Santo Domingo has spent years searching how improve his transport. Traffic jams, lost time and high fuel costs make every trip an odyssey. To decide which new system to build, the Government received a study funded by the European Union for the French Development Agency, called “AIPMUS – Support for the implementation of the Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan of Greater Santo Domingo-. Project 1.2”, presented on July 3, 2025.
This study compared five mass transportation options: conventional metro, LIM metro, monorail, tram-train and commuter train. Its purpose was clear: to help the country choose the most appropriate means according to its capacity, cost and compatibility with the rest of the system.
How the evaluation was done
The technicians analyzed several factors. According to the document, They evaluated:
- “Demand/capacity adaptation”
- “Technical and operational feasibility”
- “Urban and landscape integration”
- “Social and environmental impacts”
- “Constructivity (works)”
- “Economic viability”
- “Institutional viability”
Each was rated from 1 to 5, and the final results showed which technology had better balance general.
The monorail was not the best
The result was overwhelming. In the table of assessment, the monorail got a punctuation total of “3.0 / 5”, while the conventional metro reached “3.2 / 5” and the commuter train “3.1 / 5”.
The document says verbatim that “the monorail is an alternative to prioritize the cost criterion”, that is, its main advantage is that It costs less to build.
However, it was not the most efficient technology. The study makes it clear that the monorail has “limited scalability and modularity,” meaning it cannot be easily expanded as the city grows or population increases. number of passengers.
For example, currently it happens with the Metro lines to which they increase the size of the stations and the length of the same without affecting the services.
He also warns about other problems: “Land for workshops and garages”, “Disturbances during construction”“Interoperability with the rest of the network” and “Visual impact”.
These phrases show that, although it may work well in the early years, it does not adapt easily to the growth urban nor is it integrated with the existing metro lines.
Best options: subway and commuter train
The same study says that the conventional metro is “an alternative to privilege efficiency and experience” and details that it has “good scalability and flexibility”, “great local and international experience”, “efficient and high capacity mode” and “interoperability with existing lines”.
Regarding the commuter train, he states that it is “an alternative to privilege a project evolutionary at scale metropolitan” and also highlights its “good scalability and flexibility”, its “efficient and high-capacity mode” and its “great international experience”.
In short: both the metro and the train have better projection future than the monorail, but they are also more expensive.
Cost: the main reason
The money issue was decisive. In the cost table, the study details that, for a first phase of 8 kilometers, the investment amounts would be:
- Conventional metro: 1,200 million euros
- Monorail: 810 million euros
- Commuter train: 1,250 million euros
The monorail costs about 35% less than the other two alternatives.
The document summarizes it with a clear sentence: “The monorail is a alternative for privilege the cost criterion.”
The Government, faced with budgetary limitations, opted for the cheapest option, although the same study warns that it is not the more scalable nor the easiest to integrate with the future system.
Scalability and modularity
The phrase “limited scalability and modularity” It is not minor. It means that every time the city wants to expand the system, it will have to face additional costs and technical problems.
In addition, having “limited interoperability with the rest of the network”, it can complicate the connection with lines current metro and commuter train projects.
Simply put, the monorail works as a practical solution and cheaper now, but leave the challenge of expansion for later.
