This alternative idea needs to be amplified. So far the narrative on the tunnel idea is only ridicule with no solutions. Solid alternatives to 401 are needed and this is a great one.
Ford’s going to want a tunnel win—something tangible he can point to. The best spot to give him one is near the 427, where the 401 hits a major choke point thanks to the Richview Expressway never being built. This part of Etobicoke is one of the few stretches in the GTA that still doesn’t have a collector/express system. A short tunnel here—just a few kilometres—would provide real relief for drivers and deliver a clear political win. Sure, expropriating the mostly industrial land nearby might be cheaper, but a tunnel looks bold and future-focused. It’s the kind of big move Ford Nation likes to see.
Now, let’s be honest: nothing is going to solve 401 traffic. But we can make it a lot less painful as the region grows. A fully built-out Line 4 (Sheppard) would take pressure off the road network—and it’s the kind of transit project Ford could realistically support. Getting the Midtown Line moving—beyond just talk—would help too, especially for crosstown travel.
Speaking of crosstown, that final stretch of Line 5 to Pearson needs to be finalized, along with an extension of Line 6—at least to an UP Express station at Woodbine Racetrack. And while we’re at it, extending Line 2 to Sherway makes sense. Maximizing all east-west transit options is what could actually make a difference here.
And then there’s trucking. Getting more trucks off the 401 and onto the 407—even if it means offering subsidies—is just smart. Every driver stuck behind a convoy knows this. Roads are already subsidized—this would simply direct that funding where it has the most impact.
I agree with almost all your ideas here, Midtown done well could have a bigger impact than anyone expects honestly given the potential speed.
For trucks, I think we need to try to design routes like the 401 around them more specifically, since they are such a huge part of the traffic. I'd honestly support a truck oriented beltway before subsidies for the 407 given the absolute killing they are already making.
Hi. The 401RT Express (www.401rt.ca) would resolve access & connectivity issues near the 427/401. I disagree w you about the Sheppard Sbwy. It wouldn't be worth the cost. What works best is a single seamless rapid transit line across ALL of Toronto and into 905. Ridership increases exponentially with increases in continuous length. A Shepp Sbwy doesn't help travelers wanting to go further east or west than you may be thinking.
A fully built Line 4 would likely run between the Keele–Wilson provincial complex and Sheppard–McCowan — or potentially extend to Scarborough Town Centre or even the Toronto Zoo, depending on the outcome of ongoing consultations. This alignment would effectively serve the city’s semi-urban northern arc. For longer east–west trips, a Midtown GO line would provide a more efficient option. Ultimately, these two concepts aren’t in competition — they’re complementary parts of a cohesive regional transit network.
I say do this in concert with the high speed rail to Ottawa…then you get way more fed $$, and more options for the Toronto section of high speed rail…including travel to Pearson and through to Waterloo etc.
While I think its a nice idea, I think limiting HSR to the legacy Sheppard subway infrastructure, and subway technical standards is probably a bad idea. Plus you can connect to Pearson anyways using GO tracks and a new tunnel!
The Alto project is not worth doing - maybe 40m travelers/yr covers operating, but it's too costly to build. The 401RT Express ( view the summary at 401rt.ca) is multiply more cost effective, based on capital cost per user.
Don’t forget that HSR would make the airports much more efficient and cost effective - less expansion needed, slots can be freed up for different routes…and some capital is saved by not needing as many planes for the routes the hsr covers…there are also benefits to having multiple options due to delays, weather, or other system outages…also likely reduces necessity of 407 and 401 expansion, and other road projects…and a secondary rail route I could be a benefit for cargo trains, and reduce the need for other types of rail improvements along the existing line…
Unfortunately, a rapid transit line that runs only from Keele-Wilson to Meadowvale via the Sheppard Subway isn't good enough. It misses very (very) key trip destinations - the vast employment area at and around Pearson, and the inbound 401 traffic from Durham and Peel regions. Unless there is a single, seamless rapid transit line that crosses borders and maximizes trip O-D possibilities, there's no hope of keeping the 401 from grinding to a halt, unless there are major changes to travel demands. I also think that once a 401RTX or similar intermunicipal rapid transit line is built, it would be fair to toll the highway, because there would finally be realistic options for travelers. As it stands now, any toll would hurt households (many thousand of them) who have no choice but to drive. (For example, even with the Shepard subway and Finch W LRT extended, a trip from Finch E at Neilson to a job by Pearson would take 2 hours by transit.
