Have we reached the death knell for evidence-based planning in Toronto?

The question arises from recent reports in the Star that Metrolinx was pressed by the Ontario Ministry of Transportation to approve two new GO stations, one in the minister’s own riding. This despite technical evidence that the stations will not provide value for money.

This is just the latest example in a long litany of recent cases where political expedience has mingled uncomfortably with evidence-based planning in the selection of transportation mega-projects costing billions of dollars of public funds.

It wasn’t supposed to be this way.

The textbook model for evidence-based planning in infrastructure is deceptively simple. Politicians, as the voice of the citizenry in a democracy, set the high-level policy priorities and objectives for an infrastructure project, informed by community input.

Then the independent civil service and their hired consultants undertake impartial analysis of the proposal to assess whether the benefits of the project outweigh the costs. In these multi-criteria studies, the financial, environmental, social and user benefits and costs are all estimated and evaluated.

Following study completion, the politicians are supposed to review the results and consult further, and then approve the projects that best meet the policy objectives at the lowest cost based on the evidence provided.

The lure of evidence-based planning is that it is meant to support the rational, transparent and efficient allocation of scarce resources.

Knowledge informs action, the thinking goes, and so more knowledge will lead to better decisions.

All of this is supposed to guard against politically motivated boondoggles.

Over the past decade, the Toronto planning establishment has seemingly embraced the mantra of evidence-based planning for large infrastructure projects, especially in the transportation sector.

Business cases containing cost-benefit studies are now standard practice. And Metrolinx was created as an organization that is arm’s length from the province to avoid political interference in project evaluation and approval.

All of this makes sense in theory. However, in practice, it is hopelessly naïve. To think that planning is a rational exercise separate from politics is itself irrational. In recent years we have seen many ways that evidence-based planning can be misused and abused.

Decision-makers can disregard the evidence collected when it contradicts their views and politically favoured alternative.

The findings of technical studies that challenge the preferred option can be contested as incomplete or wrong.

Pressure can be exerted on the analysts and civil servants conducting the evidence-based studies to skew the results towards a favoured option.

The results of a technical study can be reported without sufficient context, so that it is not clear if the benefits of one project outweigh spending the money on other more worthy projects.

Finally, decision-makers can brashly marshal support for projects based on claims of fulfilling the “will of the people” in the absence of any evidence.

It is bad enough that public money is being spent on wasteful mega-projects. But the studies themselves are costing millions of dollars, which is wasted if the reports are not being used to inform decisions.

So, what to do? At the very least, all of the technical studies that form the evidence base for a mega-project should be publicly available for review and scrutiny at the time the approval decision is made. An expert panel could also be struck to provide a peer review of the quality of evidence in the business cases produced.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

Prof. Bent Flyvbjerg at Oxford University has a more radical solution: make it a criminal offence to knowingly manipulate the technical studies analyzing the merits of a mega-project. This may sound harsh, but these studies are being used to justify decisions that will have financial and planning implications for generations to come.

Short of a radical intervention, evidence-based planning in Toronto is dead. Long live evidence-based planning.

Matti Siemiatycki is associate professor of geography and planning at the University of Toronto and Canada research chair in infrastructure planning and finance.

Read more about: