"Downtown Core Line" - Possible Alignments?

[nfitz]

Sounds like it makes a lot of sense.

But remember the goal of this line; relieve Yonge-Bloor station. Until we have numbers on what station pairing provide how much relief, discussing alignment is a fools game.

 

[kettal]

Adelaide. It goes through where the highest density of employment is, which is the market the DRL is being built for.

Queen is more of a leisure, shopping, and entertainment street. It does not need rush hour capacity or ultra fast service. The streetcar is the ideal transit for Queen.

 

[gweed123]

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.

I'd call half of CityPlace already built and the other half in early stages of construction pretty concrete evidence of growth. If you have any district plans for substantial development along Queen, I'd love to take a look at them.

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.

I just can't see the City allowing anything more than 10 storeys on most of Queen. I think it will look like St. Clair just West of Yonge (past the office towers and stuff on the corner). And even if they do densify occasionally, the single-family houses directly in behind won't be going anywhere anytime soon.

And as for these "projected" plans, I've seen the CityPlace plan, and I had one of the head planners for the West Donlands come in and speak to my class, so I feel pretty confident in saying that even the proposed densities there outweigh Queen.

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.

I don't see anything in that document that favours Queen over Wellington. And I'm not going by the 1980s DRL plan, I'm proposing a Wellington alignment, therefore 3 connections to YUS. Wellington would aleviate the King streetcar AND serve the developments between the Gardiner and the rail corridor.

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.

I'd call relieving the King car a pretty safe bet as well. Heck, assuming that 100% of the passengers using the King car (completely unrealistic, I know) switch over to the DRL, the DRL will already be more used than the Sheppard subway, hahaha. Metrolinx also projects 17,000 peak hour to be diverted from B-D onto the DRL, so that alone ensures a well used line, even without the streetcar transfers.

(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.)

Thank you for the congrats. Unfortunately, I have not be spared by the recession, and I am still looking for work in the planning field.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

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.

Once again, no one is going to get off the subway and walk from Front to Queen or Queen to Front along Yonge or University...they will continue to use the YUS loop and this group is the bulk of the subway riders. If people aren't going to or from somewhere along the YUS loop, they can take the DRL to an E/W streetcar and travel over. Why would someone switch from getting off at Union or St. Andrew or whatever and instead decide to trudge through PATH for 10 minutes? The difference between going through Y&B and taking the DRL is going to be a couple of minutes at the most. Ever tried walking north through PATH at 5pm? Not so quick.

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?

Most downtown streetcar riders are only going a few km...once you add in 5-10 minute walks at one or both ends of the trip, throw in reduced stops, and add the time/effort of going up and down to the platform/street, you can't just plop a line on a corridor like Queen and expect everyone - or even many people - between King to College to switch to the subway. Of course some will (some people wil do anything), but if you want to relieve King, put the DRL along King. If you want to relieve Dundas, put it along Dundas.

The riders you described as being "siphoned away" don't make sense...if they're currently using B/D and then taking routes southwards like Bathurst, how are they going to get to the DRL? No one will transfer from B/D to the DRL only to transfer again to some N/S route to come back north to, say, College. And if people think they will transfer twice, they can transfer from Front or King or Dundas or anywhere.

 

[M II A II R II K]

Maybe something like this underground would work better, with even several separate stations interconnected in such a fashion.

For perspective the Central and District lines are 400 metres apart, and is all part of the same complex underground.

 

[Dan416]

Maybe the DRL should follow YUS and hit King, Union and St. Andrew?

 

[Fresh Start]

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."

Oh really? Parkdale, Art-Design District, Queen West, City Hall, CBD/Yonge Strip, Corktown, West Don Lands, Riverside, Studio District. Also within walking distance of Queen: Chinatown, AGO/OCAD, King West Village, Theatre District, Fashion District, Design Strip/GBC, Regent Park.

It important to note it's highly impropable that the demand levels within the new waterfront areas will ever eclipse that of the preexisitng city core, which is why when planning future transit infrastructure the focus should be on where requires the most alleviation from a real-world, not ideological, perspective.

And lest we forget:

• Coming soon to Liberty Village:- Waterfront West LRT, 515 Waterfront, rerouted 63 Ossington via Liberty St, Exhibition GO Stn, Liberty Village GO Stn (Atlantic/King)
• Coming soon to East Bayfront/West Don Lands/Portlands:- 515 Waterfront, 523 Leslieville, 524 Broadview, 566 Lake Shore Express, 567 West Don via Cherry St, West Don Lands GO Stn (Cherry/Eastern)
• Coming soon to Cityplace:- Waterfront West LRT, 513 Bathurst East via Breemer, 515 Waterfront, more frequent 510 Spadina service

So it's not like the waterfront will be in desperate need of a subway line anytime soon. That on top of all of the above would be overkill.

