Fair, it's just when you have these Transit City advocates (not a shot at Nfitz at all I'm just speaking as a general comment of my views) who take examples like LA's Light Rail which is all but an above ground subway saying "hey this moves people around just fine" yea ofcourse it does, but many examples tossed around aren't indicative of what we will get with Transit City. FWIW I am an advocate for LRT where it makes sense, i.e. medium densities with low to mid rise development for Local-medium trips. I don't agree that LRT should be used as a long-distance form of rapid transit, especially if it runs in the middle of a busy ROW competing with Bikes, Cars and pedestrians. I think an emphasis on having LRT focus on the local to medium trips funneling people onto more than one higher order rapid transit line like GO or another subway line for longer trips is what is needed and is supported by examples around the world from Madrid (LRT short distances in the suburbs shuttling to the Metro system), to Paris (same as Madrid) to name a few. In very few cities, if any, the physical expanse of Toronto, do you see LRTs as a long-distance form of transportation without accompanying high order transit routes to handle the long-distance trips. I think Eglinton is priobably the better of all the planned Transit City LRT lines.
But I digress.