The question Torontonians should ask themselves is not, “How much transit can we afford?” but, “How much truth can we handle?”

The answer, it seems, is not much. A new report prepared for the Neptis Foundation by transportation consultant Michael Schabas of London-based FCP raises some timely but awkward issues about the regional transit agency, Metrolinx, and how it, the city and province have managed to make a total hash of transit planning in Toronto and the surrounding municipalities.

More at thestar.com:

Scarborough subway has ‘no real benefits,’ report author says

Royson James: Is Metrolinx killing our transit dreams?

More on transportation in the GTA

Schabas makes a number of excellent points, most of which we’ve heard before. His discussions of everything from the Scarborough subway (thumbs down) to ticketing (we’re way behind) are unassailable.

His argument for substituting an existing GO line for the downtown relief line is eminently sensible, and the case for electrifying GO and turning it into an all-day 15-minute service will be music to any commuter’s ears.

His rejection of the Eglinton Crosstown (“speed of a streetcar, at costs . . . not much less than a full subway”) and the Finch and Sheppard LRTs (“fashion accessories”) is painful, but appropriate.

“Metrolinx’s main priority,” Schabas writes, “should be upgrading the GO Rail system into a ‘regional metro,’ with frequent, fast, all-day services that would attract suburb-to-suburb, contra-peak and off-peak trips and support the development of higher-density development nodes throughout the region. This is to be the “backbone” of the regional transit system. It is the only scheme that can make a major impact on inter-regional traffic. Without it, the effectiveness of all other investments will be greatly reduced.”

Who could argue? But the fact we have failed to implement such a system says everything one needs to know about transit in the GTA. The real issue is the planning process itself. Metrolinx, which was to have provided apolitical, evidence-based leadership, has ended up a pawn in the hands of politicians — provincial, municipal and even federal.

In these parts, transit is fair game for any politico looking for votes. The obvious example, the Scarborough subway, caused the sort of flip-flopping not often seen outside Cirque du Soleil. Before Scarborough there was Sheppard, the subway to nowhere, and before that, the University line, which should have been built farther west.

But the distance between where transit is justifiable and where it captures the most votes can be considerable. The result is that we have transit that more often meets the needs of politicians than commuters.

And so the question we face is how these decisions should be made. The traditional assumption that all transit is OK, that location doesn’t really matter because ultimately it will lead to the intensification that will enable it to cover operating costs, however partially, is patently false. There are still stretches of the original 60-year-old Yonge line that have resisted development, let alone the Bloor and Spadina lines. Our failure to co-ordinate transit and zoning has been all but complete at this point.

But Metrolinx’s inability to achieve independence has not inspired public confidence. Schabas’ reality check will further undermine that trust.

At the same time, work underway must continue, simply because to stop would be so great an admission of failure it could undermine what little confidence remains in our very ability to govern ourselves. To cancel, say, Eglinton a second time would be catastrophic. To adopt new technology, even at this late stage, would not.

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

To burden taxpayers with transit that will never come close to paying its way, even when they think it’s what they want, is wrong.

Christopher Hume can be reached at chume@thestar.ca

Read more about: