First I'd just like to say that I started following this thread just after the crack video scandal was broken and I've found this thread a fun, interesting and (often) intelligent conversation of Toronto politics.
That being said I think the discussion with HaveLove shows that a number of people here don't understand the difference between circumstantial and direct (not "hard") evidence. Circumstantial evidence is valid evidence and is not inherently weaker than direct evidence; the difference is that circumstantial evidence requires an inference to connect it to commission of the crime whereas direct evidence connects the evidence to the crime directly. Now this might seem like it would mean circumstantial evidence is less reliable than direct evidence but when you look at the types of evidence that count as either circumstantial or direct it's obvious that in fact circumstantial evidence is often stronger than direct evidence. Look at forensic evidence such as fingerprints, ballistics or DNA evidence which are all examples of circumstantial evidence and they are all considered amongst the strongest evidence available in a court of law. So strong that they are often used to refute direct evidence, like that of mistaken/lying eye witnesses.
Editted to add: I'm not a lawyer but I do work in the legal field.
The important distinction is not between circumstantial and direct evidence but between evidence that corroborates and evidence that doesn't corroborate. And in the case of the Ford Crack video, the evidence - both the direct evidence of the three reporters who witnessed the video and the circumstantial evidence like Ford's erratic behaviour or Towhey being fired for asking Ford to get help or all the resignations from his office or Lisi & Price looking for the tape, etc. - when taken all together corroborates the idea that Ford has a substance abuse problem and the video exists.
I've lived most of my life in Scarborough and Ford's little extension to Scarborough Town Centre does little to nothing for the majority of the residents of Scarborough whereas the proposed LRT line (especially if it's extended to Malvern) reaches more of Scarborough and does a much better job of eliminating the lengthy bus rides you describe above. At the same time, neither the LRT plan nor the subway do a single thing for the people of southeast Scarborough trying to use transit to get downtown but only one is likely to hurt the chances for future solutions. The waste of an extra 500 million to 1 billion dollars on the subway option significantly reduces the chances of an extension of the Eglinton Crosstown LRT further along Eglinton East that would actually help the residents of southeast Scarborough get downtown faster and easier.
LRT is not a second rate technology and it is not streetcars. Many world-class cities (like Paris, Berlin & Boston) have LRT lines and so they are not an insult to Scarborough and they don't make Scarborough second class.
On the length of your journey from Middlefield/McNicoll to Union, I don't think I've ever tried it from around there but the Google maps directions for that trip suggest that in rush hour it takes about 1 hour and 16 minutes and going down to Kennedy Station isn't one of the suggested routes. The fastest is to take the 42 bus along McNicoll all the way to Finch Station and then straight down to Union from there which doesn't seem like that difficult a journey.
