Feas­ib­il­ity study for High­way 401 tun­nel plan to cost $9.1M

This article was written by the Canadian Press and was published in the Toronto Star on November 7, 2025.

Ontario tax­pay­ers are set to spend $9.1 mil­lion to learn if or how it is feas­ible to build a tun­nel under High­way 401.

The province issued a request for pro­pos­als for the study in the spring and a spokes­per­son for Trans­port­a­tion Min­is­ter Prab­meet Sarkaria said Thursday that WSP Canada Inc. was recently awar­ded the con­tract.

“Our gov­ern­ment is mak­ing sig­ni­fic­ant pro­gress on the trans­form­a­tional project to build a tun­nel under High­way 401 that will get people and goods mov­ing across the province faster,” Dakota Brasier wrote.

Before the feas­ib­il­ity study was even star­ted, Premier Doug Ford spoke often and in detail about his vis­ion for a tun­nel.

Ford laid out his plan for the tun­nel to be 19.5 metres wide and three levels, with one level each for east­bound and west­bound traffic and another for transit.

“We’re build­ing that tun­nel as sure as I’m talk­ing to you, and we’re going to con­tinue (to) reach out to experts around the world,” he said in August.

“If they can tun­nel under the Eng­lish Chan­nel, if they can tun­nel through moun­tains and every other place, we sure the heck can tun­nel along the 401.”

The premier has also urged Prime Min­is­ter Mark Car­ney to des­ig­nate it as a nation build­ing project, say­ing it is needed in order to reduce grid­lock and boost eco­nomic pro­ductiv­ity.

Crit­ics have called the idea a van­ity project or a fantasy.

“I don’t know how they sleep at night,” NDP Leader Marit Stiles said Thursday. “I’ll just say it … I think very few people really believe this is a real thing.”

Ford has pre­vi­ously said the feas­ib­il­ity study would look at how — not if — the tun­nel could be built, but the request for pro­pos­als does con­tem­plate the pos­sib­il­ity of a tun­nel not being pos­sible.

The RFP sought a study to determ­ine the feas­ib­il­ity of a tun­nel and sev­eral other options includ­ing an elev­ated high­way, adding more lanes and hav­ing truck­only lanes.

“If no capa­city expan­sion option is determ­ined to be feas­ible, then con­ges­tion mit­ig­a­tion options are to be iden­ti­fied as altern­at­ive to expan­sion,” the request told pro­spect­ive pro­ponents.

Ford’s mega­tun­nel not a ser­i­ous solu­tion

This article was written by Scott Stinson and was published in the Toronto Star on August 11, 2025.

Doug Ford acknow­ledged last week that the feas­ib­il­ity study for his pro­posed High­way 401 mega­tun­nel wouldn’t be com­plete until 2027 at the earli­est.

The premier didn’t provide an estim­ate as to how much the study would cost, but given the long timeline, it’s bound to be many mil­lions of dol­lars. Whatever the cheque comes to, it will have been a lot of money to be told: “Bad idea.”

It’s hard to know where to start. Build­ing a tun­nel under the 401 is one of those pro­pos­als that’s so trans­par­ently ridicu­lous it should’ve died right after Ford spit­balled the idea, not unlike the giant water­front Fer­ris wheel of his polit­ical youth.

Remem­ber: Ontario is a province that’s cur­rently spend­ing $5 bil­lion on a five­kilo­metre sub­way exten­sion. Back­of­the­nap­kin math sug­gests a 50­kilo­metre tun­nel, one big enough for pub­lic transit and mul­tiple lanes of traffic, would cost at least $50 bil­lion, and prob­ably double that given the extra size.

By com­par­ison, the $200 rebate cheques that the Ford gov­ern­ment cyn­ic­ally sent to every Ontarian as a pre­elec­tion handout cost the treas­ury about $3 bil­lion. If the 401 tun­nel were to cost $100 bil­lion — which still feels like a con­ser­vat­ive estim­ate, con­sid­er­ing the fact that large infra­struc­ture projects nearly always run over budget — it would be the equi­val­ent of mail­ing $6,600 cheques to each of Ontario’s 16 mil­lion res­id­ents.

In other words, this would be insanely costly. Almost any other idea that the premier could dream up (elev­ated road­ways! Super­long buses! Com­muter heli­copters!) would be sig­ni­fic­antly less expens­ive.

Tun­nels are built out of neces­sity alone, to bypass bar­ri­ers such as moun­tains and rivers when there are no altern­at­ive routes, pre­cisely because they are so com­plic­ated and costly. No one brain­storm­ing transit solu­tions jots down “under­ground high­way” as a start­ing point.

Yet Ford remains com­mit­ted to his tun­nel concept, say­ing “it is hap­pen­ing” even while admit­ting the feas­ib­il­ity study is years away from com­ple­tion. And every time he men­tions the idea, it sounds more ludicrous. In dis­cuss­ing the tun­nel recently, the premier said the basic plan would include one lane of vehicu­lar traffic in either dir­ec­tion, plus a sep­ar­ate level for undefined “transit.”

Leav­ing the incred­ible cost aside, how could any­one think that the addi­tion of a single lane of traffic each way would have any mean­ing­ful impact on the crush­ing grid­lock of the 401, a high­way that at some points is already 18 lanes wide? Even if there were a magical traffic fairy who could some­how stretch the 401 out to 20 lanes at its busiest points, does any­one believe traffic would sud­denly start mov­ing smoothly? You don’t need to have stud­ied the concept of induced demand to know that more drivers would cram more vehicles into the extra lanes, slow­ing things down almost imme­di­ately.

