Be careful what you wish for. Subways are very expensive compared to surface technologies so for every 10km of subway you may get 100km of LRT.
A finer grid of LRT lines will make the entire city more accessible to transit. A less-fine grid of subways will only serve selected corridors.
A finer grid of LRT lines will allow alternative routes if there are problems on one line. A less-fine grid of subways can be greatly affected by one malfunctioning train.
A finer grid of LRT lines will encourage a humane scale of development through-out the city. A less fine grid of subways will concentrate very high densities at nodes while leaving large portions of the city as suburban wastelands.
LRT's add to the character and liveliness of the streets. Subways don't.
*First, the debate should not be "Subway vs LRT", as it sounds apple to oranges.
Subway vs streetcar, or HRT vs LRT. Apple to apple.*
And you get what you pay for. Subways are long-term transit investment compared to surface street-mop (TTC Streetcars). Subway last as little as half a century while streetcar has short maximum lifespan (as much as only 30 years).
"A less-fine" grid of subway still able to generate higher ridership and allow easier connection to other forms of transit as long as they are placed in grid form as streetcars. Streetcars' incompatibility with subways would mean unnecessary transfers, delays and slower trips. And the way TTC utilizes streetcar is mostly in-median arteries, slowing down the neighbouring traffic and in chance of upgrade to metro, it would force delaying entire transit operations along that artery. Only Eglinton Crosstown (as Transit City) minimizes that slowdown (by marginally, at least around the midtown) and SRT improvement is only a step above that already-craptastic ICTS.
LRT and HRT works the same (the only difference is capacity). Subway and streetcars DO NOT. For a cheaper streetcar you can have a traffic chaos, with no alternative shuttle service along the affected route. And a route diversion or detour, would slow down another streetcar routes. Subway on the other hand, interrupts any aboveground traffic by close to nil (at usual stage) apart from deploying extra shuttle buses. If the subway breakdown creates that delay, A same streetcar network would freeze the entire traffic along the surrounding areas.
Both LRT and HRT encourages any development throughout the city. Subway, though, if properly implemented (not like TTC's Sheppard Line), actually reduces sprawl by concentrating at very high densities at nodes (a smart growth, considering sprawl = mass concrete waste on greenfields) and discouraging sprawls outside the nodes. Developers are in competition for the land grab near the subway hub and spokes, saving much of a space for possible later development in proper time stage. Scarborough (and pretty much of Toronto) is a wasteland because of poor planning, lack of rapid transit access, and no discipline for developers to develop smart growth along the transit corridors. As for streetcars, sure they do encourage even scale of development, but how fast can they develop on streetcar corridors as compared to subway corridors?
Streetcars adds the "character and liveliness of the streets" at an expense of traffic. Subways do the same job as streetcars, sans the interference of traffic. Don't think that a busy street with "streetcar" stickered onto a middle of the street would make a street look good. It's cheap excuse of a real transit improvement.
To create a healthy city, traffic is crucial. Getting from point A to point B must be seamless, convenient, and precise. It is as important as the growth of developments around the city. Subways fulfill that role. Streetcar is nothing more than a drag-racing carrousels. Believe me, I took too much Spadinas and Queens already. Queen St. needs a subway of its own. As do Bathurst.
I'm not against LRTs in favour of HRT. I'm bashing Transit City as a call for a only solution to burgeoning traffic in 416 and to/from 905. SOS does respond to a more-focused traffic movement in Toronto and alleviate the overdependence on inefficient downtown streetcars and buses. Transit City overlooks the opportunity for free development in transit-crucial corridors and rather respond to "rationalize the sprawl" in car-overloaded streets.
Cost-analysis, TTC just gave too much control to unions, Liber-rats, Kim Jong Miller & Co. The City does not have a revenue-boost strategy of its own. The transit agencies lack comprehensive relationships with neighbourhoods, businesses, developers and planners. Canada should follow the footsteps of China, London, Brazil and California on allowing foreign investments into transit. Canada is seriously too protectionistic. I thought Canada was embracing diversity. Not so in business. Canada has Bombardier, so why not convince the company to engage a transit development for them? Or foreign rail companies? No wonder Canada engaging into NAFTA does too much harm onto itself.
