And you're calling my justifications for rapid transit stringent? Grade-seperating transit and not even looking at the alternatives is as stringent as you can get! I have heard the same lines from people like Rob Ford,and Randall O'toole. I'll be honest, why would you be offended by my comments? You've called me an "LRTista" on more than one occasion for my view that surface rail.
A primary transit corridor in a city the size of Toronto should not have at-grade crossings. Period. Secondary transit corridor, there may be a case for it. And I'm not offended by your comments per-say, because I know they're not true. And calling someone 'for something' (ex: LRTista, pro-subway), is very different than calling someone 'anti-something' (anti-car, anti-transit). I do not get offended when someone calls me pro-subway. I do however get a little bit more up in arms when someone refers to me as anti-transit, because it implies that my opinion on transit issues is tainted by a hate for it.
My criteria for subways: Build a subway where the ridership can be justified, or improves transit connection. Sounds like the DRL. I'm all for it! Sounds like the YOnge Extension to Steeles. Let's go it done! I do not see how that is stringent. Here is the main difference between you and me: I do not call for the cancellation of plans. I am not a fan of the Spadina extension, but it's funded, let's build it, and make the most of it. Transit City is funded, let's get it built, and focus on the DRL. I have not see you, and others even consider this idea.
The criteria you have put forward have very broad definitions though. One could make a very strong case under your criteria that a B-D subway extension to STC is justified, because the ridership from STC is there, and it would certainly improve the transit connection for all of Scarborough.
To reply to the cancellation thing, I find it rather hypocritical that Transit City supporters cry foul when someone proposes TC be cancelled, yet I'm pretty sure those same people did not shed a tear when Transit City replaced the RTES. Why does something NEED to be built just because it's (partially) funded? Does getting funding immediately throw aside the planning rationale that says it's a bad idea? There are several mistakes in Transit City that will screw this city over for probably the next half century. I for one do not want to spend billions on stop-gap solutions that will not yield a satisfactory increase in ridership, efficiency, and comfort. If the experience of Ottawa has taught us anything, it's that cancelling a transit plan in favour of developing and funding a better one is not the end of the world. In fact, it works out pretty well. Just because something has received funding does not make all the problems and faults with it go away.
"Rapid Transit worthy" Well here is the problem. What is exactly is a "Rapid transit worthy" corridor? Finch West seems worthy of rapid transi,and it is getting in the form of surface LRT. Eglinton seems worthy of rapid transit, and a tunnel and RROW is being built. I would call those 2 line rapid transit.
Rapid transit worthy is any route that requires something beyond a local bus or streetcar operating in mixed-traffic. Technically, dedicated bus lanes are rapid transit. It is to what degree rapid transit should be implemented where the debate lies. What degree of rapid transit a corridor receives is based on where on the 'rapid transit spectrum' the corridor lies. The higher up on the spectrum, the higher degree of capacity, technology, and grade-separation is needed. The envelope for in-median LRT on your spectrum is much larger and in a different spot than where it is on mine. I see its worthy application, I just don't see it in the same places where you see it. It is when a corridor lies in the overlap between technologies where even further debate arises. Jane St for example, is in the lower range of LRT, so low in fact that it could be covered under BRT. My preference would lean towards BRT, yours towards LRT. Neither of us is wrong, they would both work, because they overlap on the spectrum. It can be justfiied going in either direction.