Expanding Underground.

Knowledge and Passion to Make a Positive Impact

on the World – Anagnostou, Benardos & Marinos (Eds)
© 2023 The Author(s), ISBN 978-1-003-34803-0
Open Access: www.taylorfrancis.com, CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license

Advancement of conventional cost benefit for selection of truly

sustainable infrastructure alternatives

T. Kondrachova, G. Grasselli & E. Miller

University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

ABSTRACT: In the 21st century, selection of a best infrastructure alternative became prom­
inent for all public sector projects. Initially, such selection was using the well-established for
assessment of most profitable private investments, the cost-benefit approach. Criticized for
insufficient inclusion of project social and ecological effects, this approach was later replaced
with variety of multi-criteria-based methods. An overview of both approaches identifies their
advantages and potential burdens for fair assessment of economical, social, and ecological
effects. All analyses are supported by world-wide practical examples with emphasis on histor­
ical tunnelling projects from Greater Toronto (Canada). Relying on some findings by Canad­
ian and Australian scholars and the results of their own research, the authors develop an
enhancement to the conventional cost-benefit approach to ensure selection of fact-proven
most sustainable alternatives. As demonstrated, application of this methodology can reduce
infrastructure planning timeline, also working toward its better sustainability and helping
with achievement of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals.

1 INTRODUCTION

According to (European Union, 2017), sustainable development should meet “the needs of the
present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. Sus­
tainable development can be only achieved via the most sustainable infrastructure options
selected following the principles of sustainability formed on the three pillars of economy, soci­
ety, and ecology. However, the current, world-wide popular infrastructure selection methods
for selection of best alternatives are focused on financial profitability and social and ecological
feasibilities, which may not always correspond to the most sustainable alternatives. In add­
ition, as per recent findings by Canadian and United Kingdom scholars (Saxe et al., 2021), the
average pre-construction timeline on 26 historical Toronto and London public transportation
projects accounts for 28 years, which is almost 4.5 times longer than their average construc­
tion of about 6 years. Unfortunately, any prolongation of a pre-delivery (pre-construction
and construction) timeline always corresponds with additional natural resources, delayed
essential to the public services and thus, postponed regional economic growth. However, the
constantly extending pre-delivery timeline of public sector infrastructure projects is not yet
recognized as a negative long-term sustainability factor. By fairly acknowledging the above,
the focus on optimization of pre-delivery timelines becomes evident. As such, this study
focuses on improvement of the existing infrastructure selection methodology that would allow
coherent selection of the financially best and technologically most sustainable options signifi­
cantly optimizing their pre-delivery timelines. The authors believe that the study’s results will
improve each infrastructure long-term sustainability leading toward more sustainable future
development.

DOI: 10.1201/9781003348030-13

99
2 POPULAR APPROACHES FOR SELECTION OF BEST INFRASCTRUCTURE
ALTERNATIVES

2.1 Cost-benefit approach

Cost-Benefit-based methodology (CBBM), including Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) and Cost-
Benefit Ratio (CBR), was first introduced in the mid-19th century (Couture et al., 2016) for
analyses of private investments into natural resource exploration projects. This method
remains prominent in the private sector. With introduction of federal policies, the method
became dominant for assessment of public sector infrastructure investments. In Canada, CBA
Guide (Treasury Board, 2007) was adopted as a federal policy in 2007, seven years later than
in the United Sates (US) and two years after Australia and European Union.
As per (Meyer & Miller, 2001), selection of best alternatives using the Cost-Benefit approach,
particularly for public transport project, includes the following steps: 1) establishment of an
evaluation procedure, length of an appraisal term and a baseline (base case/do nothing), 2) Cost
(C) and Benefits (B) quantification for each alternative over the established appraisal term, 3)
reduction of quantified C and B to their “present values” using “time-value of money” discount­
ing rates and 4) comparison of C and B “present values” against the baseline scenario. Various
appraisal terms and discounting rates (Table 1) outline the different development strategies
adopted in different countries for their public transport and other infrastructure. For instance,
the incredibly long appraisal term and relatively low discounting rate by UK Transportation
(HM Treasury, 2021) should boost the country-wide public transport development, where the
relatively short appraisal term and high discounting rate should have an opposite effect on US
Transport (US Department of Transportation, 2018) and Canadian infrastructure development.

