Ok, so then why don't we just replace the B-D with LRT? It'd work pretty well, wouldn't it? I mean, the peak ridership would all be in a tunnel between Dundas West and Castle Frank, so it'll be able to handle it! And while we're at it, let's tell almost every other city and transit operator in the world that they wasted all their money building subway, which has such obvious flaws when compared to LRT that they must've all had a worldwide brain hemorrhage to build subways instead of LRTs!
It would seem quite like you guys are the ones sticking your fingers in your ears. Grow up and look at the facts. You've got the silliest arguments: LRT can handle subway capacities (false even in the most extreme sense of 6-car underground LRT trains which would then be more expensive than a subway,) LRT moves as fast as a subway (using numbers for 30 year old cars vs. state of the art LRTs which even then are the most hopeful and impossible to achieve numbers,) we don't have the money (which is obviously why we're spending $6 billion on LRT, which could still get us 20 km of gold-plated subway,) these routes don't need subways (Eglinton has similar density to B-D now, definitely the B-D back when the subway first opened,) and the odd "it'll be good enough" argument that seems to imply that subway in fact does have advantages over LRT.
So what is it? Can LRT tough it out? Do Eglinton and Sheppard not require subway speeds and capacities? Are we too poor to afford subway? Not like we haven't gone over those subjects 100 times and shown that they are false arguments, but it'd be better than you two spitting out useless, annoying drabble that has no effective use in any real debate or constructive conversation regarding the Transit City plan and transit in Toronto.