We need to arrest the rising costs and lengthening timelines of transit infrastructure in the GTHA, if we're going to have any hope of building the transit system we need. Rather than accept the status quo, Queen's Park should lead an investigation into:
1) Why do Ontario transit projects take as long as they do to begin construction? Other jurisdictions are able to begin subway construction within two or three years of proposal. Why does it take Ontario a decade to do the same. How can we change our regulations to speed up construction?
2) What is driving up the costs of construction? Is it the cost of materials, the cost of labour, or another factor? Could bringing in foreign workers help to reduce costs? (Yes, not a politically friendly option, but the economic costs of delaying infrastructure used by millions is far in excess of denying a few thousand locals some jobs)
3) Is the lack of competition on the construction industry a factor in high costs? Have we done enough to open up construction opportunities to international firms?
4) Is chronic underfunding of local and regional city planning and engineering staff increasing the amount of time necessary to plan these projects? Perhaps a funding boost to local planning and engineering would significantly speed up timelines? I know for a fact that this is a pretty big issue at Toronto City Planning.
5) Given the year-over-year increases in the price of construction, how much money are taxpayers losing due to the slow progress on these projects?
6) What tools are available to the to the government to ensure enough capital exists to get projects under construction in a more timely manner? Can the infrastructure bank help?
7) And overall, a comparison of transit building procedures and regulations in Ontario compared to other jurisdictions around the world.
We needn't look to distant counties like China for solutions. Right here in Canada, BC and Quebec are able to get transit built and operational far quicker than we do in Ontario. These ridiculous timelines might very well be localized to Ontario.
While there are doubtless reasons I'm not familiar with; I can provide a few answers.
1. It matters what you include in project costs. These costs are not strictly construction. They generally include any E.A. costs, planning costs, Business-case costs etc, as well as often including new rolling stock and storage for same. Historically there were no BCAs, EAs or their forerunners were much more scoped.
2. Choice of construction technique. We've moved to a program of primarily bored tunnel vs cut and cover construction. The former is typically cheaper in so far as it often requires less land acquisition; but the latter allows for much shallower construction, think of the original Line 1. With tunnels closer to the surface, so are stations, that saves a lot of $$. No mezzanine quite often.
3. Amenities. The original Yonge line had no escalators or elevators, and in fact, outside of Wellesely had no bus terminals south of Rosedale. The more stuff you tack on, the more expensive it gets.
4. Building Code/Fire Code. Today we require more elaborate ventilation, second exits, and a host of other precautions in the event of emergency.
5.Capacity. Even most Line 2 stations (Woodbine to Keele) are today very congested in rush hours. Their capacity was more than adequate when built. Now, we arguably err on the other side of the line, building very large, even cavernous stations. That said, it is cheaper to over-build, than re-build.
6.Modernity: More complex signal systems, and future proofing for platform-edge doors adds costs.
7. Financing; Earlier lines were paid for out of fare revenue, or by direct tax payer subsidy, meaning, no interest costs. Today's lines are often privately financed, which means not only are you paying interest on the entire cost, over a 30-year or so time period, but your doing so at commercial interest rates. This is huge, as commercial rates now would be in the area of 6%, just see what that adds to the project total over 30 years. (just over double)
