There are some satellites in polar orbit that are extremely expensive, more than I can tell you due to security classification. Being able to refuel or repair those satellites could be a useful capability. That's why the Shuttle was going to be launched into polar (actually, sun-synchronous) orbits from SLC-6 before the Challenger accident put a stop to that notion.

Likewise, there are some satellites out at GEO that are also horrendously expensive. It wouldn't be economically viable to repair a run of the mill $150 million comm sat but some systems out there run into the 9 figures. They might also be worth repairing, refurbishing, and refueling. After all, we've flown what, 3 Shuttle missions (or is it 4) to repair and upgrade the Hubble over the years at somewhere around $500 million per flight.

Putting a space station in essentially a zero degree inclination has some advantages and some disadvantages. It depends on what the station's mission would be. It wouldn't cover much of the Earth's surface so environmental studies, Earth observation, and even tourist sightseeing wouldn't be as good as in an inclined orbit. It'd be good from the perspective of launcher efficiency from near the equator but you couldn't launch any missions from anywhere else. That means all resupply flights would also have to be launched from near the equator. If your intention is to assemble on-orbit spacecraft for flights to the moon or Mars, I'm not certain you'd have a significant advantage over launching from the Cape. After all, Jules Verne put his big cannon at Cape Canaveral in "From the Earth to the Moon" because the latitude was the most efficient for moon launches. The plane of the moon's orbit around the Earth matches up very nicely to the Cape. It might not be as good a fit for Mars, though.

If the goal is tourism, then all of these ideas are still too expensive for all but the wealthest thrill seekers. If the booster costs a few hundred million dollars (that's what I've heard an Ariane V costs) and the capsule costs millions more while only carrying a small number of paying passengers, say 5 or 6, then the per seat costs will still be higher than the Soyuz. There's also the factor of getting enough passengers to fill a flight.