Ontario Society of Professional Engineers (OSPE) & Tunnelling Association of Canada (TAC)
The Ontario Society of Professional Engineers (OSPE) and the Tunnelling Association of Canada (TAC) recognize the Government of Ontario’s interest in exploring ambitious infrastructure solutions to address congestion in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). Among these, the proposed 50-kilometre tunnel beneath Highway 401, stretching from Mississauga to Scarborough, represents a transformative yet complex undertaking with wide-reaching implications.
As organizations that represent engineering expertise and tunnelling professionals across Ontario and Canada, we strongly support infrastructure development that is evidence-based, fiscally responsible, and environmentally sound. The success of any large-scale project – particularly one of this scale- depends on transparent analysis, prudent risk assessment, and meaningful engagement with experts and the public.
We urge the Ontario government to ensure that the current feasibility study:
- Is led by a Canadian team of experienced engineering professionals and organizations with international expertise, including specialists in geotechnical, structural, mechanical, transportation, and environmental engineering, particularly in the design and delivery of large-diameter tunnels in urban environments.
- Considers construction logistics, related to geotechnical investigation, construction working sites, disruption to traffic flow during construction for material flow and discharge of the excavated tunnel spoil.
- Provides a comprehensive, publicly available assessment of geological, hydrological, and environmental conditions, with scenario comparisons including elevated highways, HOV lanes, Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), and rail alternatives.
- Includes a full cost-benefit analysis, with transparent accounting of capital, operational, and lifecycle costs, as well as potential impacts on carbon emissions and transportation mode shifts.
- Evaluates public safety, emergency preparedness, and long-term maintenance, given the risks associated with tunneling beneath an active and heavily trafficked highway, and the additional hazards and challenges presented by an emergency in a tunnel.
- Considers climate resilience and equity, ensuring that the design addresses flood risks, air quality, and access across communities.
- Engages all stakeholders, including engineers, municipalities, planners, Indigenous communities, and residents, to ensure that any proposed solution reflects the needs and priorities of all Ontarians.
Finally, while we commend the government’s willingness to explore bold solutions, we emphasize that alternatives such as evaluating alternative underground alignments, expanding rail corridors, integrating regional transit networks, and revisiting underutilized infrastructure (e.g., Highway 407) may offer cost-effective, lower-risk options that align with long-term transportation and sustainability goals.
We remain committed to contributing our collective expertise and stand ready to advise the government in a collaborative and transparent manner.
Signed,
Ontario Society of Professional Engineers (OSPE)
Tunnelling Association of Canada (TAC)
Comments (14)
Nicely done! My sentiments exactly. No off-the-cuff government decisions without sound analyses. I would also like to see comprehensive cost / benefit analyses of alternatives made public and open to public inquiry led by experts.
I concur with the recommendations in this document
MKO
Very good statement. What about some input from Elon Musk with his BORING Company?https://www.boringcompany.com/
I support the opinions and concerns within the document here presented.
Thanks for allowing my participation.
I believe this tunnel will cost more then estimated and take longer to build. This will affect the underground services and may create sink holes. best to provide an above ground 6 lane highway that goes around on the outskirts of Toronto and connects with all major intersections. this should be half the cost. or build a six lane above the existing highway. these alternatives should be considered along with their pros and cons. the above new highway would be for vehicles only and small trucks and big transport trucks will use the existing highway only.
Buying the 407 out of private ownership and minimizing or eliminating the tolls would be much cheaper, zero risk, have IMMEDIATE impact and give the current volumes of traffic that is is not moving an infinitely more effective way to move people through and around Toronto.
Also, not being a resident of Toronto I have ZERO interest in seeing my tax dollars spent on another stupid Tornoto boondoggle. Just look at the Eglington corridor LRT as an example of the type of this that will go wrong trying to dig a tunnel under the 401.
DUMBEST IDEA dreamed up on a whim by someone who has NO clue the implications.
For all Ontarians, we need to be more forceful in the objections to this rediculous idea and offer sound and realistic options that make sense for today and not 30 years and Billions of dollars from now.
To paraphrase Nakita Kruschev: Engineers are the same all over. They promise to design tunnels where there are no holes.
This seems like a bit of a self-serving statement.
It is very obvious to a thinking person ( especially engineers) that this project is totally not feasible considering cost and logistics. We can do better for Toronto and Ontario. We could also learn from the Boston debacle. The world is burning up, people are insecure with food and housing. We need to focus on people and what really matters. Don’t let the government spend a penny of this insidious project. Our Iron Ring Oath we all took, should mean something.
I can’t believe that the Ontario government is wasting money on a feasibility study of this tunnel project. The money would be better spent on an analysis of alternative options including purchasing the 407 back, an elevated highway above the 401. transit options, etc. I don’t know any engineers who think tunnelling underneath the 401 is a cost effective solution.
Bob Domoney, BASC, P.Eng.
Need to see the 7.4 km Scarborough Subway Extension, SSE, it’s budget would be highly above the proposed…10m per day production is getting inconsistently. All projects are good when we have manpower and technologies with transparency
I agree there is a need for a
study that looks at defining the problem with a look at possible options that could fix the problem soon ie in 5 years like buying the 407 toll road that maybe be implemented asap
The tunnel option likely 750 billion maybe more
I toured the big dig in Boston when it was being constructed.…it started as a pipe dream at 2 billion and ended up over 32 billion
The 407 purchase would be around 50 million and the Province owns the lands!!!!
I suggest Premier Ford needs to look hard and long as to whether a tunnel feasibility study should move forward a better option is only a stone throw away its buying back a road with few cars and could reduce congestion immediately
Thank you for this erudite and focused statement. Although I live in the GTA, I agree that it is grossly unfair for Ontario taxpayers to pay for a project that will benefit only those travelling through the GTA.
Besides buying the 407, another option is to subsidize trucks that use the 407, so that the toll is at a reasonable level, for example, similar to the cost trucks pay for using the Interstate Highways in the United States. That would ease much of the congestion on the 401, and be much cheaper than building tunnels (and benefit the environment due to the decrease in emissions from those same trucks standing still on the 401).
The 407 is a lesson that 100-year leases on public assets do not offer a benefit to the public.
How about moving some of the government offices from Queen’s Park out to the GTA or beyond?
Congestion is a consequence of super-concentrated urban density. Let’s fix the root cause, not the symptom!
This is a rather wordy expression of what steps need to be followed. A concept was presented. Now the step is a prefeasibility study to look at how this may be constructed and at what cost and in frame. f the concept is still an acceptable option then you move on to a feasiblity study. Not sure what all the fuss is about other than people opposed making their voice heard. In the city of Santiago Chile in the late 1990’s there was a problem with traffic movement into and out of the city core. the streets followed the river course. The temporary solution was to make streets one way into the city in the morning and one way out in the evening. Then they came up with what I considered a novel solution expanding the capacity of the street by tunnelling under the river. No need to exprpropriate beautiful property and they got the traffic moving.
Leave a Comment