pie]

Nope, I think you're confusing "projected evidence" (which I would agree with) versus "pure speculation" (which KEITHZ keeps relying on). Like I said, cold, hard numbers will always prevail.

Again, all this talk about numbers! It's making my head hurt, especially when I can't tell idle fact and cold hard speculation apart.

There's nothing speculative about the numbers are popping up for CityPlace, West Don Lands or Liberty Village. They're both going ahead. Of course, I guess someone planted a bomb on the CN tower, or a frontier group took control of the city and demanded that all developments be constructed by 7 year olds, I guess Queen has a lot more going for it. There's still the fact that Railway has half a village of Liberty, St. Lawrence, and Distillery District, but really, I don't think transit planners take terrorism and insurgency into the picture when building subway lines. Or at least not in Canada.

I agree, there's over 9000 times more speculation concerning this famed redevelopment on Queen than there is in what's going to happen all along the Rail Corridor in the next 10-15 years.

From reading your many posts on this thread, I'm quite familiar with your ongoing tag-team relationship with KEITHZ.

yep, they're a regular tag team. But you have to remember to use the annoying capitalization in kEiThZ's name.

Unfortunately you're ignoring the fact that the 1980s DRL plan is 30 years out of whack and is not being studied. What is being studied is a "downtown core line" which is already on Metrolinx' 25-year plan.

I actually had to take a second to stop laughing at this the first time. Namely because the DRL plan was concieved 30 years ago based on development that's ongoing to this day (actually it's really just recently started picking up.)
Also, you realize that the Queen plan is 100 years old don't you? Okay, maybe you could argue that it's 60 years old instead, but Queen is definitely not any "newer" than the Rail Corridor in that sense at least.

And (!!!) even if you think that Queen is any more "downtown core" than the Rail Corridor is, are you really going to let any part of your argument stand on what Metrolinx's name for the DRL?
Okay, I confess. I bought the name "DRL" some time ago as an investment, so when the project finally started the City would be required to pay me every time they used it in an official document. But unfortunately for my scheme, Metrolinx deviously changed the name ever so slightly so my claim is null and void.
BTW, I can't see anything more resembling the downtown core than the CBD, which as it happens, a Front alignment would hit straight through the centre.

 

[jwill]

The Land Use Plan posted by Waterloowarrior makes a strong case for King. It passes straight through the vast 'regeneration' areas east and west of the core. Those are former industrial districts that already have solid residential density and are gaining a lot of mid and high-rise condos on every vacant lot. They also have a good concentration of jobs, not to mention attractions (shops, restaurants, clubs, bars, theatres, etc.)