Hamilton Light Rail

Light Rail. Right Now.

Rapid Transit Feasibility Study: A Critique for Busy People

There is no data and no references, so it is impossible to analyze the report concretely, since it makes many statements without factual backing.

By Simon Woodside

  1. References and sources are not included:

    • for financial estimates
    • for claims regarding 'sex appeal' and economic benefits

  2. Transit Master Plan route assumptions developed for BRT appear to have driven the inclusion of a tunnel:

    • Jolley Cut and Claremont Access are reasonable alternatives that don't require an escarpment cut

  3. Cost estimates lack details:

    • no tables and cost breakdowns
    • no tunnel cost estimate (important since we don't actually need it)
    • vehicle costs should be amortized over lifespan
    • per km costs should be amortized over number of passengers

  4. Potential factual errors and/or oversights:

    • LRT can carry 2.5 times to 5 times as many passengers as BRT (not 2 times as claimed)
    • subjective quality of service is higher with LRT

  5. Not discussed:

    • economic returns
    • accessibility (low floor)
    • rising cost of fuel
    • air pollution and other environmental issues