The construction cost, calculated in full

1. The technical systems, item by item

The network's equipment is grouped under a single "Technical systems" line that gathers eight sub-items. Rather than present it as a block, we open it here in detail: each item is priced at its fair value from the analyses produced for the dossier, including those a quick estimate would tend to under-value or forget.

These "hard" costs then propagate through engineering (10%), management (5%) and contingency (20%). The heaviest item, by far, is the immersive cladding actually priced out: it weighs the most in this part of the budget.

2. The two items broken out into the open: drainage and geothermal

Drainage and geothermal each deserve a figure of their own rather than a place in a catch-all. Drainage belongs to the pathway's hard costs; geothermal, for its part, requires a dedicated CAPEX on top of the operating savings it generates ($0.7 to $0.9M/yr). Here are the two items established explicitly.

Why $200M for drainage holds up

The cross-check comes from operation: pumping consumes 9,000 MWh per year while running 24/7, because the tunnel passes in places below the water table and water infiltrates continuously, on top of summer condensation. That consumption corresponds to roughly 1 to 3 MW of pumps installed across the network — consistent with about forty pumping stations distributed at the low points. The waterproofing membrane behind the segments is already paid for in the "tunnels" line: we do not count it again here.

Why geothermal stays a small item

This is the central argument of the geothermal page: since we are already digging 150 stations 10 m deep, the loops cost a fraction of a standalone installation. What remains to be paid is the heat pumps, the distribution and the redundancy — hence a modest CAPEX (≈ $50M) for a recurring saving of $0.7 to $0.9M/yr. The item pays for itself, but it exists: it must appear in the budget, which was not the case.

3. The technical systems, rebuilt line by line

Here is the $2,800M block opened into thirteen lines, each backed by an analysis. The two new lines (drainage, geothermal) are marked; the immersive cladding replaces the old placeholder "lighting + nature projection".

Anti-double-counting note: the tunnel's functional lighting has no separate line because it is included in the LED "luminous sky" of the immersive cladding (the layer that both lights and creates the sense of openness). Only the emergency phosphorescence, which is a distinct safety device, remains a line of its own.

4. Two additions to the scope: underground interchanges and evacuation shafts

Two technical decisions extend the scope and make the pricing complete: we genuinely link the tunnels to each other (the interchanges), and we bring the emergency exits closer together (the evacuation shafts). Together, these two items account for ≈ $1.7B of the realistic scenario — a significant share of the ≈ $11.2B. Here is how each one is priced — then, at the end, two items already included in the budget, broken out separately without changing the total.

4.1 The underground interchanges

A crossing where one tunnel passes under the other is free as long as you go straight on: that is the network's 3D advantage. But to switch from one tunnel to another without stopping, you need an interchange — short ramps connecting one tube to the other, like a highway interchange, but at bicycle scale (tight radii, gradients of 5 to 8%, 3.6 m diameter). The costly item is not the ramp: it is the mined junction where it opens into the main tunnel — hence the importance of boring it during the initial excavation, never after the fact. We provide for one at each major node of the network (≈ 25); crossings with no traffic exchange remain simple straight-through passages.

4.2 The evacuation shafts

The safety record sets an emergency exit every ~300 m, made possible by the shallow depth (10 m): a simple staircase topped with a small kiosk, not a subway lift shaft. Over 150 km, that calls for ≈ 500 exit points. The network already has ≈ 190 (the 150 stations and about forty ventilation shafts); that leaves ≈ 310 dedicated shafts to bore.

Anti-double-counting: the "Fire suppression + emergency exits" line of the technical systems ($350M) already contained around a hundred million of exits. The "evacuation shafts" line of the scenarios table therefore counts only the net to add in order to reach an exit every ~300 m.

4.3 Two items already included, now broken out (the total does not move)

Unlike the previous two, these do not add: they were already in the budget, simply buried in a broader line. We break them out into the open so that no implicit item remains — but the total stays ≈ $11.2B.

Dock detail: of the $60M of "charging docks" (≈ $400K/station), about $22M are the àVélo docks themselves (≈ 30 docks × ~$5K × 150 stations) and ≈ $38M the power supply and the payment terminals. Spiral detail: ≈ 150 spaces × ~$1,000 × 150 stations ≈ $22M, folded into the ≈ $8M per station — the Stations page confirms that the spiral in the renderings is the multi-level bike parking.

5. Five scenarios, from minimum to maximum

The gap between the scenarios is not down to chance: it comes down to decisions and a technological unknown. The dominant lever remains the boring-machine rate in rock; then come the station mix, the extent of the cladding, and the choice to buy or lease the land.

6. What if Elon Musk's boring machines never come down?

This is the heart of scenarios D and E. The Boring Company's soft-ground boring rate has dropped steadily — ~$50M/mi in 2018, ~$30M in 2021, ~$27M today (Prufrock-4) — and the 2030 target is $8 to $10M/mi. But nothing guarantees that drop in hard rock. Here is the full scale, from most optimistic to a full freeze, with the resulting tunnel cost.

Calculation: effective rate (US$/mi) × 1.38 (CAD rate) × 93.2 mi (= 150 km) = tunnel cost in CA$M. Even in the full freeze at $5.15B of tunnels — three times the realistic case — the complete project reaches $18.4B, which remains, as we will see, well below the other regional megaprojects per kilometre.

7. The realistic scenario, in detail

The full budget of scenario B, line by line — the recommended reference baseline.

8. Comparison with other megaprojects

The point that does not move, even after revision: the cost per kilometre stays in a category of its own. The realistic case ($74M/km) and even the full freeze ($122M/km) remain well below the other major projects in the region.

The gap rests on three unchanged factors: a far smaller tunnel diameter (3.6 m against 12 to 15 m), stations with no platforms or rail cars, and the absence of heavy rolling stock. The cycling network stays three to thirteen times cheaper per kilometre, even in its most pessimistic scenario.

Download the full construction-cost breakdown (PDF)