"Downtown Core Line" - Possible Alignments?

[Railization]

I said now, as in the estimate now. Pull the cucumber out.

Quit backpedaling, learn to articulate, and cut the immaturity.

 

[Railization]

You haven't debunked anything. You have yet to show that future development along Queen will be greater than what's happening along our Waterfront. Please show us where in the official plan the rest of Queen is supposed to become condo heaven.

I provided at least two maps that show this. If you actually clicked the links. Those links are from the City's website no less.

If the city changes it's designation of Queen St neighbourhoods as 'stable' I'll accept that we should move the line north. Till then, from what that official plan says, the city is developing southward in my books.

I think you should look at the more detailed plans for the areas instead of just the OP only. You get more information. Information that you clearly are missing or you wouldn't be taking these stands. Furthermore, both the OP and the more detailed CIPs are going for a development pattern that is better supported by LRT than subway anyway. Putting a subway down the waterfront would see nodal instead of continuous levels of development. The waterfront will undoubtedly be most vibrant with a continuous pattern rather than nodal.

And I never said that LRT was supposedly inferior. I said that development along the Portlands warranted a nearby subway station...presumably one to which the Portlands LRT would run. I don't think building one precludes the other or that it's an issue of sufficient demand for the line....it's a question of if there is demand for that subway stop, imho.

This is a lie, plain and simple. You previously stated that a feeder bus system for the Portlands could be used instead of LRT so long as the area has a subway stop. Which is ridiculous and I explained the various reasons why.

Notice I haven't called them misguided like you have the rest of us....

Where did I call people misguided? Quit playing victim.

Sadly on this poll, only three of the choices are represented (Queen, Richmond/Adelaide, Front/Wellington/Rail). Should we have grouped them accordingly we would have gotten a much more accurate result. As you can see, at this point 55% of folks prefer a Front/Wellington/rail corridor alignment.

Now you're gasping at straws. Why don't we add a King St. alignment since it's just as impractical to realistically construct as Queen is!?

And that's likely because the majority of glass palace workers coming in from Scarbarough will be working south of King...

So why are Queen station and King station at comparable levels of ridership?

and the vote recognizes that. Queen street boosters are not supporting this as a relief line project for Yonge/Bloor (where those commuters go through now) they are attempting to graft a relief line for the Queen streetcar on to the DRL. And that still does not make sense as Queen is not the busiest route through the core. That's King I believe.

King is the busiest route... I previously acknowledged that, likely more than once. This is now you trying to misconstrue the argument and my position. The reason why I insist that the Richmond/Adelaide model is best is because it will:
a) Alleviate both King and Queen corridors with a single subway alignment
b) Can hit St.Andrew, Osgoode, King, and Queen stations all in one hit, and divert a large portion of the traffic coming through Union station by avoiding Union station altogher
c) Goes through already built-up and established activity areas where supply currently falls short of demand
d) Will be successful even if every downtown construction project ground to a halt tomorrow.
e) It is uncertain whether the King and Queen corridors can be sustained by streetcar service in the long term, whereas the waterfront can certainly be sustained by LRT service in the long term (as it's dedicated ROW), as is the plan.

Indeed. All the more the reason for the DRL to connect to Union.

See, you make comments like this, and it SCREAMS that you either aren't paying attention to the thread, or that you have no understanding of networks whatsoever. That quote states that you don't understand how downtown travel patterns work.

Those folks would be riding north irrespective of where the DRL lies. But if it's at Union you are giving them the choice to connect to one more line. Either way, they are 'moving against traffic' so they aren't as big a concern.

You missed the point, and don't understand downtown travel patterns, nor the challenges Union station is up against 20 years from now.

I think you need to tone down your superiority complex and think about why your comments are out-of-touch. I'll give you a hint: I've already given you this answer earlier in the thread, and that's why I'm not going to bother re-posting it.

 

[Darren B]

Personally I see no reason to break YUS in half. By all means, we should build the DRL from Pape to Dundas west via Union, but the TTC isn't looking at bisecting YUS as far as I know, and I don't know any good reason to do so.

The TTC once planned on dissecting the YUS at Union

 

[Darren B]

Bingo ... double decker - though there should be room for 4 tracks under a 30-metre wide street, but perhaps not platforms as well, but you wouldn't need platforms for both tracks, except at a couple of locations, so the express tracks could simply pass underneath most stations, with no platforms ...

Lexington in NYC is double decker and it works just fine. I'd recommend using it to anyone who wants to see a state of the art subway line.

