Again. I didn't see anything in the links that shows significant development along the length of Queen outside the Financial District. And that's what we are arguing here I presume. I see the DRL as cutting through the city and serving several areas. You see it as serving predominantly the Queen and King corridors alone.
Remember, it's not just Queen, it's King/Queen. If you didn't see it, it means you didn't open the links. That, or the maps were simply too complicated for you.
Wanna show me the Queen Street CIP?
http://www.toronto.ca/planning/studies.htm
Till there's one on that site, I am inclined to lean on the OP as the only guidance the city has issued for further development of Queen and King outside the FD.
Well, this would certainly prove that you don't look at any links, including the one's that you yourself provide. Talk about not checking your sources.
This one deals with King/Spadina area, and its scope goes as far north as Queen, and as far south as Front, except for the eastern corner towards University, where it only goes to King. Page 15, which illustrates the recommended adjustments, is particularly interesting, as the density is more consistent and higher on the north side of King than on the south.
Something that you seem to miss as well, is that the King/Queen corridor deals with 4, sometimes 5 streets, while south-of-King deals with only 3. Obviously you're going to hit more when you have a wider service area.
Here's another, dealing with the West Queen Triangle.
In the King/Parliament area check out page 30 for the huge swath of a regeneration area through the King/Queen corridor around here (Jarvis-Parliament).
So what? Who says that's a bad thing. But even this I am skeptical with. The waterfront is premium space. If there's a 10 by 10 box left anywhere, somebody will put a condo up. I don't foresee tight nodal developments happening with or without a subway. It's going to be continuous.
OK, you don't understand the OP or the relationship between infrastructure and developments. That's fine, if you admit that you don't get it. Pretending that you get it isn't going to work, because you're clearly struggling to support your arguement.
Why do you think the Avenues plan favours LRT? Why do you think Queen St. and King St. have the continuous development that they have? This is why the streetcars wouldn't be eliminated if the DRL does run through Richmond/Adelaide, although they'd obviously be reduced in frequency (because they need that anyway in King's case).
This is also why the waterfront should be serviced by quality LRT.
A bus to a subway as one example. I have never said I am opposed to LRT there. I have repeatedly said I support a London DLR type of solution for the Portlands. But that LRT has to have somewhere to go and I think it makes sense to have a subway station closer than Union.
You clearly had a less-than-flattering view of LRT. Remember this?:
We'll have to see. It may still be cheaper to have a subway stop and a few buses feeding the neighbourhood than a whole LRT mini-network. Moreover, given the densities being projected for these neighbourhoods, I am skeptical that LRT will be enough. Queen's Quay and Lakeshore are going to become a dog's breakfast (my apology to dog lovers) with the amount of LRT that might be needed to serve all these areas.
And DLR type of service to the Portlands is ridiculous, it's akin to giving it its own SRT (which, I'll remind you, was the plan for the DRL in the 1980s). It doesn't need anywhere near such extravagent transit infrastructure for the demand it is projected to have.
As for "giving that LRT somewhere to go," Union is farther away than the King/Cherry.
How is it grasping at straws? Is that what it is when you have a plurality of voters preferring one option over another? I stated the obvious.
And for the record. I have said the vote should be redone with King as an option.
You're not stating the obvious at all. Anybody that believes King is the best choice has had to choose between Adelaide and Wellington, even though they believe King is best. Wellington is closer to King than Adelaide, although by a small margin, but may be affecting people's choice. If a significant number of the Wellington votes were for King instead, then the Richmond/Adelaide alignment becomes a clear winner.
Now, King's not really feasable anyway, and as far as implementation is concerned, Queen isn't practical either. So re-doing it with King is a bit of a pointless exercise.
So what if they are? I am betting that the stations south of King will see higher ridership in the years to come and that's why the line should be on King or further south. You disagree. Fair enough.
They wouldn't. Because they don't have the established ridership. The buildings along the waterfront aren't going to be as tall as the financial district either. You're also neglecting the connecting E-W routes that also contribute to the ridership coming VIA Yonge, not just those with Yonge as its final destination.
You don't go from 0 to 60,000 rides a day at a given point in 10 years. This is why subways are best routed along established corridors with existing high ridership that is guaranteed to be there when revenue service starts.
Furthermore, you actually don't want a single station to have ridership too high, since it then has to cope with excessive peak stress. The DRL serves the purpose of
bringing the peak stress down from stations like King and Queen (among other stations) to a reasonable level. It's called demand and resource management, and you don't want to overstrain your resources. This is the whole motivation for the DRL.
That response was based on your assertion that GO will be dumping riders at Union who still need to head north. I have said that if that's the threat than the more lines leading out of Union the better. I still don't see the challenge here.
You totally don't get it... at all. By having riders transfer to the DRL at a station
other than Union to get into the core, you relieve the stress put on at Union. In order to releive the stress from Union though, obviously you can't have the line go to Union, otherwise it will simply contribute to the stress there, as you'll be encouraging more transfers to take place there. If you take riders further north of Union from the get-go through Liberty Village GO and a GO Station somewhere in the Riverdale area to connect to the DRL to keep them clear of Union, you get the alleviation. You will not get the alleviation by running the DRL into Union because then GO riders simply will not transfer to the DRL at all, because it will simply take them to the same place. Get it yet? For someone with a high-and-mighty attitude such as yourself, you should know this.
As for your assertion that GO will face severe challenges in 20 years....I believe the upgrades we are undertaking will be sufficient. You don't. Fair enough.
Like I said, part of it has to do with available tracks. How do you solve that one?
I am more than willing to put up a poll asking who folks think is acting superior on here.....
Hm, let's see, I tell you to drop the attitude of thinking that using popular opinion in and of itself can be used to justify your position, and then you suggest a popular opinion solution to the perception of your attitude. That's too funny guy. Way to pay attention.
Forum seniority has little relation to your familiarity with transit. That's just childish and naive.