A cache of internal documents is providing a rare glimpse into the planning process at Metrolinx, the bureaucratic provincial agency that wields considerable power over public transit in the GTHA — and could soon be granted influence over the TTC subway system by the Ontario Progressive Conservative government.

The documents show Metrolinx officials internally raised significant concerns about GO Transit stations the agency ended up recommending, and some of the selected stops fared worse in earlier versions of Metrolinx’s analysis than the final version it later made public.

They also show that as Metrolinx drafted and redrafted its final report, the agency removed statements that could cast its station program in a negative light.

The documents, obtained by the Star through a freedom of information request, are drafts of a report Metrolinx published in February 2018 about where to build new GO Transit stations as part of a $16.8-billion expansion of the regional rail service, the agency’s most expensive project.

The final version of the report Metrolinx presented to the public and its board last year was a tidy 85-page document that contained few technical details about the 17 proposed stations the agency studied and largely reaffirmed initial recommendations the organization made in 2016 about where to put new stops.

Although there is no evidence of the kind of direct political interference that marred earlier stages of the GO station program, the drafts show how Metrolinx massaged its analysis over time and reveal candid internal criticism of station plans that hasn’t previously been aired in public.

Read more:

Metrolinx pressured to approve GO station in minister’s riding

What is the Kirby GO station and why did it get approved?

Del Duca attempted to win approval for two more GO stations that were rejected by Metrolinx

The agency says what the documents display is merely the normal process of a complex report undergoing multiple revisions in order to ensure it’s accurate and easily legible to the public.

“Most planning documents undergo an internal development process that includes multiple iterations of review with a wide variety of inputs, content and perspectives,” said Josh Engel-Yan, principal sponsor at Metrolinx.

“It is normal for the format and content of a document to evolve in the lead-up to production. This includes collecting and assembling information from multiple subject matter experts and reviewing content for completeness, errors, omissions and clarity.”

The agency says it did not sanitize the reports or manipulate the analysis to make stations appear better performing than the data showed.

More than a year after the report was published, the fate of the GO station program is now up in the air after Metrolinx decided not to procure the stops directly. Instead, it’s pursuing an untested policy backed by the Ontario Progressive Conservative government to enlist the private sector to build new stations in return for development rights near transit.

But the insight provided by the draft documents remains relevant. How Metrolinx carries out its planning work, and what information it shares with the public is set to become even more important in coming years, as Metrolinx is expected take stewardship of the TTC subway system and new Toronto transit projects if Premier Doug Ford’s government executes its plan to “upload” the city-owned network to Queen’s Park.

Lawrence station ‘compromised’

The first round of GO station reports on initial business cases that Metrolinx released in 2016 determined that building the Lawrence stop in Scarborough would be “contingent” on removing the TTC’s Scarborough RT line.

That’s because Lawrence station, which is part of Mayor John Tory’s SmartTrack plan, would be built on the same narrow rail corridor where the RT operates, and would replace the existing Lawrence stop on the Scarborough RT.

Having to remove the RT to build the GO stop risked a political headache for Tory. He had promised to complete SmartTrack stations by the “early 2020s,” but also backed a plan to keep the RT running until a one-stop Scarborough subway extension was operational, which at the time was scheduled for sometime around 2026.

The updated report Metrolinx released on Feb. 26, 2018, which was a second round of analysis called a preliminary design business case, seemed to offer a solution. It said the RT stop didn’t need to be demolished to build the GO stop, and the new station could be designed “to accommodate continued operations” of the RT.

But less than three weeks before that version of the report was made public, a Metrolinx official working on the new stations recommended against that strategy.

In a draft version of the station analysis dated Feb. 6, the person, whom Metrolinx told the Star it couldn’t identify, wrote that the design of the Lawrence GO stop would be “compromised” by having to accommodate the RT.

The person wrote that the new Lawrence station was a “great idea” but should be delayed. Their recommendation: “wait a few years — build a better/cheaper station after subway is open and SRT can close!”

That proposal didn’t make it into the final version of the report, and Metrolinx recommended the Lawrence stop be built before the RT was decommissioned.

The agency says it’s confident it can construct the station while the RT is still running, although it will be a more complex project.

‘YIKES!!!’

The draft reports reveal conflicting beliefs at Metrolinx about the role that politics should play in transit planning.

Earlier versions included a section that outlined considerations in addition to its data-driven transit analysis the agency would take into account when recommending new stations.

One of the considerations listed in earlier drafts was “political ... expectations.” The line survived several versions, but the tracked changes in a version dated Feb. 5, 2018 show a Metrolinx official, whom the agency said was likely Brian Gallaugher, senior manager of project planning and development, struck out the references to “political” considerations and commented with notes in all caps: “YIKES!!!” and “OMG!!!”

While Metrolinx is open about the fact it takes transportation policies developed by the province and municipal governments into account when it studies new projects, it says political interests are not a factor in its analysis.

