Raise the Hammer

#1 - $488 million GDP generation during LRT construction versus $129 million for BRT from the Metrolinx BCA summary: This is an absurd use of this number, it's taken completely out of context. This includes construction-related economic activity, so obviously it's higher for LRT than BRT by a factor of four because the LRT is four times more expensive to build, requiring four times as much expenditure! This is circular logic and the same applies for the "person-years of employment." I'm not convinced from your comment that you understand what these numbers really mean. If we spent $800 million building a giant statue of Bob Bratina made of steel and concrete we could also generate similar figures because people would need to be employed and money spent building the statue. This doesn't argue in favour of LRT at all, it's just another way of Metrolinx trying to put a positive spin on the fact that LRT will be more expensive and require more people to build.

#2 - Air quality & GHG emissions: the best way to reduce these is to get as many people out of their cars and onto transit, or bikes, or walking as possible. Building a single expensive line in the lower city will benefit people in that corridor a lot, no doubt. But it won't convince a single person on the mountain to leave their car at home when they go to the Meadowlands or Lime Ridge Mall. If we have no money left after the B-line LRT (you can bet Hudak's conservatives won't be lining up to build a tunnel up the mountain if they get in) the benefits will end there. In the BCA there is a little more than four times the GHG reduction with LRT versus BRT but at four times the cost, so LRT only comes out ahead by a nose in this area.

#3 - Qualitative improvements: Completely subjective. We'll have to agree to disagree. Sure the LRT train looks cool. But have you ever ridden on a streetcar in Toronto or San Francisco when there was a breakdown? If one streetcar derails or breaks down the entire line is out of commission until it's fixed. It's maddening and pretty much wipes out any "aesthetic benefits" in my book. I like buses. For years I took a bus to work every day in Montreal. I don't mind them at all and couldn't care less if I'm on a tram or bus so long as I get where I want to go reliably.

#4 - Per-passenger operating cost: See my first post. This is offset by higher LRT capital costs.

#5 - Improving urban development and city finances: See my first post, the best way to do this is through legal measures, not an expensive political pet project like an LRT line. Building an LRT line sure didn't save Buffalo from urban decay, even though that's why their line was built. Off the top of my head zoning changes, increasing development surcharges in the suburbs, rerouting tractor trailers off downtown streets and cleaning up brownfields to be "shovel ready" are four ways to accomplish the same goals.

I agree with many of the values and social objectives you have presented, but this LRT line is not the only way to implement them. We always fall for these schemes - LRT will make Hamilton cool like Pittsburgh, just like Copp's Coliseum will bring us an NHL team, right?