You can blame Bombardier for the 2006 study, they were apparently throwing bribe money around like nobody's business (oh, I'm sorry, it wasn't bribery, they prefer to call it lobbying). The additional half-billion would not be re-couped by property value increases, as you are only talking about one station around which you'll see increasing property values. Kennedy and STC won't see any change because they already have hub status. A relocated Lawrence East is also going to have limited ability to increase values since it is in the Highland Creek area (protected).
The extension isn't warranted because the transfers are avoidable transfers from an extension of the SRT as LRT to Malvern. See, this is why your arguments fall apart, you are thinking of STC in isolation from the rest of the network. It doesn't work that way. If the SRT is coverted to LRT and extended to Malvern, as is proposed, transfers will go down substantially. This is even more true if it runs through on Eglinton. So you see, you actually get a better result by making it LRT than subway. Also, to try and say that "this would improve the lives of EVERY Scarberian" is blatant hyperbole if not an outright lie. There are more people in Scarborough that don't go to STC than those that do. Kennedy is proof, check its ridership figure (it's almost 3 times that of STC's). Combine that with GO Train Lakeshore East ridership as well. Your argument there is a loaded argument, it holds no water.
It is pointless to say that there will far fewer transfers from an STC extension when you think about the context from an interlined LRT network perspective. Scarborough's coverage by LRT is going to be fantastic and will, at least in theory, allow any LRT service point in Scarborough to get to the subway without transferring. That subway may be Kennedy, or it may be Finch, or it may be Yonge-Eglinton, nobody knows yet because the network plan is still being tweaked, but the potential is obvious, and it is clearly superior to a subway extension that would accomplish little beyond moving the major transfer node to a different location.
The same reason that we should never have built Sheppard as a subway. Sheppard should have been LRT from day one. And it's the same story for Scarborough. The load is going to end up being divided and dispersed by the time all of the network is up and running, particularly with the Seaton GO line if it is actually implemented. You don't understand what the ridership capabilities are of each mode, nor do you understand what the network dynamics can actually lead to. Everything about Sheppard LRT to STC, LRT to UTSC, even LRT to almost the Zoo, all that is already coming. We don't need a subway to STC to make that happen, and there's no point in sucking a half-billion dollars of funds away from other projects to make a STC subway happen. It isn't worth it. Your property values argument is too weak (Scarborough isn't Forest Hill, and that means it can only generate so much money through property values).
You're still not getting it. Malvernites like you will avoid transferring at STC instead of Kennedy; That's the point! This is why I challenge you to think from a network perspective for once. The SRT as LRT will go all the way to Malvern and take you to Kennedy in one seat. You won't have to transfer at STC anymore. STC's ridership will plummet since it no longer needs to be a major transfer spot for all the Malvernites that use it currently (which is 1/3rd of the ridership). Other LRT lines could also interline, from say Sheppard/Meadowvale for example, to Kennedy in one seat as well.
While I agree that Midland and Ellesmere have low value, what I am acknowledging is that there are policies that have to be worked with, and you have to acknowledge that, too, because we don't have the power to change them, and frankly, we don't want them to change because we'd set a precedent which would see service reductions run rampant across the city as a result. The existing policy is good at protecting existing service, so we should look at its benefit instead of its negative tradeoffs. This actually isn't TTC corporate idealogy, this was a political decision by Councillors, and I agree with it, despite the above mentioned shortcoming. It does more good than harm.
The reason is the same as Transit City's reason; it falls short of the 10,000pphpd threshold. The demand is about the same as that expected for the Eglinton LRT, which is around 7,000 or so (the SRT's is 6,400). So the BCA actually wasn't supposed to consider subway, because there is no point as it fails the first test. The BCA has other flaws, but ignoring subway isn't one of them. The York Region subway BCAs were flawed in that they never considered LRT (it was just BRT or Subway, which is retarded since LRT has easily double the capacity of BRT (unless said BRT is a total pig on space (space that generally doesn't exist, except in Ottawa))). You can scream until you're blue in the face, but there is no good reason for a subway to STC at this time, as the alternatives are superior.
