At its meeting on June 23, the TTC Board considered a report on platform doors for its subway system:

• Platform Edge Doors Study – Outcome of Feasibility and Business Case Studies
• Platform Edge Doors Study – Feasibility Report
• Platform Edge Doors Study – Business Case

The main report recommends that the Board:

1. Receive the PEDs Study report.
2. Approve addition of PEDs requirements, including operational and technical system requirements to the TTC Design Manual and Master Specifications for implementation at future new stations.
3. Direct staff to include funding based on estimates for the implementation of a pilot installation at TMU Station (Dundas) as part of the 2026 budget submission.
4. Approve ongoing planning work, including prioritizing stations for implementation of appropriate technologies based on specific needs and drivers of each station.

At the meeting, there was an attempt to refer the report to staff for further study:

Motion to Refer Item moved by Fenton Jagdeo (Lost)

Refer the report back to staff for further analysis to compliment [sic] the platform edge door study that includes:

1. Other technology, infrastructure, or passenger management solutions at stations that could improve operational efficiency, customer experience, and safety.
2. Prioritization of stations that would most benefit from platform edge doors and those that could realize safety, operational, and customer experience improvements utilizing other solutions.
3. Capital budget costs of (non platform edge door) station enhancement investments that could be implemented in 2026 to improve safety, operations, and customer experience.
4. Expanded business cases that include metrics for potential operational cost savings, service reliability improvements, and customer delay time savings that could be realized with platform edge doors at the highest priority stations.
5. A jurisdictional review of alternate platform edge door funding models that leverage non-fare (advertising) revenues.

There was also a motion to refer the report to the Strategic Planning Committee for further discussion:

Motion to Amend Item (Additional) moved by Councillor Dianne Saxe (Carried)

The TTC Board requests that staff provide the Strategic Planning Committee with class 5 estimates of the costs and benefits to the TTC of technically feasible options to detect or discourage track-level intrusions at subway and LRT stations, including those being installed by Metrolinx on new stations in Toronto.

The Feasibility Report by AECOM is a long document, but the core of it lies in the first 90 pages covering many aspects of potential implementations and designs. One significant conflict between this report and the management recommendations lies in the choice of stations for a trial installation. Although management recommends Dundas/TMU, a busy downtown station, the Feasibility Report recommends lightly used stations where problems can be worked out without a major upset to service and riders.

It is further highly recommended that TTC implement a number of PED installation pilot projects at different stations representing the typical condition for each type of design solution. Representative stations are proposed based on low ridership numbers to minimize impact to the subway system and ridership inconvenience associated with performance of the work and the anticipated learning curve. Potential stations include North York Centre, Lawrence, Glencairn and Old Mill. This variety of stations will allow contractors to familiarize themselves with all station groups and structural solutions. [p. 19]

The project is estimated to take over 20 years to complete system-wide at a substantial cost:

The total capital cost for the implementation of the PEDs system for Lines 1, 2 and 4 is estimated at $4.1 billion, with average costs of $44 million to $55 million for two platforms of a station based on the preliminary (Class 5) cost estimate, which includes a cost escalation to the midpoint of construction projected in 2036. The estimated cost was also included in the 2025-2039 Capital Investment Plan and remains unfunded. Subject to the approval of the recommendations of this report and available funding room available, $44 million will be included in the 2026-2035 Capital Budget and Plan submission for the implementation of a pilot installation at TMU Station (Dundas) for Board consideration. The preliminary cost estimate does not include the ATC interface. This will be further reviewed and discussed with the Line 1 ATC supplier as the PEDs project progresses and an implementation strategy is developed. [Management Report, p. 2]

Note that the study lists many other aspects of the project for which costs are not included. I will turn to these in the detailed part of this article.

The PED project is not funded in the Capital Plan and would have a significant effect on annual spending, especially if there is political pressure for a compressed timeline.

The study reviewed four different implementations:

• Full-height doors with a roughly 300mm ventillation space at the top.
• Partial height doors.
• Intrusion detection systems (IDS)
• “Rope” barriers.

Based on a scoring system full-height doors were favoured because they are the only proven system that completely prevents track level access. However, this is only one component of the evaluation and the differences overall are small, except for “rope” systems due to a “less-proven” ranking.

The costs for full- and half-height doors are substantial thanks to the station modifications needed for their installation many of which are common to both schemes.