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.

Um, okay?

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.

The spacing most likely would mirror that of Bloor-Danforth's: Windermere, Roncesvalles, Jameson, Dufferin, Ossington, Strachan, Bathurst, Spadina, John, Bay, Church, Sherbourne, Sumach, Broadview, Carlaw, Leslie, Coxwell, Woodbine. Not micro-spacing by any means.

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.

No worse than it is for residents along Bloor-Danforth in-between stations. For 46 years they've survived without even a parallel daytime bus route.

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?

How would Queen be any slower? To transfer trains ascending/descending flights of stairs at B-Y can take about a minute, and what if the train arrival times aren't n'sync? Longer wait. Pape to Union using B-D and Y-U-S to Union is 16 minutes. Assuming one's destination isn't a commuter rail station but an actual office building near King and Bay, taking a Queen-DRL subway that only stops 6 times in-between Pape and 'Bay South' Stn at roughly 90 seconds interval between stops, would result in a total travel time of 10 minutes, 30 seconds; or a savings of over 5 minutes.

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.

Do you have anything apart from non sequiturs to back up your claims? How would a CNR alignment be cheaper if at-grade operation is not a option? Given its proximity to the water table, one may argue that an alignment closer to Lake Ontario runs way too much risk of flooding which can lead to tunnels collapsing in, electrical surges & failures, etc. Inland ROW would have greater geologic stability, with the added bonus of bringing with it gentrification and renewed socioeconomic growth where it's most needed (i.e. increases foot-traffic through downtown's volatile shopping districts as reliable rapid transit in/out is now affixed).

 

[Paleo]

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.

Somebody call York Region, Greg Sorbara, and Mel Lastman! lol

 

[Northern Magus]

I'd call half of CityPlace already built and the other half in early stages of construction pretty concrete evidence of growth.

Actually I think you need to look closer. A lot of the land is still untouched. It won't be finished for 5-8 years. And, again, it's served by 3 existing LRTs and one about to be built. You point is moot.

I just can't see the City allowing anything more than 10 storeys on most of Queen. I think it will look like St. Clair just West of Yonge (past the office towers and stuff on the corner).

So .... you're speculating that the city won't follow its official plan? Can't say I'd ever agree. And the way you describe it, those sections of Queen sure sounds like most of Bloor and a lot of Yonge. And those seem to hold a subway fairly well, no?

And as for these "projected" plans, I've seen the CityPlace plan, and I had one of the head planners for the West Donlands come in and speak to my class, so I feel pretty confident in saying that even the proposed densities there outweigh Queen.

Yawn. These residents will already be served by LRT lines and, when eventually built, they'd be within the catchment area of a Queen alignment.

But again you miss the point. It's not about potential density of a project but actual projected ridership of a line. Few if any people will travel to those places if they don't live or work there. On the other hand, Queen offers proper destinations throughout.

I don't see anything in that document that favours Queen over Wellington.

You're missing the point.

And I'm not going by the 1980s DRL plan, I'm proposing a Wellington alignment, therefore 3 connections to YUS. Wellington would aleviate the King streetcar AND serve the developments between the Gardiner and the rail corridor.

You might as well support a King alignment then. Union Station is a hub not a destination. It at least would offer more bona fide destinations than Wellington.

Heck, assuming that 100% of the passengers using the King car (completely unrealistic, I know) switch over to the DRL, the DRL will already be more used than the Sheppard subway, hahaha. Metrolinx also projects 17,000 peak hour to be diverted from B-D onto the DRL, so that alone ensures a well used line, even without the streetcar transfers.

So you admit you make up "completely unrealistic" assumptions to support your ideas? Um, ok.

Oh, and Metrolinx is making projections about something called the "DCL". Relief will be one of its many functions, but not its sole one.

 

[Northern Magus]

^^ Fresh Start, well said. There's a few too many non-sequiturs, straw men, and false dichotomies floating around in the anti-Queen lot.

 

[gweed123]

Actually I think you need to look closer. A lot of the land is still untouched. It won't be finished for 5-8 years. And, again, it's served by 3 existing LRTs and one about to be built. You point is moot.

The only buildings that haven't been started are the ones at the far west of the site. The buildings adjacent to and east of Spadina are complete. Those further west along the rail corridor are under construction as we speak, and the terraforming has begun for the park. I'd say it's pretty well underway. And you're assertion that "it won't be finished for 5-8 years" is irrelevant anyway, because neither will the DRL be! So your entire argument of "it's not finish yet" is moot.

And where did you get 3 existing LRTs from? Waterfront West and Spadina, that's all (which south of the Gardiner they use the same ROW to reach Union). Bathurst is a streetcar line, not an LRT. And what's the one about to be built? How will an extension of the Waterfront West LRT 1km down the line increase service for people in CityPlace travelling to the financial district?

So .... you're speculating that the city won't follow its official plan? Can't say I'd ever agree. And the way you describe it, those sections of Queen sure sounds like most of Bloor and a lot of Yonge. And those seem to hold a subway fairly well, no?

The city's OP on avenues limits densities to "appropriate scale transitions to adjacent areas". This basically means nothing over 10 storeys. And even that wouldn't fit into the current CR designations of most of Queen St (aside from the sections just outside of downtown). So in short, Queen St will not be getting significantly denser. There's only so much avenue adjacent property you can densify before you need to start densifying the lots in behind (which won't happen).

And the reason why Yonge and B-D do so well is a) the entire system is geared to transferring people from buses onto those lines (a significant number of the riders do not walk to the stations, but rather take the bus to them), and b) there are targeted points of high density along the lines which generate significant walk-in crowds (Eglinton, Finch, North York Centre, Sheppard, Sherbourne, Kipling, Main Street, Victoria Park, etc). Those type of high density nodes will not be permitted along Queen.

Yawn. These residents will already be served by LRT lines and, when eventually built, they'd be within the catchment area of a Queen alignment.

In the catchment area of Queen? What??? It's nearly a 1km walk up to Queen from CityPlace. And why on earth would someone hop on an LRT north to Queen, transfer on the subway for 2 stops, then walk back down 2 blocks to the financial district? Walking from CityPlace to Bay and King is only 500m longer than walking from CityPlace to Queen!

But again you miss the point. It's not about potential density of a project but actual projected ridership of a line. Few if any people will travel to those places if they don't live or work there. On the other hand, Queen offers proper destinations throughout.

Your assertion of higher ridership on Queen vs Welington is shaky at best. The bulk of the DRL riders will be transfers from B-D. Do we agree on that statement? Queen needs LOCAL service. This means stops spaced close together (B-D spacing or tighter). Having the DRL along Queen with just as many stops as B-D will not make it any faster than tranferring at B-Y or St. George, it will only make the ride less congested.

On the other hand, having it along the rail corridor/Wellington will provide fewer stops (spacing more akin to the Sheppard line or Yonge north of Lawrence), which means not only a less crowded ride downtown, but also a faster one. And because it will actually be faster, it will theoretically be more used, and therefore will provide even further relief to B-Y.

You might as well support a King alignment then. Union Station is a hub not a destination. It at least would offer more bona fide destinations than Wellington.

I do not support a King alignment, I support a Wellington alignment through the CBD, jumping down to the rail corridor on either side of the CBD (Spadina and Javis roughly). I've explained the benefits of a Wellington alignment through the CBD many times (3 transfer locations, close proximity to Union, but also passes through King and St. Andrew stations).

So you admit you make up "completely unrealistic" assumptions to support your ideas? Um, ok.

I was merely trying to illustrate the potential ridership it COULD have. Obviously 100% of the ridership would not transfer, to assume that would be idiotic. That same argument could have been used for Queen as well.

You made the assertion that it was possible that a line somewhere other than Queen would not be viable from day one. I was merely saying that the Sheppard line is now viable, and the same number of people per day as the King car. If even half of those using the King car transfer and use the DRL (not including those who would transfer at Queen, Dundas, and College.. because yes, it will bisect those lines too), in addition to the 17,000 peak hour projected to transfer off of B-D, the line is definetly viable.

Oh, and Metrolinx is making projections about something called the "DCL". Relief will be one of its many functions, but not its sole one.

However, it should be its primary one.

 

[kEiThZ]

Oh really? Parkdale, Art-Design District, Queen West, City Hall, CBD/Yonge Strip, Corktown, West Don Lands, Riverside, Studio District. Also within walking distance of Queen: Chinatown, AGO/OCAD, King West Village, Theatre District, Fashion District, Design Strip/GBC, Regent Park.