Mean­while, what hap­pens when there’s a col­li­sion in Ford’s megatun­nel? With just one lane of traffic going each dir­ec­tion, even a stalled car or blown tire could poten­tially res­ult in a 50­kilo­metre tube of stuck traffic.

How could any­one think that the addi­tion of a single lane of traffic each way would have any mean­ing­ful impact on the crush­ing grid­lock of the 401, a high­way that at some points is already 18 lanes wide?

And if the idea were to con­struct dozens of entrance and exit points to avoid such a scen­ario, how much more dis­rupt­ive would that be to the already­busy sur­face routes along the high­way?

Short­term traffic head­aches would be accept­able, of course, if the end res­ult were to have a mean­ing­ful impact on grid­lock. Sub­ways are dif­fi­cult and costly to build, but at least they move a high volume of pas­sen­gers effi­ciently once oper­a­tional. A tun­nel full of single­occu­pant vehicles would be the lit­eral oppos­ite of that.

Unfor­tu­nately, that’s the mode of trans­port­a­tion Ford is determ­ined to pri­or­it­ize above all oth­ers, even if it takes bil­lions of tax­payer dol­lars and a massive, unwork­able tun­nel to do so. The least effi­cient solu­tion. The highest pos­sible cost. How is this still being taken ser­i­ously?

New details revealed on pro­posed Hwy. 401 tun­nel

Plan has sep­ar­ate levels for traffic, transit

This article was written by Andy Takagi and David Rider, and was published in the Toronto Star on August 7, 2025.

Premier Doug Ford’s vis­ion for a 401 tun­nel includes three levels: one lane east, one lane west and transit on the bot­tom.

Ford revealed his concept for a tun­nel under High­way 401 — a pro­posal he has floated for nearly a year des­pite expert con­cerns — at an unre­lated press con­fer­ence about the Yonge North sub­way exten­sion on Thursday.

“We’re going to do a feas­ib­il­ity study,” Ford said, “We are going to study it … make sure it’s safe.”

Ford said the ori­ginal plan was to have two tun­nels, but with “some cre­ativ­ity” he said the plan has been mod­i­fied to have a single tun­nel with three lay­ers that will “serve the people for dec­ades to come.” The tun­nel, Ford added, will be 19and­a­half metres wide, a feat that he said has “never been done in the world.”

A final length for the tun­nel hasn’t been decided, though it is expec­ted to stretch for at least 50 kilo­metres, and could even go past Bramp­ton and Mis­sissauga in the west to Markham and Scar­bor­ough in the east, accord­ing to the gov­ern­ment’s request for pro­pos­als (RFP) for a feas­ib­il­ity study.

“I’ll be push­ing tulips by the time every­one’s rid­ing this full steam, so it’s a vis­ion and it works, and it’s gonna help our eco­nomy and help people get home quicker and get goods to mar­ket a lot faster,” Ford said. “It is hap­pen­ing.”

The study on the feas­ib­il­ity of a 401 tun­nel is expec­ted to take two years, with an estim­ated com­ple­tion date of Feb. 28, 2027, accord­ing to the RFP doc­u­ments.

Global News and CBC repor­ted on Tues­day that the Ford gov­ern­ment had already done a high­level study of a poten­tial tun­nel under the 401 in 2021, through unso­li­cited pro­pos­als from engin­eer­ing com­pan­ies. That study was shelved for unknown reas­ons, accord­ing to both out­lets.

Ford first floated the idea of tun­nel­ling under the busiest high­way in Ontario last fall as a way to com­bat the GTA’s debil­it­at­ing con­ges­tion.

“Let’s get some proper people in there to do a full­fledged study. It can be built,” he said Wed­nes­day. “We have to start these projects across the coun­try, and I’m con­fid­ent that the fed­eral gov­ern­ment will come out with large national infra­struc­ture projects. We need to keep mov­ing.”

Infra­struc­ture and engin­eer­ing experts, however, have put a damper on the pro­posal, estim­at­ing costs of any­where from $250 mil­lion to $1.5 bil­lion per kilo­metre and a timeline of well over a dec­ade. Inter­na­tional research con­sist­ently says that adding high­way lanes will not, long term, alle­vi­ate con­ges­tion and might make it worse because new road space induces more people to drive it.

Some of those experts on Wed­nes­day told the Star that Ford should make pub­lic all earlier eval­u­ations of the tun­nel idea. Also, the feas­ib­il­ity study the premier said will be done must look at vari­ous options to alle­vi­ate the acknow­ledged prob­lem of crip­pling grid­lock — and not just the expens­ive under­ground pro­posal.

“It is reas­on­able that one option could be a tun­nel, but there are other options, includ­ing a massive expan­sion of pub­lic transit and impos­ing road tolls,” said Matti Siemiatycki, a geo­graphy pro­fessor and dir­ector of the Uni­versity of Toronto’s Infra­struc­ture Insti­tute.

“You start with the cur­rent situ­ation and model the impacts of poten­tial solu­tions because jump­ing to a pre­ferred solu­tion isn’t best prac­tice,” he said. “We’ve built an inter­na­tional space sta­tion so we can build a long tun­nel, but the ques­tion is should we build it, how much will it cost, how long will it take and, import­antly, will it actu­ally alle­vi­ate the prob­lem at hand.

“The likely answer is `No, there are bet­ter solu­tions,’ but if we’re doing a study let’s do this prop­erly and see what it says.”