An important issue in such a review is to determine just what reason lies behind the desire to install PEDs. The commonly cited issue is suicides, and yet the TTC has a greater problem with people walking at track level. Other problems include fires caused by debris blown onto track level, and the potential contact between passengers on the platform and trains. Various implementations address each of these to a greater or lesser extent.

If the intent is to make track level access difficult and deter the majority of intrusions, then walls of some height are required. Sensors can detect unwanted intrusion, but they will not prevent it, and could be prone to false positives.

The operative word in “IDS” is “detection”. Such a system can detect entry into the guideway, but not prevent it. This will be used on the underground portions of the soon-to-open Lines 5 and 6 in Toronto, and we will see how well it works, especially in distinguishing between real intrusions and false positives that would halt service.

Installing PEDs is not simply a matter of erecting a wall along the platform. There are issues of structural integrity of platforms, relocation of services in the under-platform area, station and tunnel ventilation, power supply and control systems, and emergency operation of the doors. Most of these are common to half and full-height implementations, although the effect on ventilation is less for half-height doors.

The implementation of PEDs at existing stations will require extensive planning, with the majority of the work taking place at track level during non-operating hours and will need to be implemented alongside ongoing State of Good Repair (SOGR) work in subway tunnels and stations. Implementation of the PED system as part of major works, such as Bloor-Yonge Capacity Improvements (BYCI) will minimize operational and customer disruptions while addressing cost and schedule efficiency.

Extensive subway station closures and station bypasses will be necessary to effectively complete track-related work for the PED system and to minimize the challenges. Partial and full closures of subway lines and stations were used in Paris, Hong Kong, Singapore, Copenhagen, and Seoul’s Metros to successfully retrofit the PED system in existing stations. [Management report pp 1-2]

The TTC has never undertaken an “extensive” closure of a station, let alone a line, beyond weekend maintenance shutdowns. This has substantial implications at busy stations near major destinations or with extensive surface feeder services.

The Business Case (also by AECOM) presents the advantages and disadvantages of PEDs.

The Business Case is a troubling document because it purports to show the monetary value of the project, albeit over an extended period. I am not convinced that this is an appropriate way to address the issue. The majority of the savings comes from fatality incidents which contribute to many of the factors below, notably to the imputed value of lost lives. Some of these savings are not direct dollar spending (such as emergency response costs), and cannot be recouped as an offset to the capital cost.

Arguing the preservation of life as a “business case” begs the question of whether fiscal hawks would agree to the project if there were not a good “return on investment”. Conversely, a 20-year implementation plan has little sense of urgency. The question, then, is how quickly the project could actually unroll, at what cost, and a what disruption both to ongoing subway operations and the overall capital plans for the TTC.

The footnote above refers to anticipated longer dwell times at stations as the control systems for both the platform doors and trains agree with each other about opening and closing while trains are stopped.

There is some irony to the proposal of Dundas/TMU Station as a trial installation. At the previous TTC Board meeting, the University made a proposal to set up a research effort with the TTC based on their business startup model. The idea was that there were potential developments that could be marketed to the world. One of the focus areas was to be intrusion detection, although such systems have existed for decades in various forms. In December 1985, SkyTrain in Vancouver opened with an Intrusion Detection System, although a replacement technology is now under consideration. IDS is not a new concept, and whether TMU can bring some enhancement that does not already exist in the market remains to be seen.

At this point, management asks the Board for approval to continue study of a potential PED rollout. This would include evaluation of appropriate technologies for different types of stations. and make budget provision for a trial implementation at Dundas/TMU. Any installation work is still a few years away, and a full rollout further still. An obvious question is whether an interim Intrusion Detection System is worthwhile, or even sufficient for the less heavily-used stations.

The challenge is to define the system’s goal and the level of protection needed to achieve this. Will problems simply migrate from stations with full segregation between platforms and trains to others with lesser or no detection or barrier? What proportion of the system must be converted to achieve a significant reduction in unwanted events? How long would it take to achieve this?

The remainder of this article delves into the technical review of PEDs and what their implementation on the TTC network would entail.

History

The idea of installing platform doors is not new to the TTC, and a 2009 feasibility study led to a 2010 Board report on the subject. At the time, the full-system project had a projected cost of $9.8 million/station and an implementation time of six years.

Many of the points raised in the 2010 presentation (attached to the report) are echoed in the 2025 study which is an update of earlier report with added detail.

In 2010, PEDs were presented as part of a suite of upgrades that would allow Line 1 YUS capacity to be substantially increased. Other components were new trains and automatic train control (both now in operation). An important contribution to capacity would be a major reduction in delays from various track level incidents, plus a small benefit from isolation of passengers on crowded platforms from trains entering and leaving stations.