The City has plenty of taxing powers; they were given a lot of power in the new City of Toronto Act - however they have chosen not to use most of their new powers, restricting the new taxes to house transfers and cars (which in retrospect, were most likely to have been severely reduced during a recession ...)

WTF??? The city is raping its citizens, homeowners, rate-payers, tenants, TTC users, etc etc. If you seriously dont know how bad it is, then you're either loaded or you dont live in this city.

 

[Darren B]

I think we should just build platforms big enough to allow for future car additions (maybe enough for seven cars, instead of the current six?). That's probably the cheapest way to "make room."

I dont think so. Thats what GO service is for. Subways are meant to be lean and fast.

 

[nfitz]

WTF??? The city is raping its citizens, homeowners, rate-payers, tenants, TTC users, etc etc. If you seriously dont know how bad it is, then you're either loaded or you dont live in this city.

That's a bit extreme, I live in the city. Taxes don't seem to be that bad; they have taxes in other cities too ... sure it's painful, but it not like unique here or anything.

 

[kEiThZ]

I provided at least two maps that show this. If you actually clicked the links. Those links are from the City's website no less.

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.

I think you should look at the more detailed plans for the areas instead of just the OP only....

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.

Putting a subway down the waterfront would see nodal instead of continuous levels of development. The waterfront will undoubtedly be most vibrant with a continuous pattern rather than nodal.

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.

This is a lie, plain and simple. You previously stated that a feeder bus system for the Portlands could be used instead of LRT so long as the area has a subway stop. Which is ridiculous and I explained the various reasons why.

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.

Now you're gasping at straws. Why don't we add a King St. alignment since it's just as impractical to realistically construct as Queen is!?

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.

So why are Queen station and King station at comparable levels of ridership?

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.

See, you make comments like this, and it SCREAMS that you either aren't paying attention to the thread, or that you have no understanding of networks whatsoever. That quote states that you don't understand how downtown travel patterns work.

You missed the point, and don't understand downtown travel patterns, nor the challenges Union station is up against 20 years from now.

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.

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.

I think you need to tone down your superiority complex and think about why your comments are out-of-touch.

I am more than willing to put up a poll asking who folks think is acting superior on here.....

 

[Darren B]

That's a bit extreme, I live in the city. Taxes don't seem to be that bad; they have taxes in other cities too ... sure it's painful, but it not like unique here or anything.

Its VERY painful. Try holding down a mortgage on one icome and see your property taxes go up by 4% on top of a bloated assesment that MPAC put out. Then see your water rate go up 9%. Then there is also the land transfer tax and the vehicle transfer tax. These all just pertain solely to Toronto, so in reality many honest hard working people will be forced out into the burbs, thus creating more urban sprawl.

It sure as sh*t is unique to Toronto, especially when you see how unique the bloated spending has been under two terms of Miller. The annual budget is going up higher then inflation each and every year, and a higher rate then the surrounding suburbs.

 

[nfitz]

Its VERY painful. Try holding down a mortgage on one icome and see your property taxes go up by 4% on top of a bloated assesment that MPAC put out. Then see your water rate go up 9%.

That's exactly what I do! And MPAC assessment increases don't increase your taxes - unless you increased more than the average. If your assessment went up 20% from the last assessment, and the average went up 20%, then your taxes go up 0% ... well 4% now I guess. BTW, I took a close look at my assessment, and did some measuring ... there is errors, my finished basement area is half of what they have on record, and my lot area is about 70% of what is shown ... so I'm appealing. (tax is fine, but damned if I'm going to pay MORE than my share! ).

Then there is also the land transfer tax and the vehicle transfer tax. These all just pertain solely to Toronto, so in reality many honest hard working people will be forced out into the burbs, thus creating more urban sprawl.

Where people complain that their taxes are higher than Toronto's ...

The annual budget is going up higher then inflation each and every year, and a higher rate then the surrounding suburbs.

I think we are fractions of a percentage higher than most (but not all) of the suburbs this year, and I think we have been lower than most of the suburbs the last 2 years. I'm having a hard time seeing the issue here ... people have been complaining about property taxes in every city on the planet since Roman times. Can we try being a bit original here?

 

[kEiThZ]

Its VERY painful. Try holding down a mortgage on one icome and see your property taxes go up by 4% on top of a bloated assesment that MPAC put out. Then see your water rate go up 9%. Then there is also the land transfer tax and the vehicle transfer tax. These all just pertain solely to Toronto, so in reality many honest hard working people will be forced out into the burbs, thus creating more urban sprawl.

