But it's not 'ignorant, defeatest bullshit', is it? It's the truth. Continuing to ignore such truths is why we keep moving towards transit planning that's based rhetoric and division, rather than actual understanding.
@JSF-1 isn't suggesting we shouldn't invest in Scarborough. In fact, I don't think anyone has questioned the amount being spent, but
how it's being spent. Those are two totally different things.
You mention New York, but New York doesn't build subways in places like Scarborough.
You mention Europe, but European cities utilize LRTs quite extensively (and successfully too). In Europe, LRTs qualify as higher order transit.
At one point you asked when Scarborough stops having to pay for the fact that the 'city centre' is built around a mall and poorly located. There's a deeper truth revealed in that question - poor planning decisions can have repercussions that last for generations. STC has had a rapid transit connection for decades yet the growth and character around it has remained decidedly suburban. Why?
Ultimately change is needed on multiple levels, but 'you deserve subways, because War on the Car' doesn't address the issues. It simply tells people they can continue to have their cake and eat it too even when it makes no sense.
New York built subways (heavy rail rapid transit, not necessarily underground transit) everywhere, even to the beaches where employment and housing density is next to nothing (the rockaways). It built subways to almost every suburb, with the exception of certain areas deeper into queens, yet, everyone wants to extend the 7, the J/Z, the E, etc further into that borough. However, they've only been building the second avenue subway and the 7 West extension because there are weaknesses in the system. The Lexington Avenue line is overcrowded, and they were backlogged with work that should have been done half a century ago, the exact same situation Toronto is in right now. They don't like building subways now not because they don't want to, but because of a political mess in ownership, excessive workers on worksites, and most importantly, the backlog of improvements that need to be done to the system right now. Toronto has all these same problems, and comparing Toronto to New York is perfect, because people there want expanded service, they want new lines, and they want better state of good repair, they just can't have it because of opposition everywhere else in the city.
Name one European city that is relatively the same size as Toronto that does not also have a large subway network to compliment their LRT network. Toronto is more like a European city than almost any other city in North America (the exceptions being Montreal and Quebec City), and in terms of transit, Toronto is more like almost all European cities in terms of transit variety, and use of it. Most large European cities don't actually have LRT in the from we intend on building on most corridors. What they do have, are the following:
London: The DLR, which is pretty much a metro system
Vienna: Badner Bahn, which is more like a radial railway or interurban than an LRT
Prague: Fast Trams, which have a lot of grade separated sections (like tall viaducts)
Charleroi: This one is a lot like the Light Rail of Toronto, but there is a subway section (like on the crosstown), and that city has a population of 200K, not 3 million...
Aarhus: Aarhus Letbane, which is more like Calgary's Light Rail than Toronto's (POP 350K)
Frankfurt Au Maim: A light rail subway, like the crosstown. (Note Frankfurt is 1/4 the population of Toronto)
What almost all European cities have are trams (the equivalent to our streetcars, particularly those with a streetcar ROW). Toronto has a network of about 80km of streetcar lines, and of those 80 km, about 25km of those are in some sort of right of way or have grade separation. What we should be doing is attempting to reduce the amount of vehicular traffic in downtown Toronto, while expanding this network (Portlands, dufferin, parliament, Jane, Coxwell, waterfront, woodbine streetcars can all be future routes if viable) and adding some more lane segregation (especially on routes like the 505 and 506).
I don't have a problem with moving the STC, most of the ridership is based on bus usage, but there should be a subway line further extended into Scarborough. There are far too many buses for there not to be any major connections to higher order transit. Maybe the STC isn't the best place for that, but at least it has a lot of infrastructure readily available for use, and plenty of land for redevelopment.
The Europe example also dosen't work because European cities and far better planned than North American ones. Unlike North America, Europe never abandoned the people in regards to urban planning, whereas here, the people where knocked down the priority list in favor of the car which has lead to the problems we see today. Over in Europe and Asia owning a car is a choice, over here for most people you never had a choice to begin with. It is far easier to justify massive expansion into an area that is built for people than it is into an area that is not; and before any says it the Scarborough Town Centre was in no way designed for the people, look at the god awful layout of the area and try to tell me otherwise.
Also yes not every area needs to be high-rises everywhere, mid-rises work very well to; hell most Eurpean cities are mostly mid-rise buildings. Problem is we don't even have that either. Look at Montreal, it is filled with mid-rise development and it's a contributing reason as to why the Montreal Metro moves more people than the Toronto Subway despite being smaller. It's also a contributing factor for why the Montreal Metro has a better layout relative to the City. Given the spread of mid-rise density there really was no wrong answer, any direction they went there was lots people in small areas. Outside the core Toronto doesn't have such luck.
We have to also remember that what Toronto lacks in density, it makes up for with integration. The surface route network here is light years ahead of Montreal's, and despite the far lower overall population density, it has the overall higher public transit ridership.