It is worth noting that the TTC already had severe platform crowding problems in 2010, and the target date for increased capacity on Line 1 was 2030. This date has receded off to 2040 in part due to changing commuting patterns, and in part due to a lack of emphasis on the existing network in favour of new lines.

Needless to say, nothing came of this because the PED project was not funded.

In November 2014, the Board of Health recommended

1.         City Council direct and provide funding to the Toronto Transit Commission to implement the following actions, to improve passenger safety including suicide prevention:

a.         All future extensions or new lines include Platform Edge Doors or other means for restricting unauthorized access to the subway tracks by members of the public in the design of stations; and

b.         Retrofit existing stations with Platform Edge Doors or other means for restricting unauthorized access to the subway tracks by members of the public to realize significant benefits from the completion of the automatic train control upgrade to the signal system.

When this reached Council in February 2015, the recommendation was amended on a motion by then-Councillor Mihevc to read:

1.         City Council request the Toronto Transit Commission to consider the following improvements to passenger safety and suicide prevention in future budget submissions as the automatic train control project is completed:

a.         in the design of stations for all future extensions or new lines include Platform Edge Doors or other means for restricting unauthorized access to the subway tracks by members of the public; and

b.         retrofit existing stations with Platform Edge Doors or other means for restricting unauthorized access to the subway tracks by members of the public.

A proposed Council directive became a request to the TTC, and the commitment to funding became a future budget submission that might have been approved, or not.

The Vaughan extension (TYSSE) of Line 1 opened in 2017, but it did not have PEDs. These were cut from the project for budgetary reasons, and considerable redesign was required at some stations where the PEDs had been assumed as part of the structure.

By May 2024, with the adoption of the TTC’s 2024-28 Corporate Plan, the goal was further diluted to:

Strategic Direction 3.1.4: Evaluate Opportunity to Integrate Platform Edge Doors into Subway Improvements

In that plan, the unfunded cost of PEDs had risen to $4.1 billion with annual capital outlay of $273 million. The $4.1 billion figure also appears in the 2025 study implying that costing work for the proposal was underway at least a year before the AECOM study’s publication.

Note that this assumes implementation over an extended period and includes provision for inflation to 2036, the midpoint of the project. However, the PED Study notes that the $4.1B estimate does not include several factors that would add to the estimated cost. Moreover, this is a class 5 estimate very early in the project “and a low expected accuracy range of -20%-50% and high range of +30%-100%.”

Existing Station Conditions

A problem across many station types is that the platform edge is cantilevered, and does not have the structural strength to support a PED system, nor to withstand the twisting force caused by the piston effect of passing trains pressing air against the wall.

The 2010 report identified many issues with the condition of stations, especially the older ones, that are described in the 2025 report including:

• Deteriorated platforms: Some platforms have deteriorated over the years (the original Line 1 stations are over 70 years old, and Line 2 close to 60). Platform renovations will be required.
• Rock Swelling: Some of the early stations were built with platforms directly on the rock underneath. Over time, this has shifted and that process will continue. Again platform reconstruction is recommended before PEDs are installed.
• High Ceilings: Some stations have high ceilings which precludes their use as anchor points for PED wall structures.
• Absence of a base slab: Some stations have no base slab to which a PED wall could be anchored.

Station Types

There are three types of side platform stations on the TTC: underground, at grade and elevated. Each of these has its own issues for a PSD retrofit, compounded by the variations in construction for different ages of stations.

There are four types of centre platform stations: concrete box structure, paired iron tunnels (e.g. Queen’s Park), at grade and elevated.

Stations that are at or above grade have different requirements and constraints than those underground including weather effects and differing structures.

Some stations have platforms that are more constrained than a typical layout, and this affects both design for the PED walls and provision for emergency access.

An important point is there is no “cookie cutter” implementation that will work at every station.

Types of Platform Barriers

Four types of barrier were considered by the study, although “barrier” stretches the concept in some cases.

Full-height and half-height doors are structurally similar with the primary difference being whether the space between the platform and the track area is enclosed at least to the height of the train, if not to the ceiling. The proposed TTC design for full-height doors includes a 300mm louver to provide some air flow between the top of the wall system and the station ceiling. In either case, the platform doors would be wider than those on the trains to allow for stopping accuracy.

There would be emergency releases for the doors and possibly for panels between them, although the study is inconsistent about these. If the the panels include advertising frames, likely with electronics, this is a more substantial design challenge than a simple breakaway panel or hinged door.

“Rope” barriers are based on the use of steel ropes that could be raised and lowered beside a train. They offer simplicity as well as dealing with issues of uneven door spacing on existing fleets, but they do not prevent objects from falling or being thrown onto the track. There is also no information in the study about the opening and closing times for this type of barrier.

Finally, sensor-based systems include both on-train versions (looking ahead for obstructions), pressure detection systems at track level, and platform systems monitoring for unwanted activity near the platform edge. These systems are only capable of detection and, through interfaces to train controls, an attempt to stop before contact, but they cannot prevent unwanted entry to the tracks, nor the accumulation of debris.

The Need for Trial Installations

The study emphasizes that a PED project should not simply launch without a full appreciation for the work involved:

Complexity should not be taken for granted when it comes to a project that aims to integrate a new system like platform doors with an intricate existing system such as a railway that includes automatic train control. If unforeseen issues or “growing pains” are going to occur during the installation and integration of the platform doors, it is best to work through those issues at a station that does not have high ridership.

A pilot installation at the stations representing a typical group of stations’ structure (e.g. Old Mill, Glencairn, Lawrence and North York Centre). This would refine the design requirements, identify constraints, refine risks, cost, schedule, and lessons learned for each type of station’s structure as well as obtain customer feedback, assess O&M impact, and generate public interest. Four proposed stations from each station classification to be done as part of pilot program. [Study at p. 43]

Potential Conflicts with Other Projects

The TTC has many projects underway or planned that affect subway stations such as Easier Access, ventilation upgrades, second entrances, other capacity improvements, track and communications upgrades. All of these need to be co-ordinated with any platform level construction projects.

TTC station construction projects are often noted for their leisurely approach to scheduling and completion, and riders often complain of works that seem to go on forever. Any project that will affect every station in the system should be well planned and executed. There will be a trade-off between a desire for an accelerated plan, and one that leaves room for unexpected conditions and delays. This is particularly important in early stages where experience and “lessons learned” will inform future design, planning and installation.

Construction Issues

Much work must be done before the actual walls and door assemblies can be installed including utility, cabling, lighting and signage relocation where there are conflicts with the new walls. A control room for equipment including the interface with the signal system is required, and the station power supply may have to be upgraded for the door systems and/or for ventilation upgrades. Some of this work cannot be performed while the subway is operating, and some may require station closures.

The length of time for this work would be substantial even with careful staging. The study is inconsistent in describing this.

One section “2.2.1 Construction Staging” talks of both station closures and bypass operations, and yet only mentions weekend closures. However, “2.7 Evaluation of Construction Strategies” states that the total duration for one station could be 200-220 business days which could be reduced by:

• Early station closing (10pm) to allow work on the preparations for the PED support system (20% saving in total time).
• Weekend closures for PED support work (50% saving).
• Full station closure (three-to-four weeks total time).
• Full station closure for preparatory works, followed by weekend closures for PED installation (two-to-three weeks total time). It is not clear why this scheme would take less time than a full closure for the entire project.

Even in the best case scenario, this is a much more extensive shutdown than the TTC has ever implemented.

The AECOM study includes a project chart for the full installation project stretching out to 2040. Below is the overview, pilot and first phase to give an idea of the timeframes involved. “Phase 2, Package 2A” in the chart refers to two stations, Finch and Pioneer Village, although the elapsed times for other packages are similar. The packages overlap so that one group of stations will be in design while another is in installation.

• The pilot station work would begin in January 2026 but would not complete until July 2029.
• The first four “production” stations begin design in mid-2029 with project completion in December 2031.
• The next four stations would run from mid-2030 to late 2032. This pattern continues with four stations starting each year.
• Line 1 work would complete in October 2035.
• Line 2 work would begin in April 2034 and run to August 2039.
• Line 4 work would begin in February 2038 and run to July 2040.

This is not the schedule of an urgent project, and an obvious question is how much this could be compressed, what the effect on project risk (too much, too soon) would be, how many stations in the system could reasonably be under construction at once, and what the actual pattern of open and closed stations would look like.

In this context, it is ironic that TTC chooses to ignore their consultant recommendations to pick minor stations as pilots, and instead selects one of their busiest, Dundas/TMU. In the AECOM proposal, Dundas/TMU would not begin until 2034, and would, surprisingly be paired with Queen, another major station immediately next on the line. Assuming the project does go forward, careful planning to avoid concurrent works in stations serving the same area will be needed. [See proposed phasing in section 2.6.1 of the study.]

