Ok, I'm going to deconstruct what you've said and respond to each point.
I want the alignment that provides greatest relief to Yonge-Bloor.
As I see throughout your many posts, the main problem here is that your reasoning tends to be both selective and somewhat circular, and you rely on vague and fuzzy terminology to try and make a case that you don't seem to nail.
In order to convince me of the validity of your position, you will need to spell out precisely what "relief" means in measurable, concrete terms. You will also need to demonstrate that this "relief" should be the sole or over-arching objective in the construction of any further line. Unfortunately, neither have been satisfactorily done so far.
I see the greatest potential for relief with the line being at King or below
You'll also need to properly explain what you mean by "potential". As it stands, your use of this term seems to be a signpost for speculation. Ultimately cold, hard numbers will win the day, not only for me, but for
the folks who will fund it. By failing to do this, your points are unconvincing.
I look at new mixed use nodes like Liberty Village, and the Waterfront lands as having the potential to draw in significant amounts of peak traffic (commuters coming in to work). I don't see that same potential elsewhere yet.
You're using a commuter model of transit in your reasoning, which to be fair, is what the mid-1980s DLR plan was based upon. Unfortunately that model is now 30 years out of whack, and it's fair game to question the ongoing validity of its assumptions. This is clearly one of the reasons the whole plan is going back to the drawing board. And I should also point out that the waterfront and Liberty village are going to be further served by
LRT lines already approved by the TTC, Toronto Council, and Metrolinx.
When it comes to 10-30 years down the road, why are you so skeptical about development in that time period?
To be fair, I might as well ask why you're being so emerald-coloured. When I look at the waterfront, port lands, CityPlace, and the Fort York area, it sure appears that 15-25 years is the norm from start to finish, depending on precisely how large the land is, and how from-scratch the development will be. If I understand your position correctly, you're dependent on a high degree of optimistic projections occurring that even you admit you can't accurately ascertain or forecast. I disagree with this approach and instead advocate a more concrete, pragmatic one that assumes less risk.
I never understand how somebody can claim that Queen will develop over the next decade or three but the rest of the city won't?
To be fair, I think the reason for this is a tendency to misconstrue their points and turn them into straw men. Clearly the whole city will intensify and grow. The difference is that Queen won't start from scratch, has existing mixed use sections throughout, runs (more than) the intended length of the downtown core line, has proper established destinations, lots of development and redevelopment potential, and would hit the ground running with a pre-existing ridership base that will allow it to be fiscally viable far sooner that the other alignment options discussed so far.
For one, the waterfront lands are far more attractive to any developer than any site available along Queen Street.
Unless you're a developer and not disclosing it, I think you're probably making a baseless assertion here. Personally, if I was a developer, I'd have to think that Queen would be far more preferable because there would be (a) far less risks, (b) lower infrastructure-type costs, and (c) it would be much an easier sell.
Large parcels of waterfront property, close to the core, with the full support of a dedicated city agency, and friendly city policies favouring high density can't compare to a tiny plot hemmed in by low/mid rises on both sides.
Ok, but in the course of your considerations, you may wish to familiarize yourself with the
policies of Metrolinx and the province's Places to Grow plan. They're somewhat different than where you're coming from, and ultimately they're what count.
Also, at the end of the sentence you unfortunately revert back to a straw man claim.
Indeed, in about 5 years, we should be getting solid data on what density is developing there and the ridership potential. And its not just waterfront by the way.
Well ok, but do you realize that by saying this you're
admitting that your reasoning is based on pure conjecture and speculation?
Can you find an area along Queen that matches what's going on at CityPlace (which if we are assuming 1.5 residents per unit is at over 40k residents per square km and going up to 60k)?
This is where you come closest to making a valid case, except for one crucial detail. Please confirm your population figures.
I should also, however, point out that CityPlace is currently served by three existing streetcar lines and one future one is in the final stages of planning. According to Metrolinx,
this would necessarily be viewed as duplication, which precludes funding.
I sometimes think that Queen street proponents are opposed to waiting simply because their scared their case will be blown out of the water by what pops up elsewhere along the city.
You're straw man-ing again here. As far as I can ascertain, Queen proponents are more concrete in their approach and rely far less on speculation and future projections. As an added benefit,
this would seem to be more in line with the methodology used by the folks who will fund it.
Finally, the issue of day one ridership. Building them so that they have maxed out on their potential on Day One is bad public policy.
You're straw man-ing yet again in your second sentence. In order to be built, any new transit lines must be fiscally self-sustaining, which means significant Day One ridership. Notwithstanding your straw man claim, however, you are actually inadvertently agreeing that the ridership of a Queen alignment would be very high, or in other words, a success.
But beyond that, high ridership for this line will come not from the locals (that's why despite my paragraphs on development, I still consider it secondary to relief of Yonge-Bloor), but from the commuters diverted from Yonge-Bloor.
Um, are you suggesting it won't be able to recoup its costs then? Again,
that's not something that the folks who will pay for it will build.
You want high ridership? Place it right in the core so that most Bloor-Danforth riders choose the DRL over Yonge-Bloor.
Um, nope. I think you're missing the point. What option anyone will choose will depend on where they come from and where they are going. Little things like being able to get a seat or not be crammed will count too. And no matter what the alignment, it'll be in the core.
If you think the Sheppard stubway was a waste of cash, just imagine what people will say when you have to spend another billion to fix Yonge-Bloor a few years after the DRL opens.
Well actually, I think that before too long Bloor-Yonge will need to be renovated no matter what. But, like you, I am convinced that a downtown core subway line that connects with B-D will be beneficial.