^ Considering that the rail pre-dated the neighbourhoods, there was no ripping at all. and while the station locations may have been chosen to compliment the venues, they also happen to be directly at the main cross-town avenues where they conveniently intercept buses. And, if you ever look north or SE from Stadium or NW from Coliseum, you'll see neighbourhoods that are denser than Belgravia/McKernan. Walk-in ridership is very significant at stadium, in particular.
And we're still considering. the overall corridors were voted on, but there is much to be considered. And issues like this
opposition to plan to knock down houses for 'neighbourhood friendly' LRT could still knock the whole thing sideways.
The plan we have now isn't a bad one, but it ballances both the problems that this discussion is all about. At some point, as the track meanders a little, and stations grow closer, the train becomes un-attractive for crosstown traffic, which could reduce ridership to the point where LRT is no longer the appropriate technology. On the other hand, if station spacing is a bit further, traffic conflicts are reduced and speed is kept high, this line could be too successful for it's own good. With the low-floor system limited to 75m train length due to surface running downtown, demand could easily force frequency so high that the surface row becomes unworkable and additional grade separations are required, negating the benefits of lower cost and lower impact that low-floor , on street LRT is supposed to bring.