You do realize that most of those neighbourhoods could be equally well served by a King alignment through the core (and Queen in the east end). Moreover, only a hand full of your list come even half way to what's going on at CityPlace.

And if the argument that you and Northern Magnus bring up about "potential" is to be applied fairly, then what about your list? Corktown is still a work in progress. Ditto for Regent Park. And the latter is even more of a work in progress than CityPlace.

It important to note it's highly impropable that the demand levels within the new waterfront areas will ever eclipse that of the preexisitng city core, which is why when planning future transit infrastructure the focus should be on where requires the most alleviation from a real-world, not ideological, perspective.

Improbable based on what? If the city feels it necessary to build a LRT for Waterfront West instead of prioritizing improvements for the downtown streetcars, it's obvious where the planners think the demand is.

I am not going to suggest that what you are saying is patently untrue. But I would definitely not resort to rhetorical terms like "improbable" without the evidence to back it up.

Lastly on this point, just as it would be fair to consider the impact of a Queen subway on other streetcar lines like King, the reverse is also true. A line that intersects Queen twice is likely to significantly relieve Queen. Who would take a streetcar all the way to Yonge or University when half way through your ride you can catch a subway that'll get you there in minutes.

And lest we forget:

• Coming soon to Liberty Village:- Waterfront West LRT, 515 Waterfront, rerouted 63 Ossington via Liberty St, Exhibition GO Stn, Liberty Village GO Stn (Atlantic/King)
• Coming soon to East Bayfront/West Don Lands/Portlands:- 515 Waterfront, 523 Leslieville, 524 Broadview, 566 Lake Shore Express, 567 West Don via Cherry St, West Don Lands GO Stn (Cherry/Eastern)
• Coming soon to Cityplace:- Waterfront West LRT, 513 Bathurst East via Breemer, 515 Waterfront, more frequent 510 Spadina service

The fact that there's a bunch of LRT/streetcar routes servicing those areas means there's sufficient demand for transit there. One could argue it's far more efficient to service that much demand with a subway stop instead of three streetcar routes.

So it's not like the waterfront will be in desperate need of a subway line anytime soon. That on top of all of the above would be overkill.

It's always an assumption that it's all about the waterfront. It's not. That's where all the new growth is to be sure. But there are other reasons to choose the other corridors. For example, my support of King, Adelaide or Wellington is based on current ridership on King and lack of capacity at Union. It's also important for me that the target market (commuters from Scarborough and East York) be able to access stations south of the DRL with less stops than the combination of Bloor-Danforth and YUS, because that'll have yield the speed to make the line attractive.

How would Queen be any slower? To transfer trains ascending/descending flights of stairs at B-Y can take about a minute, and what if the train arrival times aren't n'sync? Longer wait. Pape to Union using B-D and Y-U-S to Union is 16 minutes. Assuming one's destination isn't a commuter rail station but an actual office building near King and Bay, taking a Queen-DRL subway that only stops 6 times in-between Pape and 'Bay South' Stn at roughly 90 seconds interval between stops, would result in a total travel time of 10 minutes, 30 seconds; or a savings of over 5 minutes.

But then you'd tack on a 5 min walk for them which could be quite tedious in the Winter. Given that most of the ridership on YUS is bound for King, St.Andrew and Union, wouldn't it make sense in your example to actually send them straight there. What could be better than sending riders straight to King and Bay?

Do you have anything apart from non sequiturs to back up your claims? How would a CNR alignment be cheaper if at-grade operation is not a option? Given its proximity to the water table, one may argue that an alignment closer to Lake Ontario runs way too much risk of flooding which can lead to tunnels collapsing in, electrical surges & failures, etc. Inland ROW would have greater geologic stability, with the added bonus of bringing with it gentrification and renewed socioeconomic growth where it's most needed (i.e. increases foot-traffic through downtown's volatile shopping districts as reliable rapid transit in/out is now affixed).

While I don't support a rail corridor alignment, I'll call BS on this scaremongering. Even the TTC has not raised red flags about the technical risk of such an alignment. It was infill decades ago, since then the YUS line and the TTC streetcar have been in operation without significant hiccups. And they were built to significantly lower engineering standards than what's demanded today. Have there been tunnels collapsing or electrical surges, etc? Lastly on this point, subways are built through bedrock. They aren't built through top soil. That it's infill won't matter when you are tunneling below the infill.