However, the alarm conveyed in the all-caps “YIKES!!” was justified. In the past, the agency has faced criticism for allowing political considerations to unduly influence its planning process.

In 2016, then transportation minister for the Ontario Liberals Steven Del Duca intervened to ensure the agency changed its advice to its board in order to recommend a new GO station called Kirby in his riding, as well as the Lawrence East SmartTrack station. An analysis commissioned by Metrolinx had determined the two stops shouldn’t be considered for at least another decade.

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

In December 2018, the Ontario auditor general concluded Metrolinx “undermined its own decision-making process and inappropriately changed its recommendations” on the two stations.

Last-minute improvements

Metrolinx began its second round of analysis around September 2017. Roughly five months into that process and just 10 days before the agency made its final report public last year, draft versions showed two important stations had negative results.

In a draft dated Feb. 16, 2018, the proposed stations of Bloor-Lansdowne and St. Clair-Old Weston both had a cost-benefit ratio that was less than zero.

The cost-benefit ratio, which is calculated by dividing the economic value of a project’s societal and transportation benefits (which can include such things as travel time saved and number of cars taken off the road) by its costs, is a key part of Metrolinx’s analysis. A project must have a ratio of equal to or greater than one to be considered economically viable, according to Metrolinx guidelines.

Metrolinx’s decision on both stations would be closely watched. St. Clair-Old Weston is part of Tory’s SmartTrack proposal, while Bloor-Lansdowne would improve transit access in the “Davenport Diamond” community where Metrolinx’s plan to build an elevated track for use by GO and freight trains has angered many residents.

Ten days after the draft stated the cost-benefit ratios for both Bloor-Lansdowne and St. Clair-Old Weston were negative, the public version of the report recorded the ratios as positive, although still less than 1, and recommended both stations be pursued.

Metrolinx explained the switch by telling the Star it’s not unusual for business cases to change as they’re reviewed for completeness or errors. In the case of St. Clair-Old Weston, the agency told the Star the earlier analysis that showed its cost-benefit ratio was negative contained an error caused by someone inputting incorrect numbers.

The notes in the Feb. 6 draft report that raised concerns about the “compromised” design of Lawrence station also flagged potential issues with Bloor-Lansdowne and St. Clair-Old Weston.

They stated the proposed Bloor-Lansdowne station on GO’s Barrie line would be “(very) close” to the existing GO station on the Kitchener line at Bloor St. and Dundas St. W., only about 360 metres to the west.

And while the Bloor-Lansdowne station would provide a connection to the TTC subway for GO’s Barrie line passengers, that line is already connected to the subway network further north at Downsview Park and “people on Barrie could just transfer at Downsview,” the notes said.

The notes also asserted the connection between the proposed Bloor-Lansdowne GO station and the Lansdowne TTC station was “not great” and Metrolinx’s model “overestimates” the number of riders it would attract, but stated the GO stop at Lansdowne had been “promised as part of” the Davenport Diamond project.

On St. Clair-Old Weston, the notes appeared to flag the expense of the station: “hard to get over the cost hump,” they said.

Metrolinx says it didn’t artificially boost the case for any stations as it prepared the 2018 report. It noted the second round of analysis reported the proposed Mulock station in Newmarket, which had fared well in the first round two years earlier, now fared worse.

Inconvenient information removed

Earlier versions of the report contained information and language that could have cast some of the stations in a negative light. Over months of revisions, much of that material was removed as the report was edited and streamlined.

Examples of negative material being excised from the final report include the decision to remove summaries of how the stations performed in the initial business cases conducted in 2016.

Including the summaries posed a potential problem for Metrolinx because three years ago the agency had recommended the Kirby and Lawrence stations even though the 2016 analysis determined they were among “low performing” stations that shouldn’t even be considered for another decade.

Alexandra Goldstein, a planning adviser at Metrolinx, appeared to point out the problem in a Nov. 16, 2017 draft. Tracked changes show she highlighted a section about the summaries and asked “How to explain Kirby and Lawrence (East)?”

The detailed summaries of the 2016 analysis were removed from the final report, which made no mention of the fact those two stations had initially been found to be low-performing. (The updated analysis, which was based on different planning assumptions, found they both performed much better and would benefit the GO network.)

In other cases negative-sounding language — like that in a Feb. 16, 2018 draft that said the proposed location for the SmartTrack at Finch station “falls well below the density target” and surrounding employment and population densities “do not meet targets for express rail” — was removed from the final version.

Similarly, a Feb. 14, 2018 draft said the proposed station at East Harbour had undergone “a complete redesign to integrate” with the massive commercial development planned at the site by First Gulf.

Tracked changes from the draft show someone at Metrolinx recommending the sentence be removed because it could “raise questions about public-private sector interface.” The line was deleted.

Ben Spurr is a Toronto-based reporter covering transportation. Reach him by email at bspurr@thestar.ca or follow him on Twitter: @BenSpurr

Read more about: