At about $1Million dollars the cost of a BRT carrying up to 150 passengers is not only significantly lower than a train, but more closely matches passenger numbers. Design is low entry, like a train. Multiple access points with platform ticketing allow for rapid loading and unloading. Large windows for views, similar style seating for comfort. And with ultra capacitor recharging zero emission (with battery assist for storage) and no need for overhead wires or refueling depots. This technology is currently in use in Shanghai and Oregon

The main line for East-West, basically the current Transitway that already has platforms and stations in places is efficient so no need for a tunnel. This will create a savings of close to realistic estimates of $1Billion dollars.

Traffic along Slater is reduced by these higher volume buses with train style low floor access.

Garages are already set up and with electric engines not only are fuel costs incredibly reduced but service on them is minimal.

BRT is yet to be analyzed with this approach.

Rationalizing the bus routes by terminating all of Ottawa's zillions of special express buses outside of downtown and having their riders transfer to frequent Transitway service to complete their journeys would probably clear up some of the downtown congestion without any technological changes. Better signaling at cross streets and closing Albert and Slater to other traffic would probably improve the capacity a bit, too. That said, there's clearly sufficient demand to justify light rail.

...it includes stations and platforms (which will be needed at the surface too, and may have to be located on what is now private property that may have to be acquired by the city); signalling (which will be way more complex and expensive on the surface as it will have to accomodate private cars, trucks, and bus movements too), etc.

On-surface, streetcar-style operations wouldn't require stations and platforms any more elaborate than the ones that currently exist for the buses, and the signalling would be traffic lights.

That you characterize digging up the street as a "unique cost" of surface rail as compared to subways puzzles me.

The solution is to get rid of the multiplicity of routes, which eliminates the benefit of a small city BRT (transfer-less express service from many points to many points), leaving one with the simple math of lower initial cost, higher operating cost, and reduced reliability in comparison to LRT.

Ottawa has reached the point where LRT is now required. This means a redesign of our transit system to embrace a high capacity core network and transfer stations that serve outlying bus routes. It will require transfers by riders, but we've already reached the point where that's required for future growth in the BRT anyway. And users are more tolerant of bus-train transfers than bus-bus transfers.

That said, I am skeptical that elimination of the tunnel would save just $300 million, as I have heard estimates of *twice* that amount for the cost of the tunnel just by itself. Does your estimate assume an LRT-only tunnel, does it allow for trolleybuses, or could it support diesel buses? [My own understanding is that a tunnel that allows buses would cost up to $1 billion to dig, due to the necessary addition of large exhaust (ventilation) towers at the surface for safety reasons. Restricting access to electric-only vehicles reduces the cost of ventilation considerably (though I doubt that would cut the overall cost of the tunnel in half).]