Agreed. But till our higher levels of government pony up, we are going to have to raise the revenue on our own to build things like the DRL.

And taxes are still not as bad as they appear. Toronto's mill rates are significantly lower than its neighbours. I agree that the other taxes can seem egregious but they are purposeful and I am willing to bet that given the chance the 905 would put them in too. Vehicle taxes discourage driving. Garbage taxes encourage recycling. For too long we have subsidized poor behaviour, with these taxes the city has finally stopped doing that. What's wrong with that?

The only tax I disagreed with was the land transfer tax. I'd rather have seen the city jack up developer fees to at least par with the 905 if not higher.

The annual budget is going up higher then inflation each and every year, and a higher rate then the surrounding suburbs.

Hey....but at least he didn't build the bridge right?!?!

 

[Darren B]

Nfitz, try to see past the crap that Miller feeds to the public for a moment, and see that on a per sqaure foot basis we pay more in property taxes. You may want to question how in the middle of a ression the city is hiring 1,100 people to man a 24/7 'customer care' number at 55k a piece. Then question how he gave into numerous union demand, and not one but 2 CBAs with the ATU113 in his 2 terms. The second went to arbitration, and the city could have theoretically secured a lowballed CBA due to the strike fiasco......but noooooo, they gave them even more then what was originally offered. That CBA also includes the GTA best clause. Thats guarenteed to screw us over time and again as salaries will rise if another GTA transit system surpases ours in salaries. For every 1% increase that the ATU113 will secure it translates to I believe 8 million more a year from our taxes.

Higher levels of government see this is unheralded waist, and they refuse to fund capital projects if they believe this will continue. Miller is scaring away more then just residents.

Lets just focus on the DRL allignment. I dont know want to get more pissed off about our municipal government then already am.

 

[cacruden]

I actually think adding another subway line at Union would be not the best thing - in my opinion you want to spread out the points of transfer between subways to more stations. Union already has a lot of lines (yes most of them are GO), they have Via (less of an issue), and they have the subway, during peak times adding another subway will just make it too much at one location (again in my humble opinion).

Number two, the subway with future development plans in mind. The subway would not open for at least several years, it will be used in 5, 10, 20 years BUT not today - so future development plans should be a big factor in development of a subway.

We have taken the assumption that the east route and the west route are the same DRL line, they of course do not need to be, the west one could terminate at Yonge, and the east one could terminate at University. For example - you could have the west come down Adelaide, and the east come down south through St. Lawrence Market (I don't remember much north of that location being developed at this point). In the future, you could actually take the west line and terminate it at some place like Parliament (slightly east) -- i.e. intersecting the west line.

You could also take the east line, and turn it south at around Union and run it down to a station on the waterfront and have a station with the LRT line not having to turn north into Union Station. Of course much farther in the future it could then curve west again if the LRT gets overloaded.

Just some thinking outside of the box. Would splitting the west and east lines be an option?

 

[Darren B]

Agreed. But till our higher levels of government pony up, we are going to have to raise the revenue on our own to build things like the DRL.

And taxes are still not as bad as they appear. Toronto's mill rates are significantly lower than its neighbours. I agree that the other taxes can seem egregious but they are purposeful and I am willing to bet that given the chance the 905 would put them in too. Vehicle taxes discourage driving. Garbage taxes encourage recycling. For too long we have subsidized poor behaviour, with these taxes the city has finally stopped doing that. What's wrong with that?

The only tax I disagreed with was the land transfer tax. I'd rather have seen the city jack up developer fees to at least par with the 905 if not higher.

I dont even own a car and I am against the car transfer tax. Everyone of those taxes make us less competitive then our 905 suburbs. In a decision of where to live, someone will move to where its more conveniant and cheaper for them. Thats why Im all for zoned fares for the TTC. The chespest fare could potentially be less then our current fare, thus benefiting many Torontonians. The longer riders would pay a higher fare and that would better serve the needs of the TTC operating budget and the city's.

 

[kEiThZ]

I dont even own a car and I am against the car transfer tax. Everyone of those taxes make us less competitive then our 905 suburbs. In a decision of where to live, someone will move to where its more conveniant and cheaper for them. Thats why Im all for zoned fares for the TTC. The chespest fare could potentially be less then our current fare, thus benefiting many Torontonians. The longer riders would pay a higher fare and that would better serve the needs of the TTC operating budget and the city's.

Zoned fares. Agree with ya.

Now back to the DRL before we take it too far off track....

 

[cacruden]

^ Darren and Keith agreeing on something - actually maybe it is time to pause and celebrate for a little while before getting back on topic!