Table 1. Cost-benefit major factors in different countries and for different projects.
Canada Ontario United Kingdom
Recommended values US Transportation Infrastructure Transportation Transportation

Appraisal term, years 20-30 20-30 25-30 60-100

Discounting rate, % 7 8 5 3.7

The CBBM greatest benefit is its well-structured procedure that allows direct comparison of
the quantified B and C. Complete quantification of B and C makes this approach non-
subjective and transparent for potential auditing. Although, this method is criticized for its
inability to deal with i) macro-economic and ii) larger-areal impacts assessment (AECOM Ltd.,
2012), and for iii) inconsistent applications around the globe (Couture et al., 2016). Inaccuracy
of the cost-benefit approach for more inclusive and cumulative environmental and social
impacts, particularly on large scale transportation projects (Laird et al., 2014), is under ongoing
improvements. Likewise, the tremendous effort of a well-recognized transportation expert Todd
Litman over his entire career aims to enhance the cost-benefit with more reliable and better
quantifiable C and B accounts (Litman, 2021).

2.2 Multi-criteria approach

The shift to multi-criteria/accounts approach for selection of best public infrastructure alter­
natives (Couture et al., 2016) was intended to achieve a more inclusive project interpretation
through its extended social, ecological, and economical effects. Upon introduction, the multi-
criteria approach was deemed more reliable for selection of the most sustainable infrastructure
options. The method was formulated on the principles of cost-benefit approach for project
description through quantifiable criteria, which were extended with qualifiable criteria. Qualifiable
criteria and their scoring had to be developed for each project/alternative individually through
consultation with small public groups and stakeholders, such as investors, land developers, areal
residents, environmentalists, growth opposers etc. that have been affected or interested by a new
infrastructure (Couture et al., 2016).

100
 The main disadvantage of this methodology comes from its individual, project-customized
application, with the assessment results generally being incompatible with other projects, and
previous assessments are, thus, hard to audit. More precisely, the multi-criteria/accounts
methodology is criticized for the opportunity for small social groups and individual stake­
holders to influence the selection process with the choices benefiting those small groups rather
than the society as a whole and leading to not overly sustainable options (Figure 1). More­
over, the multi-criteria methodology (Wickens, 2020) is named as one of the main reasons for
Toronto’s subway soaring costs.

Figure 1. Multi-criteria/account methodology’s critics (Wickens, 2020).

The detailed guidelines introduced by the public sector, such as by the Greater Toronto’s
regional transportation planning agency, Metrolinx’s Business Case Guidance (Metrolinx,
2021), aim to improve the multi-criteria approach for more consistent and comparable results.
However, this guidance requires completion of the four progressive project-phase aligned
(conceptual planning, preliminary design, detailed design, and post in-service) Business Case
Analyses (BCAs) on each proposed public transit project in Greater Toronto and Hamilton
Area (GTHA). With increasing the number of BCAs from one to four, the project’s timeline
will extend, likely causing negative effects on overall long-term sustainability.

3 GREATER TORONTO BRIEF SUBWAY HISTORY

The database of all historical and soon-to-open subway and rapid transit projects in Greater
Toronto was compiled using different open sources, including Toronto Transit Commission’s
website (www.transittoronto.ca), dissertations and reports (Alcock, 2021; Levy, 2014; Schabas,
2013; Young, 2012). All historical costs expressed in Canadian dollars were adjusted to 2022
values using the Bank of Canada inflation calculator (www.bankofcanada.ca/rates/related/infla
tion-calculator). The database was analyzed relatively to each project’s lifespan split between
pre-construction, construction, and operation. Also, each project was analyzed relatively to its
construction cost excluding the cost of fleet. Results of the analyses are summarized in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Greater Toronto rapid transit projects.

101
 For easy comparison, all costs are expressed in Linear Unit Cost ($CAD 2022 million/km)
obtained from each project capital cost divided by its length (kilometers). Each project is
marked with the rounded number of the constructed kilometers and the year-in-service, which
allows tracking its brief scope and the pre-delivery historical timeline, including its pre-
construction (planning and approval) and construction (design, field investigations, construc­
tion, and commissioning) periods. As seen, Linear Unit Cost around $100 million/km was
pretty much stable on all projects in 20th century rising in the 21st century. Its maximum of
$433 million/km was reached on the Toronto-York-Spadina subway line delivered in 2017 as
the first subway extension outside of the City of Toronto municipal boundaries into the
Greater Toronto area (Municipality of York Region). Interestingly, there is a visible correl­
ation between the cost rising trend and duration of pre-delivery (pre-construction and con­
struction) timelines. The pre-delivery timelines on most projects in 20th century varied from 5
to 8 years. They have significantly grown in 21st century reaching 15.5 years on average. This
finding is consistent with the previously stated hypothesis that any optimization on a project
pre-delivery timeline can improve its long-term sustainability, particularly as demonstrated by
this example, through reduction of its capital cost.

3.1 Eglinton Crosstown light rail transit and scarborough subway extension
Selection of the Eglinton Crosstown best alternative (labelled 19 km 2022 in Figure 2) was
accompanied with two progressive Benefits Case Analysis Reports (Steer Davies Gleave, 2009,
2012). As a result, the Light Rail Transit technology with 25 passenger stations constructed
over 10 km by “mechanized tunnelling” and 9 km by “at-grade” constructions was selected.
The 9 km “at-grade” section was justified with its relatively lower construction cost and higher
construction pace to offset the more expensive and comprehensive underground tunnelling
along the 10 km stretch. To-date, the tunnelling section was completed in less than four years
(2012-2016) and “at-grade” constructions are still ongoing. Given multiple construction delays
including the Covid-19 pandemic response, the current capital cost has grown by 65% (Alcock,
2021; Metrolinx, 2022). Unfortunately, such cost rise and extension to more than 10 years con­
struction time were not accounted as part of the multi-criteria assessments’ stress testing and/or
sensitivity analyses, which proper allocation could lead to different selection results.
Following the first edition of the Business Case Guidance (Metrolinx, 2021), the second
Business Case Analysis (BCA) aligned with preliminary design was filed on the Scarborough
Subway Extension in 2020 (Metrolinx Infrastructure Ontario, 2020). The first BCA (Toronto
Transit Commission, 2016) did not identify the 7.9 km subway with 3 new passenger stations
as the best alternative. However, this alternative was moved forward for more detailed ana­
lysis in the second BCA. As stated in both BCAs, upon subway completion, the existing at-
grade rail tracks (labeled as 7 km 1985 in Figure 2) within the fully segregated transit corridor
will be demolished. Replacement of at-grade transit line with underground subway (to be tun­
neled) will end its operation lasting for only 37 years. With most Toronto subway lines built
underground outlasting this at-grade line, their better long-term sustainability is quite evident.
For instance, first Toronto subway (1954 in Figure 2), in March 2022, has celebrated its 68
years in service while remaining the busiest route in Toronto.
These two projects demonstrate a perfect example on the inconsistency of the multi-criteria
produced results: 1) preference of 9 km “at-grade” along the busiest in Toronto, Eglinton
Street, conflicts with 2) replacement of the existing “at-grade” fully segregated transit corridor
with a subway. Evidently, an improvement to the infrastructure selection methodology is
necessary to produce better comparable and consistently justifiable selection results.

4 SUSTAINABILITY

Sustainable urban development (European Union, 2017) is formulated on the principles of

sustainability as a compromise between the three fundamental sustainability dimensions:

102
economy, society, and ecology. Sustainable development, according to (Cepeliauskaite, 2020)
is understood as a long-term economically and environmentally stable system, which is impossible
without integration of social, economic, and environmental elements into the decision-making
process. As discussed, the public sector reliance on the multi-criteria/accounts methodology
may be a step away from more sustainable development. The focus on the fully quantifiable
cost-benefit methodology enhanced with more criteria that would allow selection of truly
sustainable infrastructure options is imperative to support sustainable infrastructures and
sustainable future development.

4.1 Sustainable means the most environmentally friendly

In many countries including US and Canada, the public sector projects require a more
detailed Environmental Assessment (EA) and approval conducted in addition to selection of
the financially and technologically best infrastructure alternatives. With the Ontario EA Act
introduced in 1990, the pre-construction (planning and approval) timeline on the two subway
projects initiated in 1996 and 2002 (Figure 2) took enormously long: 16 and 11 years respect­
ively. Further analysis of the EA durations relatively to their construction timelines is con­
ducted using the previously compiled database (Kondrachova & Gaspari, 2021) on the
Greater Toronto projects (water, wastewater, energy, air, transit etc.) constructed 1990-2020.
Duration timelines available on 22 tunnelling projects constructed by open face and closed
face tunnel boring machines and by slurry operated micro-tunnelling machines were aligned
with the excavated volumes (Figure 3) used for indication of a project’s scope and complexity.
For tracking historical timelines, each project is marked with the year of EA initiation. As
seen, on most (14) projects, the EA varied from 3 to 12 years versus their constructions requir­
ing only from 1 to a maximum of 6 years. Also, EA durations correlate with the volumes of
excavated soils. Thus, by inclusion of excavated volumes into selection of best infrastructure
alternatives can help with least disruptive and therefore, the most environmentally friendly
infrastructure options. In turn, the pre-construction timelines can be optimized by 3-5 years if
EA approval step is eliminated and being reliably replaced through the novel harmonized
selection technique.

