1) Limited densification potential. City officials and NIMBYs will not allow Queen to be significantly densified. The railway alignment definetly wins in this department, because those brownfield industrial sites can be redeveloped around the subway.
A Railway alignment would be absolutely amazing to service new development. The area around the rail corridor easily has the most high density construction in Downtown, probably even the entire GTA.
2) CBD: Why pass near it when you can pass through it? Union and Queen may be equidistant from FCP, but Wellington and Queen aren't. Wellington also provides 3 connection points to YUS, as opposed to Queen's 2. Wellington and Queen are also equidistant from Adelaide.
I think it'd be pretty easy to just tunnel up through the CBD, so that it turns to a bit more of a Wellington alignment for a short stretch between Jarvis and Simcoe. Instead of going under the current Union subway station, it could go beside it.
I'm not sure if I totally like this idea vs. just going under the current Union Station, but they both have their ups and downs. An alignment underneath Union would improve connectivity greatly, but an alignment beside Union would probably provide better capacity.
4) Queen street is the type of street that needs stops very close together in order to make it effective. The whole purpose of the DRL is to provide a less crowded and faster route downtown. Residents along Queen would probably want spacing similar to B-D, when what the line really needs to be effective is spacing like Sheppard.
I think it's more like Queen would want stop spacing similar to the downtown portions of the YUS (350-500m apart,) while the DRL would need something just a bit longer than the B-D. When you think about it, you'd need stops at Cherry St, somewhere in the Distillery District, Jarvis, then possibly Yonge, Union and University, then Spadina, Then Bathurst, then one in Liberty Village and/or the Ex. That's closer to B-D spacing, but I think it'd still do a fine job of downtown relief.
1) Limited densification potential. City officials and NIMBYs will not allow Queen to be significantly densified. The railway alignment definetly wins in this department, because those brownfield industrial sites can be redeveloped around the subway.
A Railway alignment would be absolutely amazing for new development. There most development going on is in that area, and it would provide a solid backbone for the Waterfront Developments.
2) CBD: Why pass near it when you can pass through it? Union and Queen may be equidistant from FCP, but Wellington and Queen aren't. Wellington also provides 3 connection points to YUS, as opposed to Queen's 2. Wellington and Queen are also equidistant from Adelaide.
I think it'd be pretty easy to just tunnel up through the CBD, so that it turns to a bit more of a Wellington alignment for a short stretch. Instead of going under the current Union subway station, it could go beside it.
I'm not sure if I totally like this idea vs. just going under the current Union Station, but they both have their ups and downs.
In short, build the DRL using the rail alignment now, and then if Queen is still overcrowded a few years down the road, build a Queen LRT, because that type of technology (and station spacing) is more suited for Queen than a subway is.
That'd be the best option. You'd probably want to do it like Eglinton; LRT with an underground bit through downtown, maybe from Spadina to Parliment. It'd serve the area much better and would improve speed and capacity greatly.
My dream situation would be to build the DRL while putting the rail corridor underground. Then, it could easily hug the northern part of the corridor, dipping out of it occasionally to better service an area. If that idea ever resurfaces (though I can pretty well guess that it won't,) it'd solve most of the issues that a railway alignment currently has which mostly concerns space.