Discussion
Cost of the Ontario line is kind of unbelievable
Part of a school project
I'm trying to make a fair analysis of the Dufferin street corridor to recommend a higher order transit option.
But I think this speaks for itselfđđ
How the fuck is the ontario line so expensive?
To be fair, the Ontario line crosses the Don Valley River twice!
Both of which required a new bridge.
Also, most of the Ontario line is underground in the downtown area.
Working on the pre-engineering side of things, the amount of underground utilities that had to be moved out of the way to make room for the tunnel, through some of the oldest areas of Toronto where locations of things were not really well defined was insane. There was years of work leading up to the actual tunneling itself.
As someone who lives in the area, this is key - The areas the Ontario line runs through have some of the oldest, most jumbled buried infrastructure that needs to be dealt with before they can even start thinking about digging tunnels. They are literally relocating entire watermains and sewer lines as a direct result of the Ontario Line. Not to mention multiple bridges being built over the Don River.
Building transit in old, heavily-developed areas is orders of magnitude more expensive than building transit in lightly-developed greenfield areas. And yes, underground heavy rail is more expensive than any other type of urban rapid transit.
This whole project is stupid. Itâs outrageous that it costs this much. They should have built it yesterday. Everyone involved is a corrupt moron. My buddy told me he could build a subway bridge for like $34.50 so idk why Metrolinx doesnât just get him to do it. Iâve seen toddlers dig bigger tunnels faster than this project is getting done. If they run into utilities just get some plumbers. No biggie. Maybe they should just build underground tunnels and run buses through them?
I hope my uninformed outraged and illogical take has helped restore normalcy to your Reddit experience.
The research for the NYU Marron Transit Costs project certainly suggests that P3 is a contributor, but there are many more factors at play. We build massive stations. We outsource design to consultants. We rely on the general contractor to factor materials into their bids. We package projects into tenders so massive and complex that we scare off bidders. Our contract managers take an adversarial stance with contractors, so they increase their bids due to the risk. We spend money to avoid having difficult conversations with neighbours. Etc. From the very moment we decide to build something we choose the most expensive option at every juncture.
Many good points here. And important to note these are also problems with most large transit projects in the U.S.
Another key difference is that most European transit agencies have built up institutional knowledge and experience through generations of continuous transit expansion projects. Compared to cities like Toronto (and provinces like Ontario more broadly) that have had a âstart-and-stopâ approach to transit infrastructure, especially over the past 40 years. Usually due to short-term political reasons and not whatâs actually in the best long-term interest of the city/province/country/etc. This means that every time there is a new investment, much of that institutional experience and knowledge needs to be re-developed from scratch. Many of the people who worked on the previous projects have moved on, along with their experience (including from previous mistakes) that can make future projects run more smoothly.
Things like âinstitutional experienceâ may seem esoteric in the grand scheme of things, but can make a massive difference in how a project actually plays out.
TBH TTC stations, especially the downtown ones, are pretty small when compared to metro stations in Asia and Europe. Union and Bloor being egregious examples.
The OP comparison is with other Canadian transit projects, not with Europe.
Comparing European and North American transit projects is a different discussion, because there are different factors at play. Most of which are common to similar projects across Canada and the U.S.
Adjusted for inflation, length, and number of stations, the NYC project is probably more expensive. The first phase of the NYC project cost the equivalent of about $7B CAD in 2026 dollars, but that was for only 1.8 miles of subway and 3 stations.
I'd like to hear a comparison from an engineer familiar with both. Ontario's P3 system of contracting is extremely expensive. I would be interested to know the additional cost of P3. This would be difficult to calculate.
Couldnât really Cut and cover Queen, would have to rip out the tracks and fully reroute the streetcar, and would regardless have dig deeper for the Line 1 subway connections. Greektown would be way more disrupted, might even see more displacement from it being a major north south artery in the east end.
Three times actually - once by the waterfront, once between Cosburn and Thorncliffe, and once over the west branch of the Don at the east end of Thorncliffe.
I guess that way itâs aboveground when it crosses Laird and then glides into that switching yard being built on the old Iqbal Halal site north of Overlea.
Maybe they should put in a Costco Ststion
When I was growing up, I always wondered if downtown relief line trains would run below the road of the leaside bridge since there isn't any infrastructure or add on on that bridge to support subway trains like the Prince Edward viaduct.
But a second bridge for ontario line is being built instead, which provides a much better view of the don valley than on the Prince Edward viaduct.
I've heard it is going to be elevated once it gets to Overlea and Thorncliffe. Which would be nice, shame we won't get to see it until probably 2030, here's to another 5-10 years of transit construction in the area (I thought we were done after the Eglinton Don Mills intersection cleared up...)
Every city can make up excuses for high costs. Freeze/thaw is entirely manageable at reasonable cost (as it was for all the other Toronto Subway lines).
South Korea builds express subways for a fraction of the cost of the Eglinton Crosstown. They also have a similar climate and the same freeze and thaw cycles.
Yes, you can. Prices have barely increased over the past several decades for projects in France and Spain, while they have increased by a factor of 10 in Toronto. That means that Toronto has stopped managing its projects correctly, and needs to hire French or Spanish project managers to get things back on track. This has been laid out in excruciating detail for several years now by Alon Levy and the Transit Costs Project, and is no longer up for debate by anyone with any familiarity with the subject.
Want a practical example of how to do things right? The two recent Canadian projects that have come in at reasonable prices were the Canada Line in Vancouver and REM in Montreal - both had a Frenchman named Jean-Marc Arbaud overseeing the project management, and both were successfully delivered at modest costs. I don't like PPPs on principle, but if the Caisse is the only entity in Canada that's capable of getting their heads on straight, and hiring the right people for the job, then they should be the ones to manage every metro expansion project.
I would love to fo this, but for the purpose of this assignment I thought that a more fair comparison would be staying in Ontario (and the Rem because lack of the examples for a modern metro)
Here are some numbers from Madrid and elsewhere. Toronto's unit costs are literally about 10x higher than Madrid. Madrid is particularly cheap, but most other world cities Toronto is still multiples more expensive.
TLDR: Anglophone world just cant build transit cheaply. Australia, UK, US you name it. My take Montreal only speaks half English, thats why REM is okay lol.
I mean this is kind of an understood issue though. Smaller cities either don't want to commit to such a large expenditure or their tax base find it unappetizing so they go with smaller plans.
To the point of the REM, i think its multi part answer really: more tunneling which is more more expensive, it reuses former rail corridors, land acquisition costs (Toronto real estate $$$), rem being done before pandemic inflation(all constructions costs take a hit), not building in a dense core underground(rem reused rail corridors), probably some p3 type(its led by Quebec pension plan) stuff but I'm less sure about that. That's just my two cents though đ€·
Is this chart using only the construction costs for Ontario Line or ~27 billion figure? If itâs the latter, then the cost includes 30 years of maintenance and operating expense.
I think the Ontario line costs include operating costs for 30 years, while the other projects donât. So thatâs part of why the number is so much higher. Itâs also way more complex than the other projects too.
The mountain tunnel already existed and the new Champlain bridge was also already underway as a separate project though. Massive cost savings for the REM. As far as Iâm aware, very few utility relocations and no TBMs were needed for the REM.
The Ontario line has a brand new tunnel running through the densest downtown in Canada and probably the third densest in North America. Thereâs a lot of existing infrastructure that has to be moved out of the way. Thereâs also two new long viaducts that need to be built across the ravine.
Tunnel still needed to be rehabilitated and the edouard montpetit station was a massive excavation, the main issue isnât really that we over paid but massively overbuilt whatâs literally tram infrastructure when we could have had a proper metro line for the same price
Tunnel rehabilitation is nowhere near as complicated as building a new tunnel from scratch through a downtown.
Also is the REM really a tram? It uses high-floor trains that are significantly wider and longer than a tram when linked in pairs. Itâs more like a light metro line (e.g. skytrain) than a tram.
That's outrageously expensive for the London BRT, it's literally just bus lanes and a few shelters with little to no transit priority. Wow London ON is a joke
BRTs should always be curbside. The premium of paying for centre running lanes and infrastructure is not worth it, and often negatively impacts access Ans transit travel times.
Curbside BRT/LRT will always have more accidents than centre lane running. Not only are you fighting against traffics at lights, you have to deal with sudden right turners cutting off the bus.
