Hells yes.
And here are my reasons why:
1) As a former pro subway nut, I've opened my eyes to LRT as a transit mode. Just because we don't get subways built does not mean it's the end of the world.
Subways are meant to move a lot of people quickly. If you build in a corridor, and the line is moving less than 300,000-400,000 per day, it's a waste of money. There are few corridors where subways are needed in Toronto. Even the Sheppard subway, if connected to STC, would probably move less than 100,000 people per day.
2) LRT can work if it's implemented and maintained properly. Other cities have done it, why can't Toronto? (This does concern me because the city's success rate of implementing LRT/streetcars in ROWs is less than stellar)
The construction delays of ROW were due to poor coordination between departments. From what I understand, the scope of the project changed a few time during construction, delaying the project. What happened on St. Clair is not going to occur with Transit City. If we use ST. Clair as an example, then you can assume the Spadina extension will be face the same problems.
3) Subways are more expensive to build here because of the methodology used by the City and the TTC. Hiring private consultants and sub-consultants to do the majority of the work, using TBMs instead of cut and cover to excavate the tunnels, overbuilt stations, and let's not forget that there's always cost overruns with any large scale transit infrastructure project.
4) Have you ever ridden on an LRT line in Europe by chance? If you haven't, I suggest you do. The T3 line in Paris is one that I recommend highly. Beautiful trams, the ROW has grass plantings between the tracks, you don't have to wait to board the vehicle when it arrives, and it's a smooth and comfortable ride!
The Sheppard subway cost around 900Million to build, and costs 10 Million a year to operate, and the TTC still provides parallel bus service. Is that a good use of funds? Especially a subway that carries only 50,000 per DAY? Subway advocates love to avoid this, by attacking alternative modes as being "slow", and "won't attract riders". The Sheppard line only attracts 50,000 a day, and Sheppard is a traffic nightmare.I am more than certain, LRT from Downsview to Meadowvale would have attracted far more rides than the subway.
I am not anti-subway, far from it. But subways have their place, and unfortunately, we have wasted decades planning for subways, and building scant km of subways in the wrong places.
5) Subway station spacing versus LRT station spacing. Clearly, LRT stations are more closely spaced (500m on average) than subway stops (minimum of 1km? I'm not exactly sure), leaving better access points for more residents (if they travel by foot).
Exactly. Make transit easily accessible, and people will ride. Another myth pro-subway advocates like to bring up: Speed attracts riders. Speed is just one factor, and a minor one. What attracts riders is a mix of speed, predictability, and reliability., and access. What is the point of a super quick subway ride, if you have to wait for an infrequent bus to reach your destination, if you live between stations? The success of Paris' subways is the close station spacing. The subway is actually quite slow in Paris(except for Line 14).
6) Better for businesses and tourists. What better way for potential clients to see businesses along a street than LRT? A subway isn't going to accomplish that beneath the ground. And please don't say bus service would suffice because it's just not comparable to LRT in this case.
The Phoenix LRT has been a major revenue booster for business, for that exact reason. Hop on-Hop off. It is also possible with subways, but usually at stations only, unless the station spacing is small enough, that people can walk between stations.
Anyhow, those are my points. Correct me if you think I'm wrong on anything, but I think I'm fairly justified with them.
Nothing to correct. Good points.