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.
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!
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.
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!
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!
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!
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.