Actually I think you need to look closer. A lot of the land is still untouched. It won't be finished for 5-8 years. And, again, it's served by 3 existing LRTs and one about to be built. You point is moot.

If it's going to be finished in 5-8 years than it should most certainly be included in planning for the DRL which definitely won't come in to service for a decade or more.

So .... you're speculating that the city won't follow its official plan? Can't say I'd ever agree.

Did you read Scarberian's explanation of the challenges of avenueizing Queen? If that designation only applies to Queen addresses and does not address the low density housing in several neighbourhoods around Queen, than it's potential is most certainly limited.

Yawn. These residents will already be served by LRT lines and, when eventually built, they'd be within the catchment area of a Queen alignment.

But again you miss the point. It's not about potential density of a project but actual projected ridership of a line. Few if any people will travel to those places if they don't live or work there. On the other hand, Queen offers proper destinations throughout.

If you want to talk about ridership, Queen would definitely not be the top candidate:

http://www3.ttc.ca/PDF/Transit_Planning/subway_ridership_2007-2008.pdf

And some stats on this article by Steve Munro point out the difference in ridership between 504/508 and the 501.

Based on ridership alone, King is a far better candidate than Queen.

Union Station is a hub not a destination.

You make a statement like that and then suggest that those of us who don't support the Queen alignment are putting "non-sequiturs, straw men and false dichotomies"?

Why should it matter whether Union station is a hub or a destination? All of a sudden 80 000 riders a day are irrelevant because they are going through a hub? Wow.

So you admit you make up "completely unrealistic" assumptions to support your ideas? Um, ok.

At least he/she is honestly caveating his/her statements which is much more than anything you've put up here. Gweed followed that assumption with analysis and than further pointed out that the 17 000 riders Metrolinx assumes will be diverted from Yonge-Bloor will make the line viable. What's completely unrealistic about Gweed's analysis? Can you say for sure with 100% certainty that 100% of Queen's ridership would transfer to a subway?

Oh, and Metrolinx is making projections about something called the "DCL". Relief will be one of its many functions, but not its sole one.

Sadly, you may be right. The powers that be in this town have a strong record on screwing over commuters from Scarborough. I would not be surprised one bit if once again they prioritized downtowners over the bulk of the TTC's ridership who will use that line.

 

[kEiThZ]

^^ Fresh Start, well said. There's a few too many non-sequiturs, straw men, and false dichotomies floating around in the anti-Queen lot.

Your statements are getting rather arrogant and condescending. If you feel that the rest of us have "non-sequiturs, straw men or false dichotomies" in our posts, address them directly. Otherwise, such slander is unwarranted and does nothing to further the discussion or debate.

 

[gweed123]

At least he/she is honestly caveating his/her statements which is much more than anything you've put up here. Gweed followed that assumption with analysis and than further pointed out that the 17 000 riders Metrolinx assumes will be diverted from Yonge-Bloor will make the line viable. What's completely unrealistic about Gweed's analysis? Can you say for sure with 100% certainty that 100% of Queen's ridership would transfer to a subway?

I'm a he, just to clarify, haha.

And for the record, Union Station may be a hub, but it's also a hub directly adjacent to the largest employment district per sq km in the city BY FAR, possibly even in the country. To ignore it completely would not be a wise choice. However, a single intersection point with YUS is also a dangerous path to walk.

I'd also like to see a study done on the number of riders projected to transfer off the King, Queen, College, and Dundas streetcars for Queen vs Wellington. I would suspect the relief of the Queen streetcar would be very similar in either scenario.

 

[Dan416]

I'm a he, just to clarify, haha.

And for the record, Union Station may be a hub, but it's also a hub directly adjacent to the largest employment district per sq km in the city BY FAR, possibly even in the country. To ignore it completely would not be a wise choice. However, a single intersection point with YUS is also a dangerous path to walk.

I'd also like to see a study done on the number of riders projected to transfer off the King, Queen, College, and Dundas streetcars for Queen vs Wellington. I would suspect the relief of the Queen streetcar would be very similar in either scenario.

I don't see why a "single intersection point" with YUS is dangerous. How many transfers are we expecting from YUS to DRL and vice versa?

Union is a busy station during rush hour. Outside of that it's not that bad at all. With renovations I don't see how Union could possibly be overloaded by the DRL. On one hand, people say it's not important because it's a hub not a destination. On the other hand, people say the DRL will overload Union. So which is it?