Shoshanna Saxe, a civil engin­eer and infra­struc­ture expert at U of T, lauded Ford for being real­istic in sug­gest­ing he’ll be dead before such a massive infra­struc­ture project could be com­pleted and opened to drivers.

But the premier is dead wrong when he sug­gests a tun­nel will provide clear road­ways to drivers of the future, she said.

“If we’re going to invest something like $100 bil­lion we should try to reduce con­ges­tion, not make it worse after poten­tially a small pos­it­ive impact in the early days,” Saxe said. “You will have the same num­ber of people or more get­ting on and off the high­way so you are just mov­ing the pinch points — you can­not solve con­ges­tion with high­way lanes.”

Prof. Mur­taza Haider, exec­ut­ive dir­ector of the Cit­ies Insti­tute at the Uni­versity of Alberta, said Ford’s updated vis­ion of a three­level tun­nel with segreg­ated vehicle lanes plus a ded­ic­ated transit level is “not unpre­ced­en­ted” and in line with attempts by some Asian cit­ies to battle bumper­to­bumper traffic.

He said the GTA is strain­ing under explos­ive pop­u­la­tion growth and new traffic lanes would help thou­sands of com­muters daily, but pre­dicted that the study will find a massive cost to achieve Ford’s tun­nel vis­ion.

“Tun­nel­ling in Canada has become pro­hib­it­ively expens­ive,” Haider said, not­ing the cur­rent Scar­bor­ough sub­way exten­sion is now expec­ted to cost more than $10 bil­lion for roughly five kilo­metres of under­ground track.

“A tun­nel under High­way 401, which would need to be sig­ni­fic­antly longer and more com­plex, would likely carry a far greater price tag and cre­ate new bot­tle­necks” at entrance and exit points, Haider said.

“Without a cred­ible fund­ing strategy and imple­ment­a­tion plan, such pro­pos­als risk remain­ing aspir­a­tional rather than action­able.”

The pro­posal to tun­nel under the 401 is part of a pack­age of driver­friendly pro­pos­als the Ford gov­ern­ment had floated ahead of last Feb­ru­ary’s pro­vin­cial elec­tion cam­paign. Those pro­pos­als included remov­ing tolls on por­tions of High­way 407.

It is reas­on­able that one option could be a tun­nel, but there are other options, includ­ing a massive expan­sion of pub­lic transit and impos­ing road tolls.

M AT T I SIEMIATYCKI GEOGRAPHY PROFESSOR AND DIRECTOR OF THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO’S INFRASTRUCTURE INSTITUTE

Ford seeks study on Hwy. 401 tun­nel

This article was written by Andy Takagi and was published in the Toronto Star on April 30, 2025.

Premier Doug Ford is mov­ing ahead with his idea to tun­nel under High­way 401, put­ting out a call for con­tract­ors to study the feas­ib­il­ity of a big dig to help ease traffic con­ges­tion.

The request for pro­pos­als for a feas­ib­il­ity study look­ing into tun­nel­ling under the 401 from Mis­sissauga to Scar­bor­ough was pos­ted on Monday, seek­ing bids on a twoyear study.

“We are very com­mit­ted to the tun­nel under the 401,” Trans­port­a­tion Min­is­ter Prab­meet Sarkaria said at a news con­fer­ence in Bramp­ton Tues­day morn­ing.

“We know that grid­lock is only going to get worse over the next 10 to 20, 30 years, and every one of our projects that we have put for­ward … is all com­mit­ted towards mak­ing people move around more effi­ciently.”

The pro­posed study will not only explore a pos­sible final length of the tun­nel — which could stretch past Bramp­ton and Mis­sissauga in the west to Markham and Scar­bor­ough in the east — but will also explore other con­ges­tion man­age­ment options in the near term, includ­ing high­occu­pancy vehicle or express bus lanes. The province is also look­ing for other solu­tions to expand capa­city along the busy High­way 401 cor­ridor, leav­ing the door open for an elev­ated high­way, alter­ing the num­ber of lanes, updat­ing inter­change designs and expand­ing transit.

At Queen’s Park, Lib­eral Leader Bon­nie Crom­bie warned such a project could eas­ily go over budget “and won’t solve the issues that exist today, and won’t for dec­ades.”

There are “cer­tainly altern­at­ives which could be con­sidered that would be much more eco­nom­ical, such as lever­aging assets like the (toll High­way) 407 and … put­ting a truck­only lane on the 407,” she added.

“I would be very con­cerned why the gov­ern­ment is enter­tain­ing this massive infra­struc­ture project at this time,” Crom­bie said. “We’ll be scru­tin­iz­ing it very closely.”

This isn’t the first time the Ford gov­ern­ment has explored solu­tions to relieve con­ges­tion on the busy road­way — it had pro­posed using the high­way shoulders to help grid­lock, but shelved the idea an hour after it was repor­ted by the Star.

The study is expec­ted to take two years, with an estim­ated com­ple­tion date of Feb. 28, 2027.

Ford first floated the idea of tun­nel­ling under the busiest high­way in Ontario last fall, ahead of the pro­vin­cial elec­tion in Feb­ru­ary, as a way to com­bat the GTA’s debil­it­at­ing con­ges­tion.

The Toronto Region Board of Trade estim­ates traffic grid­lock costs the pro­vin­cial eco­nomy $11 bil­lion annu­ally.

