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