Uh, nfitz, once again your eagerness to disagree betrays a misundestanding of the situation. First of all, you choose the most infamously extreme examples in history.
Uh, actually I simply chose the two most well known systems, and Montreal as I lived there long enough in the 1980s with the maps showing lines, some of which may be complete sometime in the 2020s. I believe I could have drawn examples from Paris as well
What about the vast numbers of lines built in a handful of years across Asia and Europe?
Apart from Madrid, I'm not sure using examples from totalitarian or recent totalitarian states really is comparable. Madrid is indeed quite the feat and kudos to TTC and Metrolinx for wanting to study it!
Not to mention our very own BD and Yonge lines, both built in five years.
In your eagerness to disagree you've forgotten that only the final construction time was 5 years (the actual construction time of the new Spadina extension is similiar). You conveniently forget the decades of argument that went before that on where to put the lines.
Transit Toronto reports that the City of Toronto was discussing the Yonge line as early as 1909 "from Eglinton Avenue to Front Street", and it became a main part of the 1910 mayoral race. Also on the 1910 ballot was a referendum question "
Are you in favour of the City of Toronto applying to the legislature for power to construct and operate a municipal system of subway and surface street railway, subject to the approval of qualified ratepayers." which passed. In 1911 the city tendered the construction of a subway from Front to St. Clair. After 1912 the issue died until 1941, with the existing Front to Eglinton plan coming about in 1942, eventually going to referendum in 1946. Council approved construction in 1946, but it didn't open until 1953. I really don't know how you get 5 years out of this, you've not included the design time, and the years of pre-design dithering. At best the Yonge subway took 12 years from conception to opening. At worst 42 years.
You bring up the Laval extension, which is yet another good example of inflated TTC costs. It cost $745 million, even after cost overruns, for a line with three stations and a major river crossing. There is no reason why a Toronto extension should cost $1.2 billion for a comparable length with only two tunnels and no complex terrain.
Your obvious lack of ability to comprehend the geological differences between Laval and North York are terrifying. Montreal uses one tunnel, because of the narrow trains, and the tunnels being primarily constructed in bedrock. Toronto uses oversized vehicles, and the poor geologic conditions result in the need for two tunnels. You also forget that the Laval extension was so massively overbudget that the provincial government called an inquiry to look into it. This
CBC article from 2000 notes that the budget was supposed to be $179 million, rather than the final $745 million - inflation would account for some of this, but most of it goes to the inept planning and budgeting. Also remember that much of the cost is stations, however there are 6 stations on the Spadina extension, and only 3 on the Laval extension (plus a new platform at Henri-Bourassa).