Rain­storm causes flood­ing, road clos­ures in Toronto

This article was written by Joyce Li and Olivia Harbin, and was published in the Toronto Star on April 4, 2025.

Though the freez­ing rain and rain­fall warn­ings have lif­ted for Toronto, flood­ing from the overnight down­pour affected a num­ber of roads in the city and sur­round­ing regions on Thursday.

In Toronto, the Weston Road ramp on High­way 401 had all lanes closed due to flood­ing but later reopened, accord­ing to 511 Ontario. All lanes were also closed at the north­bound High­way 427 ramp at Rexdale Boulevard and Derry Road, which reopened as well.

Bayview Avenue exten­sion between Rosedale Val­ley and Pot­tery Road was closed due to flood­ing from the Don River, but also reopened. Flood­ing was repor­ted in the areas of Steeles Avenue East and Vic­toria Park, and Steeles Avenue East and Old Kennedy Road, Toronto police told the Star.

Steeles Avenue East remains tem­por­ar­ily closed between Redlea Avenue and Sil­ver Star Boulevard in Scar­bor­ough due to flood­ing.

The city urged res­id­ents to stay away from shorelines, rivers and streams. Motor­ists should slow down, drive to the con­di­tions and leave extra time for their jour­ney.

“Never drive through flood­ing or pond­ing, espe­cially in under­passes,” the city said.

Bramp­ton saw a “large emer­gency response” to flood­ing in the area of Kennedy Road and Steeles Avenue East, accord­ing to a post on X by Bramp­ton Fire and Emer­gency Ser­vices. Fire offi­cials said a team helped res­cue a per­son from the water and that they are now safe.

Also in Bramp­ton, flood­ing caused a clos­ure at Clark Boulevard and Folk­stone Cres­cent, while cleanup efforts were under­way for flood­ing on Tor­bram Road from Rena Road to High­way 407, Peel police told the Star. The areas later reopened.

The tem­per­at­ure on Thursday hit a high of 20 C, accord­ing to Envir­on­ment Canada. Fri­day is set to be mainly sunny, with a high of 13 C.

Toronto grew up around its street­car lines, but the sys­tem has long been in decline. Can it now offer a solu­tion to the city’s transit woes?

They helped the city grow. And they could now help ease its con­ges­tion, experts say

Today's streetcar routes mostly share the road with cars, which can leave them paralyzed in traffic.

This article was written by Andy Takagi and was published in the Toronto Star on March 16, 2025.

“The street­car could be shap­ing our future Queen Streets, Dun­das Streets and Col­lege Streets, where people want to live, work and be part of the city.”

LAURENCE LUI TTC HEAD

“Street­cars carry more people, more con­sist­ently, faster, more evenly. It feels bet­ter. Get­ting rid of the street­car is just talk­ing about mak­ing the city smal­ler (and) worse.”

SHOSHANNA SAXE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO CIVIL ENGINEERING

The ding­ding of a street­car means something dif­fer­ent to every Toronto­n­ian.

For Laurence Lui, it evokes memor­ies of night­time rides on the clas­sic street­cars, dur­ing which the TTC worker watched the spark­ling streets of the city go by. For Shoshanna Saxe, it’s a reminder of chug­ging along the smooth metal tracks that car­ried the civil engin­eer­ing pro­fessor to school as a child. For Steve Munro, it’s the soundtrack of a transit enthu­si­ast first learn­ing the city’s wind­ing streets.

For oth­ers, the famil­iar sound brings irrit­a­tion and out­right anger, the noise punc­tu­at­ing inter­rup­ted com­mutes and inter­min­able delays. To name only a few recent examples: a garbage truck derail­ing the com­mute of tens of thou­sands for most of a week after clip­ping street­car wires at King and Spad­ina. Or, over the span of 10 hours, 23 cars block­ing street­cars throughout the city as Toronto reeled from con­sec­ut­ive snowstorms last month.

It could also be, some experts con­tend, the sound of a solu­tion com­ing to whisk away Toronto’s para­lyz­ing con­ges­tion — that is, if we put faith, and money, back into a Toronto trans­port­a­tion sys­tem that has been on the decline for dec­ades.

“Fun­da­ment­ally, as a city, we grew up around the street­car,” said Lui, the TTC’s head of ser­vice plan­ning and schedul­ing.

“The street­car could be shap­ing our future Queen Streets, Dun­das Streets and Col­lege Streets, where people want to live, work and be part of the city.”

A past per­former

While the street­car has per­sisted, it hasn’t always thrived. Rider­ship for street­cars has yet to rebound to pre­pan­demic levels and lags behind buses and the sub­way lines. Although still some of the city’s busiest routes, the dozens of street­car lines that the city had at its peak in the 1920s have been whittled down to just 18. The net­work has taken a back seat to the needs of the sub­ways and the shiny new Ontario Line, all while becom­ing a tar­get of drivers who blame street­cars for gum­ming up the roads and cyc­lists whose tires can get caught in the tracks.

More than a hun­dred years ago, street­cars had the road to them­selves. Toronto­n­ians were fer­ried through the city by horse­drawn street­cars. Those hoof­trod­den paths were later embed­ded into paved roads with tracks made to Toronto’s unique rail gauge — routes sprawl­ing across the city from end to end to end. Through two world wars and just as many once­in­a­life­time pan­dem­ics, the street­car has cemen­ted itself into Toronto.