Figure 3. Environmental assessment and construction durations versus excavated soils on Greater Tor­
onto’s tunnelling projects (1990-2020).

4.2 Sustainability assessments

Following the triple-bottom (ecology, society, economy) sustainability extended with
a fourth “transportation system effectiveness” dimension, a new methodology by Univer­
sity of Calgary (Miller et al., 2016) has identified 29 fully quantifiable indicators for

103
assessment of public transit long-term sustainability. The methodology was subsequently
tested for selection of the most sustainable alternative for the Vancouver Broadway Cor­
ridor project. As part of the exercise, it was revealed that, unfortunately, not all 29 indi­
cators could be reliably quantified due to existing data shortages. However, even with
application of 10 indicators, the obtained sustainability results demonstrated less than
1% (within potential error) difference between the proposed “underground subway” and
“subway and LRT combo” alternatives. Applying 15 indicators, this method was suc­
cessfully tested by Australian scholars (de Gruyter et al., 2016) for sustainability assess­
ment of the existing public transportation systems across eight world-wide regions with
emphasis on 26 Asian and Middle Eastern cities.

4.3 A novel harmonized selection methodology

Some of the discussed in above 29 sustainable indicators (Miller et al., 2016), such as emis­
sions, annual operating cost, capital cost, cost of fleet etc. have been historically used for con­
ventional cost-benefit methodology. Thus, integration of cost-benefit with the sustainability
assessment methodology (Section 4.2) is feasible. Following all prior observations outlined in
this article, a new harmonized selection methodology formed on the 16 fully quantifiable indi­
cators (Table 2) is proposed. The new methodology utilizes the best practices of cost-benefit
methodology, including all four selection steps (Section 2.1). For quantification of each indi­
cator, the historically proven data, and the metadata (operation cost, transit riders etc.) cur­
rently collected by many public and private agencies should be utilized. The obtained values
for each sustainability indicator need to be normalized by expressing each value as a score out
of 100 relatively to the summoned value among all analyzed alternatives. Such normalization
allows expression of different units in a normalized non-unit form, which then can be com­
bined for gaining of each alternative’s overall score. Overall score is a result of all “the lower -
the better” (emissions, capital cost, surface area consumed etc.) positive value indicators
deducted by “the higher - the better” negative value indicators (ridership revenues, # of jobs,
daily savings etc.). Alternative with the lowest overall score becomes the most sustainable.

Table 2. Indicators for harmonized selection of long-term most sustainable alternatives.

ID Indicator title Units

Ecology
E1 Energy consumed (including fuel) Mj
E2 Mass of total pollutants/emissions Kt
E3 Surface area consumed m2
E4 Volume of all removals (soils, rocks, water, trees, concrete, pipes, structures etc.) m3
E5 Volume of all recycling and natural restorations m3
E6 Permanent loss by nature m3
Economy
EC1 Total cost (Planning, Approval, Design, Construction, Monitoring, Commission, financing) $, B
EC2 Total fleet cost (same as in above) $, B
EC3 Long-term operational cost $, B
EC4 Long-term ridership revenues $, B
EC5 Construction growth (# of new jobs, new businesses, new residents) #
EC6 Long-term growth (same as above) #
Society
S1 Daily money savings (car versus transit) per person $
S2 Daily time savings (car versus transit) per person min
S3 Daily deaths #
S4 Daily accidents #

104
Table 3. Selection of most sustainable UTM rapid transit alternative.
6.5 m
Indicator Cut and cover Score At grade Score EPBM Score 13 m EPBM Score