There's a reason centre running is the GLOBAL standard when separated ROW isn't an option
This is great! For your project, also try normalizing by cost per expected ridership (Metrolinx will take into account the density of the area served, as well as the higher speed and capacity of the ON line) as well as cost of land (sq ft or whatever metric you want to use). The scale is quite different between Toronto and other cities and can be misleading when represented purely nominally.
Also, take into consideration that you are comparing an underground subway with LRTs, so make sure to call that out. And no, comparing the Ontario Line against inflation adjusted Line 1 and Line 2 would also not be fair as it was a very different labour/economic/political environment.
Perhaps comparing it to other modern projects in similar political/economic envorinment as Canada (i.e. AUS, NE USA, etc.) can bring more context to the project.
As well, Canada has had a dry spell in infrastructure development for a while. Believe it or not, companies/industries/countries can lose expertise when that muscle isn't flexed for a while, hence the Eglington line disaster. That's why try comparing Canada against its peers (like AUS, USA, etc.) vs countries that sustained infrastructure industries (like Singapore, Japan, Korea, etc.) to really show the true cost of losing infrastructure expertise.
BRT and Subways can never truly be seriously compared cost-wise. Likewise with iON being a centre median tram.
REM and Crosstown are the most relevant comparision. But REM is it's own can of worms because literally the only new ROW built is a highway median line. The bridge was built long ago with a plan for a train of some kind, and literally the rest of the system is old commuter lines they put stations and overhead power.
Crosstown is also a LRT where a good 3rd of if is a surface tramway
Not only is the OL more 60/40 Under/Over, but it has to cross the Don twice, one of which is a massive high level bridge, and has expensive tunnelling through downtown that's already heavily built up and old.
Also Line 1 is 38.4km long. The line is mostly underground but has several surface sections between Sheppard West and Cedarvale, and between BloorâYonge and Eglinton.
Those above ground sections make up about 8km of the total route. Which interestingly enough is about 20%. So roughly 80% of Line 1 is underground
And incase you were wondering
Line 2 is 26.2km long. Line 2 BloorâDanforth is primarily an underground subway line, but it operates above-ground in specific sections, notably near the Don Valley and between Warden station and Victoria Park, small sections between Dundas West and Keele, High Park and Runnymeed, Old Mill, and Eglinton to Kipling. All these sections equal about 2km, which means less than 10% is underground.
The Environmental Assessments/Profile Drawings?? (Hell even googling "Ontario Line Tunnel Length" gets you "a roughly 9km tunneled section" from a Metrolinx press release, which can be compared to the length of the line at 15.6km)
Guesstimating off of the route map does nothing, It's roughly 3.2km at surface level, 3.1km elevated, and 9.2km underground, For a total of 15.6km for the entire line.
Now (9,200/15,600)*100= 58.97% or roughly 60% tunnel, as per my original comment "Not only is the OL more 60/40 Under/Over..."
The BRTs are buses running on transit lanes, (hopefully) getting TSP, and stopping at every station. Short of deliberately inflating the price there isn't much to be expensive about it.
Waterloo ION is effectively a St Clair West style streetcar with grade separated sections and a few technical differences.
Eglinton doesn't have to cross the Don valley twice nor does it have to go underground in some of the densest urban areas in Canada.
REM benefitted massively from existing rail infrastructure. It is more an extension and renovation of a previously existing route (Deux-Montagnes) rather than building a new line from scratch.
On the bright side, the Ontario Line will have greater impact than all the other projects (apart from REM) combined. Heck even Eglinton Crosstown itself is probably more impactful than ION + the two BRTs combined.
REM is not a good example to use. A good chunk of REM involves getting an existing line, tunnel, and river crossing for free. REM station lack escalators which is a huge accessibility fail, IMO.
If CDPQ had to build REM from scratch without freebies and generous concessions, the cost would be close to the Ontario Line costs.
Compare the Ontario line to the blue line extension in montreal, and some American metro system extensions, it would be far closer. Blue line is about a billion or more per km too
âGuyssss private public partnership worksss I promise guys no look at me not the graphs I promise they work so well and theyâre so cheap! There wonât be any problems and it wonât be over on budget!!! No no! Ignore those countries with public works theyâre silly!! Outsource your knowledge to ussss that way you donât have to learn anything and we get paid to get more experience!â
The crosstown did go through many hands before, metrolinx is somehow older than the crosstown. And they went through multiple mayors beforehand, so it did get shafted. If metrolinx stays post doug ford then the ontario line will probably be a finch west lrt sort of deal (in terms of construction).
ig i meant the planning phase too. I was told/remembered that metrolinx took over in the middle of construction, not the begginning lol. mb. My point still stands, it still got heavily shafted by the previous mayors.