In 1861, Canada was still six years from Con­fed­er­a­tion. And Toronto had just got its first street­car. The first two routes were horse­drawn, clip­clop­ping north­south on Yonge Street and east­west on Queen Street. The city thrived along the routes — over time, the Yonge street­car con­nec­ted res­id­ents to Eaton’s and Maple Leaf Gar­dens. The Queen street­car route ser­viced a row of gro­cers, tail­ors, black­smiths and mil­liners — busi­nesses that in turn ser­viced grow­ing res­id­en­tial neigh­bour­hoods.

The sys­tem peaked in the 1920s as a web of inter­con­nec­ted tracks embed­ded in con­crete that sprawled into the out­skirts of the city, sup­port­ing street­cars run­ning all the way out to Port Credit in the west, Scar­bor­ough in the east and Sut­ton in the north.

Battle for the roads

But everything changed after the war. Toronto’s first sub­way, the Yonge line, was opened in 1954. Trol­ley buses became more wide­spread and Metro Toronto was cre­ated, massively expand­ing the area the TTC was meant to ser­vice.

After the first sub­ways began run­ning — and as more people could afford cars — the street­car went into decline. The Uni­versity sub­way was tun­nelled and street­car routes were aban­doned throughout the city over the sub­sequent dec­ades. Net­works on Har­bord, Dupont, Par­lia­ment and Cox­well were all aban­doned in favour of buses or the new Bloor sub­way line.

A sim­ilar scene was play­ing out throughout North Amer­ica, in cit­ies from Los Angeles to Boston, where buses and sub­ways gained favour over the street­car — and street­cars had to battle with cars for road space. By the 1970s, it seemed all but inev­it­able that the street­car would be going extinct here, too.

And it almost did. The TTC was plan­ning to aban­don the rest of the city’s street­car lines by the 1980s, until a transit advocacy group, Street­cars for Toronto, suc­cess­fully lob­bied to save the remain­ing routes in the city, arguing that street­cars offered a smoother ride, and were quieter and more costef­fi­cient than buses.

In 1972, even as the TTC was con­sid­er­ing phas­ing out street­cars on some routes, the agency’s gen­eral man­ager called them “pound for pound … the best transit vehicle ever pro­duced.”

But it was too late. The decline of the street­car was death by a thou­sand ser­vice cuts, said Steve Munro, a transit advoc­ate and mem­ber of Street­cars for Toronto,

“The level of ser­vice on the street­car lines in the city was con­sid­er­ably bet­ter than it is today. There were lines that had double the ser­vice they have today,” Munro said. A “little cut here and a little cut there” have driven riders away, he said.

As cars became more pop­u­lar, an “imbal­ance” was cre­ated on the roads, between the street­car that can carry 130 pas­sen­gers, and a car that might carry only one.

A Toronto icon

Des­pite the erosion of routes in the city, the street­car has remained at the heart of Toronto’s cul­tural iden­tity. The street­car has moved count­less Toronto­n­ians, been a place for “meet­cutes” and, on occa­sion, for overly pub­lic dis­plays of affec­tion. It’s a must­see sight for tour­ists and loved by transit enthu­si­asts — the expans­ive win­dows and smooth ride are known by most who have spent even a day down­town. Even non­human Toronto­n­ians take it: dogs, cats — and, of course, rac­coons.

Still, there are prob­lems. With a few excep­tions, most street­car routes share the road with cars, which can leave transit lines para­lyzed in traffic — a scene that played out most recently on King Street, but is reg­u­larly seen throughout the city where cars and street­cars battle for pri­or­ity. And while the King Street pilot was shown to move people more effi­ciently, with pri­or­ity sig­nalling and traffic enforce­ment agents, it all depends on drivers com­ply­ing with the rules of the road.

Get­ting rid of or redu­cing the num­ber of street­cars, as Toronto inten­ded to do in the 1970s, isn’t the solu­tion to eas­ing con­ges­tion, said Saxe, a Uni­versity of Toronto pro­fessor in civil engin­eer­ing and the Canada Research Chair in sus­tain­able infra­struc­ture. Instead, it’s giv­ing back more of the road to transit, like street­cars and buses, to move more Toronto­n­ians.

“Street­cars carry more people, more con­sist­ently, faster, more evenly. It feels bet­ter,” Saxe said. “Get­ting rid of the street­car is just talk­ing about mak­ing the city smal­ler (and) worse.”

Lui agreed, emphas­iz­ing the import­ant role the street­car con­tin­ues to play as part of the city’s transit net­work.

“If one street­car is car­ry­ing close to 200 people when it’s full, ima­gine if that was four or five buses and what that would mean in terms of con­ges­tion levels,” Lui said.

A future solu­tion?

In the short term, the city’s transit solu­tions lie in the realm of buses and bike lanes, Saxe said — “things that we can do this dec­ade to make (transit) bet­ter.”

That longer ­term future includes light rail transit (LRT), which, depend­ing on who you ask, is essen­tially the same as a street­car. (Oth­ers argue that LRTs have dis­tinct fea­tures, like right­ of­ ways and more dis­tance between stops.) On top of the long ­awaited, and long ­delayed, Eglin­ton Crosstown and Finch West LRTs, the city has plans for an Eglin­ton East and Water­front East LRT, both of which remain in the design stage without long­term fund­ing.

The prob­lem, as with most ser­vices in the city, is money, Lui said. With the TTC’s exist­ing street­car fleet, he explained, the city could run five­minute ser­vice throughout the city — if it had the money to pay drivers.