Hello, Reece. I see you've been inspired by the very similar 401RT Express that I've developed over quite a few years. I ask your followers to review it at 401rt.ca. The 401RTX is 96% elevated, follows the 401 From Liverpool Road to Derry Road + a branch to Pearson and downtown Miss'ga, but recommends closing the Sheppard Subway entirely. I've costed it higher than for your optimistic $30+bn even though the 401RT Express is similar in length - 85 kms, and you propose much more tunneling. The 401RT Express rescues Hwy 401, and would generate 440+m new transit trips by 2051 (or soon thereafter); some details are different, e.g. number of stops, avg. cruising speed. If I was of some inspiration to you, perhaps you could mention it in one of your future writings. Visit www.401rt.ca.
I have long thought a rapid transit corridor parallel to the 401 was required. I have found myself fantasizing about links very similar to the one you propose. When Ford proposed a highway tunnel I could not help but scoff immediately that much more could be achieved by just dedicating a single lane in each direction to buses. A lane with a bus every 30 seconds does not feel even vaguely full, yet with articulated or bi-level buses, that would represent 4 or 5 lanes of car traffic.
Buses in such an environment would be far more attractive than those stuck in traffic, and each bus would be far more efficient traveling at 100k than 25k. Having buses make the trip from the Kitchener GO to Yorkdale, the NYCC, and the STC much faster than driving would divert many more trips on the western approaches to the Kitchener GO. Same with similar connections for the Barrie, Stouffville, and Lakeshore East. Same effect for subway and other BRT routes under development, being more useful as they would time effectively serve more destinations..
When combined with improved service on GO, such a corridor with frequent, well-designed service would very likely create a ridership that justified rail very shortly after it was established. It would also do radically more to relieve congestion than a tunnel for cars not only in the 401 corridor, but several others. It would also act to make STC, NYCC, the airport district, and points along the western line 1 corridor, much more attractive for added employment development, relieving some of the strain in terms of supporting ridership to the core.
I suspect that the ridership levels such a service would create in a handful of years would make the argument for rail hard to resist, while providing a real alternative at a doable cost in the near term. The network effect would be profound, especially as fast high-frequency rail.
Travel demand for the 401 may grow by 40% by 2055, and that means perhaps 400,000 more trips. There's no way that a bus-based system will be able to accommodate that increase, and a bus service that intends to carry huge volumes would be extremely hard to administer (different trip origins/destinations/stops along the way).
Do not think that it is a long-term solution. It would merely act to reveal demand and redistribute growth in a way that would make the need for this to be a rail connection painfully apparent.
A single lane in each direction, running just bi-level buses every 30 seconds, would offer more capacity than a tunnel with 3 lanes in each direction. If there were heavy demand, you could have buses operate point-to-point service. (ie, bus from Kitchener GO to NYCC - would run express between those points, no other stops, some to Yorkdale and STC for instance) It would reduce the number of buses in each station, as only buses terminating or originating there would need platform space.
The issue I would have is two-fold,
1) I suspect that a well-designed service would result in a lot more than 40% growth, which a lane with an articulated or bi-level bus every 30 seconds would accommodate.
2) operating costs compared to massively larger rail vehicles, which would require radically fewer operators, if any (automated metro).
8 lanes per direction means 16k passengers per direction in cars, which means 40% is 6500, more than 3 lanes can accommodate, but the 8500, which would be the result of removing a car lane and making it buses, is something that a well-designed bus service in dedicated lanes, with a mix of express and super express, could comfortably manage.
I just don't believe a mere 40% the moment you relieve the corridor even a little. I would expect a 15% growth, instantly upon relief from frustrated demand, and 2-3% growth every year thereafter. That is 40% by 2035-2040, not 2055, if the current congestion were relieved.
Ps - There is huge value to the visibility of that transit from the 401. Sitting in traffic and watching the transit vehicle speed past creates a type of frustration that drives change in behavior.