Structural Issues

The diagram below shows two generic styles of full-height PED installations. On the left is a station whose platform cannot support the PED structure. In that case, a support pillar is required under the platform cantilever. A variation on this is shown on the right where the support itself is built into the under-platform space. The pair of drawings below shows the two designs in detail.

One issue with this structure is that trains entering stations have a “piston effect” that will press air against the walls which, in turn, will exert a force on their foundations. This leads to the design with a structural pillar attached to the track slab, or to the platform if it is robust enough. This is less of an issue if there is a large open space (as in half-height walls) for air to disperse.

Stations on the TYSSE were built with provision for future PEDs, and they do not require platform modifications. This is the standard for any new stations. This is a full-height implementation, and it assumes a station ceiling considerably higher than found in older parts of the subway.

The space under the platform edge carries many cable systems and utilities. These cannot be disturbed by the construction, and they must be protected or relocated. The pillars will also partly block access to the refuge space under the platform. One option is to create more refuge cages beside the track such as are found in many stations, but some stations do not have room for them on the “off side” from the platform.

The creation of a wall between tracks and platforms will also affect maintenance activities where large items would be offloaded from work trains. Depending on the wall design, this could be addressed with swing-out panels, but some stations with narrow platforms (e.g. St. George) do not have room for this. This problem also affects emergency options.

Stations will require a control room for the door system, and some may also need power supply upgrades. This could be at the end of a platform, or in nearby space, if available.

Effect of PEDs on Subway Operations

A commonly cited “benefit” of PEDs is an incrcease in train speed and line capacity. This was erroneously cited with some enthusiasm by a member of the TTC Board. The claim arises from the early studies of PEDs which considered the combined effect of new trains, a new signal system with automatic train control and platform doors. Much of the increased capacity arises from higher capacity cars and from the ability to run trains closer together with ATC. PEDs come in where train entry is sometimes done at a low speed due to platform congestion. This is not the case in all stations all of the time.

Anyone who rides the subway knows that trains enter many stations at full speed and begin braking as they reach the platform rather than slowing before entry.

Claims that PEDs would contribute a 30% increase in line capacity simply do not line up with actual operating practice. What they would achieve is to reduce the degradation of service under heavy loads, although long platform dwell times as passengers try to leave or board would probably be a greater factor in delays. More reliable capacity would likely be achieved simply by the elimination of many events that PEDs are intended to block.

Dwell times will go up slightly with PEDs given the extra few seconds to establish co-ordination between trains and doors at stations, plus the extra time to open the wider platform-side set of doors.

One important concern is the space between the doors and the train, and tactics to prevent riders from being trapped. The study proposes that the doors be equipped with side barriers that would block movement into the space between trains and the PED wall.

Another important issue is maintenance. It is no secret that failing doors on subway trains are not unusual, and PEDs would add another layer of maintenance. The study recommends one new staff position per three stations for ongoing monitoring and maintenance. Failure to maintain this equipment cannot be tolerated.

A related problem is the condition where a set of doors on the platform or on an incoming train are not working. The study proposes that the train and station control systems would ensure that doors do not open if one set is not operating. This requires a change in the train’s door control system and a communication protocol between train and station systems so that only working pairs of doors open.

Ventilation and Fire Control

There are two types of ventilation in the subway. Day-to-day tunnel and station ventilation is provided by the piston effect of trains pushing air ahead of them. The benefit of this varies from site to site depending on station layout. With PEDs installed, the movement of air between the trackway and the station will be reduced, although to what degree depends on local conditions and design of the PSD walls. If the doors are only half-height, more air circulation will be possible than for full-height with a 300m louver at the top.

Although the study assumes that there will be enough air flow to ventilate stations, there is no specific review of problems such as overheating in non-air conditioned stations.

Stations also have vent fans used primarily to clear smoke in case of a fire. Most vent shafts open into the tunnels outside of stations, not into the platform space. The air circulation pattern assumes that air will move freely through the station. How this will change with a PED wall, not to mention the concurrent presence of a train, is not explored. The study cites a simulation of Wellesley Station from 2010 but does not go into details for multiple alternate circumstances (fire location, presence of a train) and station configurations.

A parallel issue is that the TTC has been replacing existing ventilation fans at some stations due to age and increased demand (higher passenger load). There is no discussion of how this work would be co-ordinated and what pressures will arise to improve fire control systems as part of the capacity upgrade planning for Lines 1 and 2.

A further design issue for emergencies is the need to open the PED wall in case of malfunction and the need to evacuate a train without benefit of automatic controls. Schemes involving push-bar releases on the train side and keyed releases on the platform side are proposed, although both of these assume the presence of staff to actually manage the evacuation.

If the emergency release involves swinging the door panels outward, problems arise at stations with narrow platforms (the older centre platform stations such as St. George) where there would not be enough clearance beside an opened door for people to pass by on the platform.

Yet another design issue is the love for using space on the PED walls for advertising, typically in modern times, heavier electronic displays with associated cabling. This does directly opposite an earlier TTC proposal for simple break-away panels.

There is a sense through the study that emergency planning has not been thought out and conflicting requirements reconciled.

Noise and Air Quality

The study found that air quality in stations would improve with PEDs because less polluted tunnel air would blow onto the platform and beyond. However, the offset is that pollution levels would rise in the tunnels. This is a health and safety issue more for staff who spend their workday in that environment, as opposed to riders who are passing through the system.

Tunnel pollution consists primarily of dust from brake shoes and wheels, along with some lubricating oil from trains. Tunnels tend to be lined with euphemistically named “tunnel fur” that also contains animal droppings, although this is supposed to be cleaned away periodically. A study of this was underway just before the covid pandemic, but then everything stopped. There is no mention of updating this work in the current study.

Noise levels on platforms will go down, especially with full-height PED walls.

PEDs Elsewhere

The study contains a superficial review of PED installations elsewhere, and many cities were not included because of local conditions that made them inappropriate comparitors for Toronto. This is an oversight if only in the inevitable situation where questions will be asked like “I was just in city xxx and why can’t we have a system like their”. One would hope that a thorough review of PED technologies and implementations might be available from an organization like the UITP (International Union of Public Transport).

A potential problem is special pleadings from “Do I have a solution for you!” hawkers of new technologies preying on Board members and other politicians looking to make their mark on Toronto’s transit. This is not the kind of project where unsolicited proposals with little or no established record in the market should be entertained.

The study observes that most of the large-scale implementations have been on new or recently built systems where structures were already able to support PEDs, and control systems could be easily retrofitted or were built as part of a new project. Some North American proposals have foundered at the trial stage due to cost and competing capital priorities.

Metrolinx has not included for PEDs on either the Scarborough or Yonge North subway extensions.

Cost

Although the study provides a score for the cost element of each alternative scheme, a dollar figure is only given for the preferred full-height option.

Moreover, there is a long list of potential costs not included in the class 5 estimate (itself subject to a wide range). This reads like a generic list included in any study. Some items will have no effect, but they should be quantified to obtain a reliable, overall estimate.

• Cost of contaminated soil removal;
• Financing costs;
• Escalation contingency;
• Premiums associated with Public-Private Partnership procurement model;
• Restoring deteriorated platforms (other than platform cantilever re-construction in Davisville and Rosedale stations);
• Epoxy coated and stainless-steel reinforcement, and mechanical couplers;
• Premiums associated with sourcing non-local materials;
• Tender assigned values;
• Premiums associated with a compressed schedule;
• Currency risk;
• Extended warranties;
• Direct liaison with the authorities having jurisdiction to interpret and/or resolve issues concerning the Ontario Code and other applicable codes or guidelines;
• Pending OBC changes, if impactful;
• TTC operational impacts and costs;
• Soft costs;
• Building permit;
• Development charges;
• Easement cost;
• Fundraising cost;
• Land acquisition costs and impost charges;
• Legal fees and expenses;
• Owner’s staff and associated management;
• Preventative maintenance contracts;
• Professional fees and expenses;
• Relocation of existing facilities, including furniture and equipment;
• Right of way charges;
• Engineering and management;
• Interface between ATC and PED Door;
• Business losses.

The total project cost is estimated at $4.1 billion for 74 existing stations over a 20-year timeframe. That is an average of $55 million per station based on a cost estimate inflated to the project midpoint. Obviously some stations will be more expensive than others depending on local conditions. The estimate is very rough (class 5) with a potential margin for error up to 100%.

The study does not discuss the comparative cost of installations for various systems beyond saying full height doors are most expensive (obviously) and costs ramp down from there with tradeoffs for efficacy of each “solution”. There is no breakdown of how each component of PED design, fabrication, site preparation and installation would contribute to the total.

There is little discussion of ongoing ownership costs including maintenance and station staffing effects.