All the while, the street­car is one of the TTC’s most prof­it­able modes of transit. Nearly 236,000 Toronto­n­ians take a street­car every week­day, with each car nearly trip­ling the capa­city of a bus. That, and increas­ing rider­ship with bet­ter ser­vice, can help the TTC make a bet­ter argu­ment for pri­or­ity on the roads.

“We’ve had suc­cess cases of that in the past, where we invest in bet­ter ser­vice, bet­ter fre­quency, and people will come,” Lui said.

The King Street pri­or­ity cor­ridor, des­pite its much­maligned flaws, is just one example Lui put for­ward. The 2017 pilot, which was made per­man­ent in 2019, reduced travel times for com­muters along King Street (with the help of traffic agents), even as Ontario Line con­struc­tion poured more traffic into the already con­ges­ted stretch of down­town.

When the roads are backed up and street­cars are blocked, it’s not the street­car that’s at fault, Lui said.

“It’s about how do we pri­or­it­ize our road space and how other road users are using that same street,” he added. When Lui’s transit col­leagues from other North Amer­ican cit­ies come to Toronto, he said they’re “always amazed at how busy our street­cars are, and shocked how little pri­or­ity we get.”

“If we want to reach our goals for a liv­able city, for a city that is to con­tinue to wel­come more hous­ing, wel­come more people, street­cars are far more effect­ive in encour­aging that gentle dens­ity that cre­ates vibrant neigh­bour­hoods,” Lui said.

A better way to build new public transit

This editorial was written and published by the Globe & Mail on January 27, 2025.

Canada spends vastly more building a kilometre of rail transit than many other countries. It gets less bang for its buck and projects are shrunk to fit budgets, making them less effective. Meanwhile, residents wait impatiently as promised opening dates slip by again and again.

The longer this continues, the more Canada risks losing the social licence to pursue such crucial projects.

This is not an exaggerated concern. The government of Ontario is currently moving forward with a $70-billion expansion of subways and light-rail transit in the Greater Toronto Area. If these projects aren’t done better, it’s hard to see how much longer residents will support the vast cost and grinding disruption of building transit. Which would lead to a disastrous future of even more gridlock, commuter frustration and economic damage.

Unfortunately, warning bells are ringing.

Political meddling has made some projects unnecessarily expensive, such as a light-rail transit (LRT) extension in westend Toronto being buried at huge cost. On Friday, the same day Premier Doug Ford announced a snap election, his government promised to tunnel an LRT project in downtown Brampton, about 45 kilometres northwest of Toronto, massively increasing the cost compared with running the line on the surface.

Also, data by the Transit Costs Project at NYU show the signature Ontario Line, a subway in Toronto, is expected to cost close to $500-million per kilometre to build, in 2019 dollars. That is about 60 per cent more than a subway expansion from Toronto into its northern suburb of Vaughan that opened in 2017 and was itself widely criticized for its cost.

These problems are not unique to Ontario – the Green Line LRT in Calgary is a poster child for escalating costs and political interference – or even Canada. They crop up across much of the English-speaking world.

Those countries often benchmark against each other, making soaring costs within the group seem less egregious. They tend to have engineering standards that are more onerous than in other nations. And they often disregard transit building for decades and lack institutional experience, making it harder for them to oversee complex projects.

These countries need to learn less from each other and look instead to places where it’s cheaper and faster to build. Italy, Spain and France are all showing that it’s possible to insert new subway lines under ancient dense cities for less per kilometre than Canada manages in sprawling suburbs.

In just one example of how it could be done differently, a subway tunnel in Milan is being made with a nine-metre diameter, according to a report from the School of Cities at the University of Toronto. Meanwhile, a subway expansion tunnel in eastern Toronto is 10.7 metres across, to fit slightly wider trains and a firewall added between the tracks. The difference may not seem like much, but the 18-per-cent increase in diameter means 42 per cent more earth must be excavated.

Canadians can also try to learn the lessons of the few recent domestic projects that have gone well. Because there are some successes. Both the Canada Line in Vancouver and the Réseau express métropolitain in Montreal have aspects worth emulating.

A crucial driver for both projects was strong political backing. Vancouver needed the Canada Line to open before the 2010 Winter Olympics and Quebec’s premier took a personal interest in the REM. The point is not that politicians stuck their noses in; it’s that everyone knew the pressure was on.

Both projects took advantage of smaller rolling stock. A shorter train can be served by a smaller and, because an enormous part of transit building cost is excavation, much cheaper station. Depending on demand, running smaller trains more often may provide service as effective as a longer, less frequent train.

The Canada Line and REM avoided tunnelling where possible. Raising the tracks above the ground is a vastly cheaper option. The REM also repurposed an old tunnel to save money and the Canada Line used cut-and-cover to build part of its tunnel. The latter option is a cheaper method though more disruptive. It does not suit all situations, but politicians need the backbone to insist on it when the savings are sufficient.

Good transit networks are the only thing that stop urban areas grinding to a complete halt. Expanding them will always be expensive and disruptive, but Canadian cities can minimize that pain by building on the examples of others.

Canada’s largest city is at a crossroads

This opinion was written by Jennifer Keesmat and was published in the Globe & Mail on January 4, 2025.

More than 25 per cent of downtown Toronto residents choose cycling as their primary mode of transport, a number that has doubled over the past decade.

The people of Toronto have spoken: they want their city to be livable, walkable and sustainable. So why do Ontario’s leaders continue to cling to car-centric policies, interfering with the trajectory that Toronto has been on for decades?