Someone, anyone, needs to get this in front of Premier Ford and explain how he can leave a lasting legacy on transport in the GTA together with the Ontario Line. Call it the True North Line or anything you need to get political buy-in. This follows a similar playbook to the Ontario Line's design so there's already precedent!
Interesting take. My solution was to do the same high speed metro but on the 407. Essentially all guideway - cheap and fast to build. Probably less rides than over the 401 but likely a better value.
I don't think it would be a better value because while it would cost less, it would generate far less ridership. The 407 is going to be best served by buses until the agreement with the government runs out because until then there will never be traffic congestion which makes buses extremely fast.
Why complicate things by mixing power delivery methods? Third-rail power can support the speeds you envisage, no problem. Why not simply build trains to the TTC guage and third-rail system?
Regauging is simple and makes procuring new trains cheaper forever. Third rail doesn't perform well at high speeds (much less 160kph) and has a number of other disadvantages to overhead wire. Plenty of systems used both without a problem and I don't see using both as a substantial negative while third rail being deployed widely definitely is a negative!
But then you should re-gauge the whole subway system (probably a good idea anyway). 150 km/h is about the limit of what third rail can do. Berlin used 120 km/h S-Bahn trains back in the 30s of the 40s of the last century with no problems. I know that you are fan of overhead wires, and you know that I am a fan of third rail for metro-type systems.
Regauging the whole system is a different ask. You are already going to have to shut down the line to convert to automated operation and install screen doors etc. So you might as well do it at the same time.
I can't imagine any argument for third rail and as you've mentioned It won't even work at the speeds proposed
If you have to shut the line down anyway, I agree: regauge.
Third rail is much cheaper to build, requires smaller tunnels, is less ugly especially when elevated, is less likely to be downed by weather, trees or other factors, is easier and safer to work on for crews, especially in emergencies (you can simply locally short out a third rail so you can safely respond to an emergency; you can't do that with an overhead wire; you have to find someone to switch it off remotely before you can start rescuing people), and it can easily do 150 km/h. And if a train runs off the end of a third rail, not a problem; if a train runs off the end of an overhead wire, you have a major problem on your hands.
The only thing that overhead for metro systems has going for it is that it is more difficult to electrocute yourself. But people don't electrocute themselves very often on third rails, so it's not much of an issue. Especially not if you use platform screen doors and have your tracks in tunnels or on viaducts.
We have level crossings with third rails in Berlin, and guess what? People just don't kill themselves on them.
It's definitely not safer for workers, and you definitely can shut down segments of overhead line, that's done all the time!
With regard to potentially being downed by weather etc, the safety margins at least in North America are so large that I really don't think that's a serious concern.
I'm not sure what you mean by running off the end?
If you are a first responder at the site of a train wreck, you cannot shut off the power to the overhead wire yourself. You have to find someone to do it for you. You can, however, use a short-circuiting device on a live third rail, right where you are. It's not great (there's going to be an interesting light show [which you should avoid watching if you want to keep your eyesight], and stuff may break somehwere), but you can absolutely do it in an emergency, and you will be sure that the power is off, and it is safe to work and rescue people. Rail emergency responders for third-rail systems carry such a device with them at all times. With an overhead wire, you can only install the short-circuiting device AFTER the power has been switched off, and installing those is a royal pain in the butt compared to third rail (as you have to hook a grounding wire onto the overhead wire with a flexing pole that is quite a few metres long; not fun at all).
By running off the end I mean exactly that: running off the end. If you forget to lower the pantograph before progressing into a section with no overhead wire, you are likely to damage both the pantograph and the overhead wire. If you forget to disengage your third-rail pick-ups before progressing into a section with no third rail. nothing happens. Except that you lose power, obviously. In a system where you have sections with overhead wires and sections with third rail, this is going to happen.
This alternative idea needs to be amplified. So far the narrative on the tunnel idea is only ridicule with no solutions. Solid alternatives to 401 are needed and this is a great one.
Thank you, I agree that a solutions oriented approach is needed!
Would you say as a local train service, a kind of Yamanote line, and as an express service, a sort of Shonan Shinjuku or Yokosuka line service?
Ford’s going to want a tunnel win—something tangible he can point to. The best spot to give him one is near the 427, where the 401 hits a major choke point thanks to the Richview Expressway never being built. This part of Etobicoke is one of the few stretches in the GTA that still doesn’t have a collector/express system. A short tunnel here—just a few kilometres—would provide real relief for drivers and deliver a clear political win. Sure, expropriating the mostly industrial land nearby might be cheaper, but a tunnel looks bold and future-focused. It’s the kind of big move Ford Nation likes to see.
Now, let’s be honest: nothing is going to solve 401 traffic. But we can make it a lot less painful as the region grows. A fully built-out Line 4 (Sheppard) would take pressure off the road network—and it’s the kind of transit project Ford could realistically support. Getting the Midtown Line moving—beyond just talk—would help too, especially for crosstown travel.
Speaking of crosstown, that final stretch of Line 5 to Pearson needs to be finalized, along with an extension of Line 6—at least to an UP Express station at Woodbine Racetrack. And while we’re at it, extending Line 2 to Sherway makes sense. Maximizing all east-west transit options is what could actually make a difference here.
And then there’s trucking. Getting more trucks off the 401 and onto the 407—even if it means offering subsidies—is just smart. Every driver stuck behind a convoy knows this. Roads are already subsidized—this would simply direct that funding where it has the most impact.
I agree with almost all your ideas here, Midtown done well could have a bigger impact than anyone expects honestly given the potential speed.
For trucks, I think we need to try to design routes like the 401 around them more specifically, since they are such a huge part of the traffic. I'd honestly support a truck oriented beltway before subsidies for the 407 given the absolute killing they are already making.
Hi. The 401RT Express (www.401rt.ca) would resolve access & connectivity issues near the 427/401. I disagree w you about the Sheppard Sbwy. It wouldn't be worth the cost. What works best is a single seamless rapid transit line across ALL of Toronto and into 905. Ridership increases exponentially with increases in continuous length. A Shepp Sbwy doesn't help travelers wanting to go further east or west than you may be thinking.
A fully built Line 4 would likely run between the Keele–Wilson provincial complex and Sheppard–McCowan — or potentially extend to Scarborough Town Centre or even the Toronto Zoo, depending on the outcome of ongoing consultations. This alignment would effectively serve the city’s semi-urban northern arc. For longer east–west trips, a Midtown GO line would provide a more efficient option. Ultimately, these two concepts aren’t in competition — they’re complementary parts of a cohesive regional transit network.
I say do this in concert with the high speed rail to Ottawa…then you get way more fed $$, and more options for the Toronto section of high speed rail…including travel to Pearson and through to Waterloo etc.
While I think its a nice idea, I think limiting HSR to the legacy Sheppard subway infrastructure, and subway technical standards is probably a bad idea. Plus you can connect to Pearson anyways using GO tracks and a new tunnel!
The Alto project is not worth doing - maybe 40m travelers/yr covers operating, but it's too costly to build. The 401RT Express ( view the summary at 401rt.ca) is multiply more cost effective, based on capital cost per user.
Don’t forget that HSR would make the airports much more efficient and cost effective - less expansion needed, slots can be freed up for different routes…and some capital is saved by not needing as many planes for the routes the hsr covers…there are also benefits to having multiple options due to delays, weather, or other system outages…also likely reduces necessity of 407 and 401 expansion, and other road projects…and a secondary rail route I could be a benefit for cargo trains, and reduce the need for other types of rail improvements along the existing line…
Unfortunately, a rapid transit line that runs only from Keele-Wilson to Meadowvale via the Sheppard Subway isn't good enough. It misses very (very) key trip destinations - the vast employment area at and around Pearson, and the inbound 401 traffic from Durham and Peel regions. Unless there is a single, seamless rapid transit line that crosses borders and maximizes trip O-D possibilities, there's no hope of keeping the 401 from grinding to a halt, unless there are major changes to travel demands. I also think that once a 401RTX or similar intermunicipal rapid transit line is built, it would be fair to toll the highway, because there would finally be realistic options for travelers. As it stands now, any toll would hurt households (many thousand of them) who have no choice but to drive. (For example, even with the Shepard subway and Finch W LRT extended, a trip from Finch E at Neilson to a job by Pearson would take 2 hours by transit.