CO2 1, Kt 1,049 22 1,179 25 1,049 22 1,514 32

Land2, m2 2,500 1 304,500 98 2,500 1 2,500 1
Removals3, m3 2,933,816 47 1,440,450 23 720,152 12 1,166,344 19
Ecology loss4, m3 0 0 100,000 100 0 0 0 0
Capital Cost5, $B 6.55 38 2.25 13 3.28 19 5.15 30
O & M cost6, $B 3.48 15 9.41 40 6.97 30 3.48 15
Revenues7, $B 5.9 -26 4.72 -21 5.9 -26 5.9 -26
Short-term jobs, # 39,020 -26 25,000 -17 39,020 -26 46,824 -31
New jobs8, # 659,967 -26 527,974 -21 659,967 -26 659,967 -26
Daily savings9, $/person 32 -25 32 -25 32 -25 32 -25
Daily commute10, min 96 24 109 27 96 24 96 24
Overall score Rank #3 43 Rank #4 242 Rank #1 4 Rank #2 11
1
all emissions estimated over construction plus over 50-year operation
2
land permanently occupied by transport
3
all removals including excavated soils, groundwater, surface water, existing buildings, and infrastructures
(roads, pipes, cables etc.) minus back-fills
4
non-restorable environmental (fauna and flora) losses
5
total cost including 4-year planning, 5-year approval with property acquisition, design, and construction with
6-year contract management, 15-year financing at 5.78% annual borrowing rate is summarized and adjusted by
25% contingency
6
Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) annual operation and maintenance cost is first adjusted by 2.5% for annual
inflation incrementally over 50-year term, summarized and then additionally adjusted for 25% contingency
7
using TTC’s 2021 annual ridership (24% of pre-covid), the obtained daily trips for subway and street cars are multi­
plied by 365 and by 2 (for conservative post-covid scenario), adjusted incrementally over 50-year term by 1% annul
population growth in Greater Toronto and multiplied by the assumed $2.50 transit fee; the relatively low transit
fee and neglection of 2.5% annual inflation over entire 50-year term are applied to ensure additional contingency
8
using the TTC’s November 2007 Report and the assumption of 100,000 local population, the obtained annual
number of permanent jobs is adjusted by 1% population growth for every 5 years over 50-year term and
summarized
9
difference between daily car cost ($35,000 car to last for 5 years with 65 km daily commute, $8 daily parking
fee and 0.07$/km maintenance cost as per Metrolinx BCA Manual) and daily transit cost (PRESTO $143/
month divided by 21 business days)
10
includes 35 min walking distance, time on transit plus 6 min contingency each way

This new harmonized selection methodology was introduced at Tunneling Association of

Canada annual conference in November 2022 (Kondrachova & Grasselli, 2022). The method­
ology was tested on the University Toronto of Mississauga Rapid Transit (UTMRT) concepted
at University of Toronto with industry input (Kondrachova et al., 2022). Using the fact-proven
historical data and TTC operational statistics, the 11 harmonized indicators from Table 2 have
been identified for selection of UTMRT most sustainable alternative inclusive to its construc­
tion and long-term operation. Following the best geographical alignment proven through plan­
ning and pre-design as the cheapest and most beneficial to the local and the larger scale
economy growth, the four UTMRT alternatives were established according to different con­
struction techniques: 1) cut and cover, 2) at-grade, 3) 6.5 m diameter twin tunnelling by earth-
pressure boring machines (EPBM) and 4) 13 m diameter one pass EPBM tunnelling. The results
(Table 3) reveal the 6.5 m EPBM twin tunnelling as the UTMRT most sustainable alternative.

5 CONCLUSIONS

Infrastructure pre-construction timelines on public sector projects are lengthy. They keep
rising, particularly in the 21st century with the requirement for selection of the best (financially
and technically) alternative and introduction of more focused environmental assessment

105
regulations. Often, they exceed the construction timelines. Pre-construction durations depend
on effectiveness of project planning and approval inclusive to selection of its best alternatives
and completion of environmental assessments.
As demonstrated, the existing infrastructure selection methods have negative implications
on the pre-construction timelines, and they do not support selection of truly sustainable alter­
natives. Introduction of a novel harmonized methodology strictly following the three funda­
mental sustainability dimensions: ecology, economy, and society would allow selection of the
most sustainable and thus, the most environmentally friendly infrastructure options. As
a result, lengthy environmental assessments can be excluded, as a duplicative approval step,
reducing the pre-construction timelines by about 3-5 years. Moreover, utilizing the best prac­
tices of the cost-benefit methodology, the new harmonized selection methodology, being fully
quantifiable and thus not-subjective, well-structured, and easy to audit procedure, will provide
an imperative step toward more sustainable infrastructure, leading to truly sustainable future
development.

REFERENCES

AECOM Ltd. (2012). Economic Benefits of Major Transportation Investments: An Overview.