Bike lanes are just the latest battleground for a long-simmering clash of visions over the city’s future, Jennifer Keesmaat writes

Chief executive of Collecdev-Markee, a member of the National Taskforce on Housing and Climate and a former chief planner of the City of Toronto

The City of Toronto finds itself at a crossroads – but the issues at play go beyond bike lanes or traffic congestion. For decades, a debate has been simmering about the essence of Canada’s biggest city: who does Toronto serve, and what kind of city can it become? And at the heart of this debate lies a fundamental clash of visions on urban mobility – and ultimately, the city’s very purpose.

That conversation began in earnest in the 1950s, when entire neighbourhoods around the world were being razed to make way for highways and expressways. Cities faced a choice: would they follow the vision of Robert Moses, prioritizing cars, or of Jane Jacobs, designing cities for people? In most places, the Moses vision prevailed, reshaping streets to be faster and wider while communities bore the cost. In New York, the Cross Bronx Expressway displaced more than 60,000 residents, tearing apart vibrant working-class neighbourhoods and leaving behind decades of economic and social decline. In San Francisco, the Embarcadero Freeway severed the city’s connection to its waterfront, stifling local businesses and diminishing the area’s vitality until its removal decades later. And, of course, the proposed Spadina Expressway threatened to bulldoze culturally rich areas in Toronto before public outcry stopped it.

Today, with the benefit of hindsight, cities recognize that prioritizing cars over people doesn’t create economic prosperity, health or happiness; it leads to congestion, pollution, long commutes, induced demand and alienation. The vision of Jane Jacobs has stood the test of time in the cities where expressways were dismantled, streets were narrowed and cycling infrastructure was expanded to support walkable, thriving local economies.

Over the decades, Toronto has largely chosen the Jacobs vision. It’s a vision that strengthens local economies, with the Bloor Street BIA finding that cyclists spend four times more per month at local businesses than drivers do. And unlike in carcentric cities – and all their asssociated noise, pollution and potential danger – infrastructure and maintenance costs are lower, public health is improved and demand drives investment in affordable, sustainable transit. At one time, Canadian conservatives understood this, too: it was Ontario’s Progressive Conservative premier Bill Davis who halted the construction of the Spadina Expressway in 1971.

Over that time, Torontonians have made clear that they want a city where people live, work, shop, learn and raise families in connected neighbourhoods. Bike lanes are clearly not a trend or a fringe concern: more than 25 per cent of downtown Toronto residents choose cycling as their primary mode of transport, a number that has doubled over the past decade. And Torontonians have embraced density and rethought zoning, too: In 2023’s mayoral election, voters overwhelmingly supported pro-density and pro-cycling Olivia Chow, while rejecting anti-bike lane candidates who could barely secure 15 per cent of the vote.

The people of Toronto have spoken: they want their city to be livable, walkable and sustainable. So why do Ontario’s leaders continue to cling to car-centric policies, interfering with the trajectory that Toronto has been on for decades?

It’s rooted in two conflicting visions of Toronto. One sees Toronto as a place where people have the freedom to walk, bike, take transit or drive when necessary, and where roads are reserved for trips that can’t be made in other ways. The other vision sees Toronto as a place to drive through – a view that privileges convenience for the few, many of whom live outside the city but travel in for work or pleasure, at the expense of the many who call this city home.

This perspective, steeped in outdated ideas such as prioritizing the rapid movement of vehicles over the safety of pedestrians and cyclists or assuming that wider roads solve congestion problems, disregards the reality that the car-centric view is unsustainable. Toronto’s population is continuing to grow as the city becomes more dense and walkable, and as other large cities have discovered before us, we simply cannot add more cars as we add more people – there’s only so much physical space.

This fundamental schism in urban visions has real consequences. Walkable and bike-friendly cities such as Amsterdam, London, Copenhagen and Paris are attracting talent, investment and tourism, particularly among young people, some of whom are choosing these cities because they don’t need to own a car. As a result, they’ve become hubs of innovation where quality of life drives economic growth. Toronto has the opportunity to join their ranks – but only if it aligns its infrastructure with the needs and values of the people who live here.

That means building out both regional and local transit networks, rather than constructing more roads like Highway 413, a “sprawl accelerator” that will only worsen congestion. In contrast, affordable, frequent and efficient transit would be transformative for regional commuters, allowing them to arrive in the heart of the city, where they can walk, cycle and take transit for the last leg of their commutes, or to explore the richness Toronto offers. Unfortunately, Ontario lags far behind in embracing high-speed, high-quality regional transit, with little provincial progress on this front over the past 20 years. Service levels remain substandard, and no new lines have been operationalized.

In every great city, success is underpinned by a robust regional transit network that connects surrounding areas to the urban core. Ontario’s system, by contrast, is fragmented and underdeveloped, leaving the province’s economic hub city to bear the brunt of unchecked sprawl and car dependency. The result is an urban centre choked by congestion, wrought by an overreliance on cars fuelled by poorly conceived infrastructure policies.

This debate, then, isn’t just about bike lanes; it’s about decisions that will define Toronto for generations. Do we want a city designed for people that fosters vibrant communities and sustainable mobility, or one overwhelmed by cars?

Residents of cities should not shoulder the consequences of regional policies that prioritize sprawl over sustainable urban planning. While the crisis over bike lanes may serve as a convenient political distraction – drawing attention away from a $12-billion unused LRT tunnel, for instance – it perpetuates the illusion that accommodating more cars in the city is feasible. When suburban drivers are set up for frustration – driving into a city that cannot accommodate them – it will prove to be a short-sighted narrative with long-term consequences.