Hello, Reece. I see you've been inspired by the very similar 401RT Express that I've developed over quite a few years. I ask your followers to review it at 401rt.ca. The 401RTX is 96% elevated, follows the 401 From Liverpool Road to Derry Road + a branch to Pearson and downtown Miss'ga, but recommends closing the Sheppard Subway entirely. I've costed it higher than for your optimistic $30+bn even though the 401RT Express is similar in length - 85 kms, and you propose much more tunneling. The 401RT Express rescues Hwy 401, and would generate 440+m new transit trips by 2051 (or soon thereafter); some details are different, e.g. number of stops, avg. cruising speed. If I was of some inspiration to you, perhaps you could mention it in one of your future writings. Visit www.401rt.ca.
I have long thought a rapid transit corridor parallel to the 401 was required. I have found myself fantasizing about links very similar to the one you propose. When Ford proposed a highway tunnel I could not help but scoff immediately that much more could be achieved by just dedicating a single lane in each direction to buses. A lane with a bus every 30 seconds does not feel even vaguely full, yet with articulated or bi-level buses, that would represent 4 or 5 lanes of car traffic.
Buses in such an environment would be far more attractive than those stuck in traffic, and each bus would be far more efficient traveling at 100k than 25k. Having buses make the trip from the Kitchener GO to Yorkdale, the NYCC, and the STC much faster than driving would divert many more trips on the western approaches to the Kitchener GO. Same with similar connections for the Barrie, Stouffville, and Lakeshore East. Same effect for subway and other BRT routes under development, being more useful as they would time effectively serve more destinations..
When combined with improved service on GO, such a corridor with frequent, well-designed service would very likely create a ridership that justified rail very shortly after it was established. It would also do radically more to relieve congestion than a tunnel for cars not only in the 401 corridor, but several others. It would also act to make STC, NYCC, the airport district, and points along the western line 1 corridor, much more attractive for added employment development, relieving some of the strain in terms of supporting ridership to the core.
I suspect that the ridership levels such a service would create in a handful of years would make the argument for rail hard to resist, while providing a real alternative at a doable cost in the near term. The network effect would be profound, especially as fast high-frequency rail.
Travel demand for the 401 may grow by 40% by 2055, and that means perhaps 400,000 more trips. There's no way that a bus-based system will be able to accommodate that increase, and a bus service that intends to carry huge volumes would be extremely hard to administer (different trip origins/destinations/stops along the way).
Do not think that it is a long-term solution. It would merely act to reveal demand and redistribute growth in a way that would make the need for this to be a rail connection painfully apparent.
A single lane in each direction, running just bi-level buses every 30 seconds, would offer more capacity than a tunnel with 3 lanes in each direction. If there were heavy demand, you could have buses operate point-to-point service. (ie, bus from Kitchener GO to NYCC - would run express between those points, no other stops, some to Yorkdale and STC for instance) It would reduce the number of buses in each station, as only buses terminating or originating there would need platform space.
The issue I would have is two-fold,
1) I suspect that a well-designed service would result in a lot more than 40% growth, which a lane with an articulated or bi-level bus every 30 seconds would accommodate.
2) operating costs compared to massively larger rail vehicles, which would require radically fewer operators, if any (automated metro).
8 lanes per direction means 16k passengers per direction in cars, which means 40% is 6500, more than 3 lanes can accommodate, but the 8500, which would be the result of removing a car lane and making it buses, is something that a well-designed bus service in dedicated lanes, with a mix of express and super express, could comfortably manage.
I just don't believe a mere 40% the moment you relieve the corridor even a little. I would expect a 15% growth, instantly upon relief from frustrated demand, and 2-3% growth every year thereafter. That is 40% by 2035-2040, not 2055, if the current congestion were relieved.
Ps - There is huge value to the visibility of that transit from the 401. Sitting in traffic and watching the transit vehicle speed past creates a type of frustration that drives change in behavior.
Someone, anyone, needs to get this in front of Premier Ford and explain how he can leave a lasting legacy on transport in the GTA together with the Ontario Line. Call it the True North Line or anything you need to get political buy-in. This follows a similar playbook to the Ontario Line's design so there's already precedent!
Ford is the Canadian version of that idiot "mayor" Shitfire in Houston.
The only issue of regauging the sheppard line is that will wipe out any solution to improve operations for line 1
Interesting take. My solution was to do the same high speed metro but on the 407. Essentially all guideway - cheap and fast to build. Probably less rides than over the 401 but likely a better value.
I don't think it would be a better value because while it would cost less, it would generate far less ridership. The 407 is going to be best served by buses until the agreement with the government runs out because until then there will never be traffic congestion which makes buses extremely fast.
Why complicate things by mixing power delivery methods? Third-rail power can support the speeds you envisage, no problem. Why not simply build trains to the TTC guage and third-rail system?
Regauging is simple and makes procuring new trains cheaper forever. Third rail doesn't perform well at high speeds (much less 160kph) and has a number of other disadvantages to overhead wire. Plenty of systems used both without a problem and I don't see using both as a substantial negative while third rail being deployed widely definitely is a negative!
Reece, I agree w you.
And also: regauging means disruption. Transit disruption is bad.
But then you should re-gauge the whole subway system (probably a good idea anyway). 150 km/h is about the limit of what third rail can do. Berlin used 120 km/h S-Bahn trains back in the 30s of the 40s of the last century with no problems. I know that you are fan of overhead wires, and you know that I am a fan of third rail for metro-type systems.
Regauging the whole system is a different ask. You are already going to have to shut down the line to convert to automated operation and install screen doors etc. So you might as well do it at the same time.
I can't imagine any argument for third rail and as you've mentioned It won't even work at the speeds proposed
If you have to shut the line down anyway, I agree: regauge.
Third rail is much cheaper to build, requires smaller tunnels, is less ugly especially when elevated, is less likely to be downed by weather, trees or other factors, is easier and safer to work on for crews, especially in emergencies (you can simply locally short out a third rail so you can safely respond to an emergency; you can't do that with an overhead wire; you have to find someone to switch it off remotely before you can start rescuing people), and it can easily do 150 km/h. And if a train runs off the end of a third rail, not a problem; if a train runs off the end of an overhead wire, you have a major problem on your hands.
The only thing that overhead for metro systems has going for it is that it is more difficult to electrocute yourself. But people don't electrocute themselves very often on third rails, so it's not much of an issue. Especially not if you use platform screen doors and have your tracks in tunnels or on viaducts.
We have level crossings with third rails in Berlin, and guess what? People just don't kill themselves on them.
It's definitely not safer for workers, and you definitely can shut down segments of overhead line, that's done all the time!
With regard to potentially being downed by weather etc, the safety margins at least in North America are so large that I really don't think that's a serious concern.
I'm not sure what you mean by running off the end?
If you are a first responder at the site of a train wreck, you cannot shut off the power to the overhead wire yourself. You have to find someone to do it for you. You can, however, use a short-circuiting device on a live third rail, right where you are. It's not great (there's going to be an interesting light show [which you should avoid watching if you want to keep your eyesight], and stuff may break somehwere), but you can absolutely do it in an emergency, and you will be sure that the power is off, and it is safe to work and rescue people. Rail emergency responders for third-rail systems carry such a device with them at all times. With an overhead wire, you can only install the short-circuiting device AFTER the power has been switched off, and installing those is a royal pain in the butt compared to third rail (as you have to hook a grounding wire onto the overhead wire with a flexing pole that is quite a few metres long; not fun at all).
By running off the end I mean exactly that: running off the end. If you forget to lower the pantograph before progressing into a section with no overhead wire, you are likely to damage both the pantograph and the overhead wire. If you forget to disengage your third-rail pick-ups before progressing into a section with no third rail. nothing happens. Except that you lose power, obviously. In a system where you have sections with overhead wires and sections with third rail, this is going to happen.
The Swiss et al seem to do well with overhead power. Ugliness is what the road crisis is, not the wires powering a better transit way across Toronto.