Preliminary summary of the city's rapid transit feasibility study comparing opportunities and constraints for light rail or bus rapid transit.
The city of Hamilton has posted the new rapid transit feasibility study by McCormack Rankin Consultants on the city website. A more detailed analysis will be forthcoming, but here is a very preliminary summary.
Based on a cursory read of the report, here are the most salient opportunities/constraints the public process will have to explore:
The capital costs for light rail are higher, but according to the study, the operating costs are roughly equivalent to BRT. Unfortunately, the study calculates operating costs by vehicle rather than by passenger, arriving at an estimate of $175 per "revenue hour" per vehicle for LRT compared to $80 per "revenue hour" per vehicle for BRT.
However, note that while the cost per "revenue hour" per vehicle is roughly double, the vehicle itself can carry rougly double the passengers, leaving a roughly equivalent operating cost per passenger-hour.
The capital costs for BRT are estimated at $6.5 million/km for one-way streets, and $9.0 million/km for two-way streets. Providing BRT services along the two identified routes is estimated to have a capital cost of $900,000 each for new articulated hybrid buses. BRT operating costs are in the area of $80/revenue hour/vehicle.
The capital costs of providing LRT are estimated at of $15 million/km for one-way streets and $25 million/km for two-way streets, plus $4 million for each LRT vehicle required. Operating costs are estimated at $175/revenue hour/vehicle. LRT vehicles can carry approximately double the passengers that BRT vehicles can.
The study notes that LRT is more permanent and can provide "greater economic spinoffs", i.e. new private investment within the transit corridor, as well as attracting new riders who would not otherwise take public transit on a bus. Unfortunately, it does not seem to quantify those spinoffs.
The report then notes that BRT is more flexible and has lower vehicle heights. However, that flexibility is precisely what makes developers nervous - a flexible rapid transit system is one that can easily be moved or canceled.
LRT is often thought of as being more permanent than BRT and as being able to provide greater economic spinoffs than BRT. LRT may also attract riders who, for whatever reason, will not commute by bus, helping to reduce single occupancy vehicle trips.
However, BRT provides greater flexibility than LRT and has fewer operating constraints, including lower vehicle heights (a constraint for LRT at the TH&B bridge and the pedestrian bridge over King Street at Summers Lane) and the ability to handle the grade of James Mountain Road.
Bearing in mind that while the study is not intended to make any recommendations, the argument certainly seems to favour LRT for the McMaster - Eastgate corridor and BRT for the James - Upper James corridor.