Rather than perpetuating this unsustainable cycle, Ontario’s leaders must address the regional transportation shortcomings at the heart of Toronto’s challenges. This would not only provide more efficient, car-free access to Toronto, but also create opportunities for vitality in other regional centres in the province – areas that are also congested with cars. By investing in high-quality, accessible transit solutions and advancing urban mobility systems that emphasize walking, cycling and public transit, Ontario can help preserve Toronto as a city for people.

Toronto is a great place to live. But our bike lanes are not the problem. The cars are.

Commute times in Toronto among North America’s worst, study finds

This article was written by Nathan Bawaan and was published in the Toronto Star on December 12, 2024.

At some point while riding the TTC, we’ve thought it — but now it’s official: Toronto has one of the worst transit commute times in Canada.

A new report from Moovit, a commuter app, says taking transit through the city takes about an average of 55 minutes, the second longest commute in Canada and the U.S. And, across a Torontonian’s lifetime, they will spend one year and seven months taking transit.

Vancouver tops the list as the Canadian city with the longest commute times, with an average trip of 60 minutes, while Mexico City has the longest commute time worldwide, with a trip taking around 67 minutes.

Moovit compiled its study based on data gathered from 50 cities in 17 countries.

Along with commute times, the app’s report found that transit riders in Toronto spend the same time waiting for a ride — 14 minutes — as those in New York, Boston and Chicago. Miami has the worst wait time, with 21 minutes, and Seattle has the shortest, with 12.

However, Stuart Green, senior communications specialist at the TTC, criticized Moovit’s report. In an email to the Star, he said that it doesn’t take into account distance travelled or ridership, and compares cities with varying modes of transit.

“More than half of TTC customers rely on the bus network, which would be slower than rapid transit,” he wrote.

“So comparing a city that has a robust rail network like London, Paris or NYC is difficult.”

Raktim Mitra, an urban and regional planning professor at Toronto Metropolitan University, agreed that the report’s findings should not come as a major concern.

The TTC says the report by commuter app Movit doesn’t take distance travelled, ridership and types of transit into account

“In general, people travel longer distances, so it’s not surprising that the commute time would be longer as well,” he explained. “If anything, the data represents the importance and significance of public transportation for people living within the wider geographic region.”

On a brighter note, Torontonians are able to get to wherever they need to go without any transfers more than in other cities, according to the report, although the same percentage also said it takes three or more transfers to get to a destination.

When asked what could be fixed about the city’s transit system, 29 per cent of Torontonians said having more vehicles and 26 per cent said lower fares. Nineteen per cent said more accurate arrival times.

TTC approves sweeping ebikes ban

Restriction runs through winter until April 15, but doesn’t include personal mobility devices

This article was written by Mahdis Habibinia and was published in the Toronto Star on December 4, 2024.

The ban on lithiumionpowered ebikes and escooters will run over the winter because temperature changes can increase the likelihood of battery short circuits and fires.

The TTC is imposing a winter ban on all lithiumionpowered micromobility devices, including ebikes and escooters, from its transit system, effective immediately.

The ban, which will run from Nov. 15 to April 15 each year, does not include electric wheelchairs or other mobility devices used by people with disabilities.

“Fundamentally, this is a safety issue first,” TTC board member Julie Osborne said at Tuesday’s meeting. “Until we find out more information that changes the information we got the last time about the dire consequences of a single incident … We are going to be risking life and limb.”

TTC staff first brought the proposal for a winter ban to the board in October because of increasing concerns about them catching fire. Toronto Fire Services told the board at the time that while it is unpredictable when the batteries could explode, fires from a lithium ion battery are volatile and can’t be put out with a fire extinguisher.

A fire on board a Line 1 subway car on New Year’s Eve sent two people to hospital.

The ban is restricted to the cold weather months because fluctuating temperatures can cause condensation and lithium plating, which increases the likelihood of short circuits and fires. TTC staff also said exposure to certain road conditions, such as salt or deicing compounds during winter, further heightens these risks.

It’s unclear how the transit agency will ensure compliance with the ban beyond an education campaign about the new policy.

“We still haven’t decided who is going to be enforcing the ban,” TTC chair Jamaal Myers told the board on Tuesday. “I know we already have trouble enforcing the (existing) ebike ban during rush hour, so this will be another layer on top of that.”

In a 6 to 4 vote on Tuesday, board members also voted to have TTC staff work with the city and Toronto Parking Authority, food delivery companies, as well as labour unions to look at whether it was possible to have more secure ebike storage, battery charging and exchange facilities near transit stations.

The board also asked TTC staff to work with Toronto Fire to monitor the “evolution” of lithiumion batteries technology and safety considerations in order to “assess future compatibility with public transit.”

Tuesday’s move follows a recent equity report that found a complete ban on all ebikes and escooters would disproportionately affect lowincome individuals, marginalized groups and gig workers with limited transportation options.

In her report, Shakira Naraine, the transit agency’s chief people and culture officer, suggested the TTC impose “specific restrictions”— similar to Metrolinx’s, which ban ebikes with uncertified batteries but allow those with batteries displaying a UL or CE safety certification.

A proposed motion similar to this was voted down by the board on Tuesday, along with a motion to reduce the length of the ban.

Myers said despite the ban, these devices likely “aren’t going anywhere” and “rather than simply trying to wish the problem away, I think we should start working with businesses and other city departments to (both) mitigate the risk and create an environment where people feel like they can still use their bikes in a safe manner.”