Alcock, J. B. (2021). History of the Toronto subway system.
Cepeliauskaite, G., & Stasiskiene, Z. (2020). The Framework of the Principles of Sustainable Urban Eco­
systems Development and Functioning. Sustainability, 12(2), 720. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12020720
Couture, L.-É., Saxe, S., & Miller, E. J. (2016). COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF TRANSPORTATION
INVESTMENT.
de Gruyter, C., Currie, G., & Rose, G. (2016). Sustainability Measures of Urban Public Transport in
Cities: A World Review and Focus on the Asia/Middle East Region. Sustainability, 9(1), 43. https://
doi.org/10.3390/su9010043
HM Treasury. (2021). Financial Reporting Advisory Board Paper. Discount Rates. In HM Treasury.
HM Treasury.
Kondrachova, T., de Boer, T., Fekadu, B., Grasselli, G., & Gaspari, G. (2022, November). Univer­
sity of Toronto Mississauga Rapid Transit Connection Concept. Https://Www.Tunnelcanada.ca/
Members/Documents/2022/Papers/SESIHT8TCU59LEWBN_Paper_TK_TB_BH_GG_GG_final_ver­
sion_Aug_30_2022.Pdf.
Kondrachova, T., & Gaspari, G. M. (2021). Design Build and Design Bid Build Traditional Project
Delivery Methods and Modern Industry Trends. What is most efficient? In Jarrett E. Carlson & Gregg
W. Davidson (Eds.), Rapid Excavation and Tunneling Conference 2021 Proceedings (pp. 27–40).
Kondrachova, T., & Grasselli, G. (2022, November). Are decisions on tunnelling projects truly sustainable?
Reality vs theory. Https://Www.Tunnelcanada.ca/Members/Documents/2022/Papers/SES9132UC2ASKN­
COZ_How_sustaianble_decisions_on_tunnelling_projects_TK_and_GG_September_3_2022.Pdf.
Laird, J., Nash, C., & Mackie, P. (2014). Transformational transport infrastructure: cost-benefit analysis
challenges. Town Planning Review, 85(6), 709–730. https://doi.org/10.3828/tpr.2014.43
Levy, E. J. (2014). Rapid Transit in Toronto.
Litman, T. (2021). Evaluating Public Transit Benefits and Costs. Victoria Transport Policy Institute.
Metrolinx. (2021). Business Case Guidance. In Metrolinx. Metrolinx.
Metrolinx. (2022, May 2). Eglinton Crosstown. Thecrosstown.Ca.
Metrolinx, & Infrastructure Ontario. (2020). Scarborough Subway Extension Preliminary Design Business
Case.
Meyer, M. D., & Miller, E. J. (2001). URBAN TRANSPORTATION PLANNING: A DECISION-
ORIENTED APPROACH (Second). McGraw-Hill, Incorporated.
Miller, P., de Barros, A. G., Kattan, L., & Wirasinghe, S. C. (2016). Analyzing the sustainability per­
formance of public transit. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 44, 177–198.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2016.02.012
Publications Office of the European Union. (2017, March 24). Sustainable Development. Glossary Term.
Saxe, S., Dean, M., Raghav, S., Durrant, D., & Siemiatycki, M. (2021). Timelines of transportation infra­
structure delivery 2000 to 2018 in Toronto, Canada and London, UK. European Journal of Transport
and Infrastructure Research, 21(3), 82–105. https://doi.org/10.18757/ejtir.2021.21.3.5515
Schabas, M., & First Class Partnerships Limited. (2013). Review of Metrolinx’s Big Move.
Steer Davies Gleave. (2009). EGLINTON CROSSTOWN RAPID TRANSIT BENEFITS CASE.

106
Steer Davies Gleave. (2012). EGLINTON CROSSTOWN RAPID TRANSIT BENEFITS CASE
UPDATE.
Toronto Transit Commission. (2016). Scarborough Subway Extension Initial Business Case.
Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. (2007). Canadian Cost-Benefit Analysis Guide. In Treasury Board
of Canada. Treasury Board of Canada.
US Department of Transportation. (2018). Benefit-Cost Analysis Guidance for Discretionary Grant Pro­
grams. In Office of the Secretary U.S. Department of Transportation. Office of the Secretary U.S.
Department of Transportation.
Wickens, S. (2020). STATION TO STATION Why Subway-building Costs Have Soared in the Toronto
Region.
Young, J. (2012). SEARCHING FOR A BETTER WAY: SUBWAY LIFE AND METROPOLITAN
GROWTH IN TORONTO, 1942-1978. York University.

107