As snow fell on a brisk January morning, commuters huddled in bus shelters along Ottawa’s transitway, checking their phones for yet another delay alert. Six kilometers away, city councillors debated the latest budget overrun on Phase 3 of the city’s light rail transit system.
“It’s the same story in every major Canadian city,” remarked Terry Davidson, a community advocate who’s spent 20 years pushing for better transit in the capital region. “We pay Ferrari prices for Honda service.”
The numbers support Davidson’s frustration. Canada builds transit at some of the highest costs in the developed world – a reality that limits how much infrastructure we can build and ultimately how many Canadians can access reliable public transportation.
A disturbing pattern emerges when comparing transit projects across major Canadian cities. Toronto’s Scarborough subway extension price tag has ballooned to $5.5 billion for a mere three stops – roughly $1.8 billion per kilometer. Vancouver’s Broadway subway extension carries a $2.8 billion price tag for 5.7 kilometers. Montreal’s REM light rail network costs have grown to $6.9 billion.
Meanwhile, similar projects in Madrid, Spain cost approximately one-fifth what we pay in Canadian urban centers, according to research from the Residential and Civil Construction Alliance of Ontario.
“We’ve created a system that rewards inefficiency,” explains Dr. Matti Siemiatycki, professor of geography and planning at the University of Toronto. “The procurement process, political interference, and risk allocation have all contributed to these extraordinary costs.”
The consequences extend beyond budget sheets. When transit costs spiral, service areas shrink, creating transit deserts in lower-income neighborhoods that need connectivity most. In Toronto’s northwest, residents like Keisha Williams face bus commutes exceeding 90 minutes to downtown jobs.
“Politicians cut ribbons on shiny new stations downtown while people in my neighborhood wait 30 minutes for a bus that’s already full,” Williams told me during a community meeting in Jane-Finch last month.
So why does Canada struggle with transit costs while peer nations build more efficiently?
First, our procurement models often shift excessive risk to contractors who then build substantial contingency costs into their bids. The Auditor General of Ontario noted this practice added approximately 27% to recent infrastructure projects.
Second, political interference frequently disrupts project planning. The constant cancellations, redesigns, and route modifications that accompany election cycles cost taxpayers millions. When Doug Ford’s government altered Toronto transit plans in 2019, transition costs alone exceeded $200 million according to city staff reports.
Third, Canadian projects tend toward “gold-plated” stations with elaborate architecture rather than functional designs. Madrid’s metro expansion featured standardized, no-frills stations that prioritized service coverage over aesthetics.
“In Barcelona, they build stations like they’re building a hospital – functional, clean, accessible, but not extravagant,” notes Marco Chitti, researcher with policy think tank Canada’s Ecofiscal Commission. “In Toronto, we build stations like we’re building opera houses.”
But change may be coming. The recent federal housing initiative offers a potential blueprint for transit reform. By requiring cities to streamline approval processes for housing to receive funding, Ottawa created leverage for systemic change.
Several promising reforms could transform how we build transit:
Standardized station designs across systems would reduce engineering and design costs substantially. Cities like Milan have used this approach to drive down expenses by up to 40%.
Independent project oversight boards with professional expertise rather than political appointments could protect planning continuity across election cycles. The success of Metrolinx’s early years before increasing political interference shows this model’s potential.
Staged procurement that separates design from construction allows adjustments before major contracts are signed, reducing expensive change orders. This approach has worked in Stockholm’s recent transit extensions.
“The countries that build transit efficiently have one thing in common – they treat it as essential infrastructure, not political footballs,” says Vincent Puhakka from advocacy group Transit Alliance.
Montreal may offer early signs of change. The CDPQ Infra model, where an independent institutional investor led transit development, delivered the REM project with greater efficiency than traditional approaches, despite its own cost challenges.
“What we’re missing in Canada is a culture of cost discipline,” notes former Vancouver city planner Sandy James. “Every design change, every delay comes with a price tag that ultimately means less transit for more money.”
For commuters waiting on those snowy platforms, the cost conversation matters. Every billion spent inefficiently represents kilometers of track not built, communities not served, and opportunities lost.
As federal transit funding programs come up for renewal next year, advocates are pushing for a fundamental rethink. Funding could be tied to cost-efficiency benchmarks, standardized designs, and independent governance – creating incentives for better spending.
“We don’t need to invent anything new,” Davidson told me as we parted ways at the transit stop. “We just need to look at what works elsewhere and have the political courage to implement it here.”
Until then, Canadians will continue paying premium prices for a system that delivers anything but premium service – and that might be the costliest outcome of all.