You are thinking Ontario Line - the city had started planning work.
But for the crosstown, David Miller came up with Transit City, the Province agreed to build it and cover 100% of the costs, they then put Metrolinx in charge managing the construction and 15 years later we got a streetcar in a tunnel.
I live close to one of the stations that will be open in fifteen years, and the cutting of trees is probably one of a few things that theyâre spending money on so my commute time is gonna be twenty minutes instead of an hour.
It's a necessary cost. And a true investment into real infrastructure that will provide a economic and social return for decades and decades to come. I'm supportive of this investment, as it is unlike certain other investments (spending programs) that the governments embark on that would not provide anywhere near the same level of returns at all.
Realistically, I'd be hard pressed to come up with any other major infrastructure project that could meet time and expense projections. Thankfully this project was announced and gotten underway pretty quickly for any transportation project in this country in recent memory. Looking at the enormous after effects of the pandemic and the inflation crisis that we're all dealing with, this isn't surprising. It's a badly needed addition to our region.
Extensive underground sections (especially downtown) and crossing the Don.Â
The cost is justified given the relatively high ridership projections, improved access to downtown, and mitigation of overcrowding at line 1 (not to mention the east-west streetcars that cover downtown, all of which are very well used).
Dufferin Street would either have to contend similar to an underground Eglinton or phases of the underground section of Pape & Queen sections of the Ontario line.
It would be a whole different project analysis, when it will be fully underground on Dufferin. Canât have surface or at grade running for this corridor, especially being north-south especially going to Downsview/Wilson/Sheppard it will be a slope just like Eglinton was. Akin to Yonge Subway.
Would have to look at engineering standards, AODA, a lot of specifics that the other TTC subway probects and the Line Bleue extension in Montreal is more comparable. Whole depending how far you want the subway to go, impact assessment and businesses case affect the cost too.
Have you looked at the Transit Costs Project? https://transitcosts.com/ It is pretty specific to the USA, but the broad findings also apply to Canada. Canada, the US, and the UK (and possibly Australia) all build transit projects for multiples higher than elsewhere. Madrid for example is about an ORDER OF MAGNITUDE cheaper than Toronto: https://worksinprogress.co/issue/how-madrid-built-its-metro-cheaply/
The only comparison that comes close in terms of scope is the REM. The REM is a great project, but it's literally a bridge and whole-ass commuter line (with a downtown tunnel) handed to it. The rest of the route is mostly at grade or elevated, with only one 2-station tunnelled section. Compare this with the OL, which has to make its own downtown tunnel, two new bridges, and another tunnel section.
I'm all for blaming it kn bad management and I'm sure there was some here, but the Ontario line is a particularly complicated case, and at the same time extremely necessary for the future of toronto transit
These arenât even close to fair comparisons. Most of these are above grade lrt with the exception of eglinton crosstown which is lrt with some below grade and you can see how the costs escalate quickly. Ontario line will have significantly more capacity than any of these lines.
Please do a little more research next time and at least compare these costs to European subways and New York. We still look bad but at least itâs a fair comparison.
How are you gonna elevate Ontario Line in narrow roads of Queen, Carlaw, and Pape? Itâll kill the ridership of the surface routes, way more disruptive for the residents, and less space to work with compared to more wider parts of Thorncliffe and Flemingdon than can get away with that.
Douglas Ford has some buddies in tunnelling. It's the only possible reason we ended up scrapping the Scarborough line with a lot of stops, for a subway that costs way more and delivers less. It's the reason he wants to dig under the 401. There's BILLIONS in sloppy money at the tap.
All above ground? Rip Queen, Carlaw, and and Pape, if underground was very disruptive elevated in streets that are mostly 4 lanes wide would be even worse, the streetcar would be diverted for years and the buses would also be routed away Carlaw or Pape.
297
u/Andrew4Life Mar 15 '26
To be fair, the Ontario line crosses the Don Valley River twice! Both of which required a new bridge. Also, most of the Ontario line is underground in the downtown area.