Civil? You think "appear to grasp" is civil?
A large part of your recent post history is just you name calling and blurting emotional language if not mockery.
Why do you need transit before the station opens?
Good grief, they are literally building a subway station next to the GO station. How much frigging transit do you need?
Are those that pointed out the morons (elsewhere) complaining about Olivia Chow and the TTC not running enough Union Pearson trains after the last Blue Jays game, TTC apologists?
And those who blame Metrolinx for the initial Line 5 demand estimates - on a city project they weren't involved in - Metrolinx apologists?
Pointing out both the errors and accolades of a given agency isn't being an apologist. This isn't third-world USA politics.
Rather than engage in civil debate, you attack myself and others and end up calling me a conspiracy theorist.
Assuming you know TTC does not run UP Express, rather Metrolinx does? You would be right about that one point. But then you insinuated something along the lines of "third world" American political pundit towards me. Clearly my good faith across multiple posts did not result in the same from you.
In several threads you misconstrued capacity for demand multiple times. Then tried to mock me when pointing out mathematically proven inadequacies in the current quantity of rolling stock to meet Metrolinx/Crosslinx's eventual targeted route capacity. This was somehow misinterpreted by you as criticizing Metrolinx for inaccurate ridership projections, which I did not do. And this was also an excuse for you to smart aleck me and tell me the project was entirely the City's (by the time of your oft-cited 2010 report) despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I never denied the city had something to do with some, if not most of the project's brainwork early on (i.e. 2007). But fact is, the city had no money for the project, it was never going to be a TTC project in the end, barring large municipal tax increases (source in my previous post).
You misconstrued capacity for demand and changed the topic in the Eglinton thread so I played along and pointed out demand might be higher than projected. The 2010 report you kept asserting was evidence this was a city project entirely for some reason assumed 2.9-3 million people in Toronto by 2031.
We all know the city has more than 3 million people as of now. Had you even bothered to read the report, you would know the numbers came from a 2006 City of Toronto Official Plan, which got its numbers from a 2002 paper that itself was part of an earlier Official Plan. The 2011-2012 numbers from the updated Mx case complemented the earlier work done and do not contradict it. 8.6 million in GTHA by 2031 based on 2006 Census figures. These are not "meaningless annual numbers". These formed the basis of what became Line 5 today. This is all information you were unfamiliar with since all you have done is misread, misconstrue, misinterpret what I say, try to gotcha me, get proven wrong, then call me names. You not appearing to grasp the concept of demographics>demand>route capacity is evidenced by your outright denials of this causal link.
whether Milton doubles or quadruples does nothing for Line 5 demand. Nor do I see any differing PPHPD estimates in this TLDR full of tangents. I certainly don't see the 15,000 demand that I think you mentioned here.
Strawmanning Milton when the obvious topic at hand is Toronto. Toronto's population is much higher than expected. And look at the post you replied to, you are still not grasping the difference between capacity and demand.
I listed only some of the evidence that Metrolinx was involved well before 2010, which still countered your false notion that this was a city project that Mx was not involved in. Had you even read the cover page of the 2010 EPR you would see Metrolinx plastered above the other logos. Given that you have refused to acknowledge any of the facts I brought up to counter your sweeping claims and insults, it's clear you didn't know the history behind the project and just made assumptions. Rather than admit you were at least partially wrong, you keep DARVOing me and the rest of us on this thread.
Just look at your post history, you have a short temper and reading comprehension issues. Most of your angry replies to others originate from fundamental misunderstandings of what people said; this leads to strawman attacks and a speech chilling effect on those with thinner skin to your insults, which goes against what this forum is about.
I've pointed out that there's been multiple predictions by multiple agencies - as far as I can recall in the TLDR, all you've pointed to that might contradict this is meaningless annual numbers, and the business case for a different project, that wasn't built, and I commented here a decade ago was going to be problematic.
We are done. Stop spreading these bizarre conspiracy theories and click-bait perpetuated by ignorant U-Toobers on the World Wide Web, who are more concerned with their views than the truth.
The 2010 and 2012 papers are here together on the same webpage. The 2012 updated benefits case analysis was iterative and
not a business case for a different project as you claim. Had you even bothered to read it, you would know this fact. This work was later refined to produce the contracts that went to Crosslinx et al that became Line 5 Eglinton today. However, the options in these papers are
not exactly what we got in the end.
https://www.metrolinx.com/en/projects-and-programs/eglinton-crosstown-lrt/studies
The fact you are still grasping at straws bringing up Reece who I mentioned once instead of actually considering the merits of someone else's argument makes me think you might even be ragebaiting.
