Transit decisions must remain local
As we grow, we have been grasping at straws in our attempt to alleviate congestion. We are plagued by chronic infrastructure underfunding and the land use planning mistakes of decades past. But just as we begin to turn the corner on this historic malaise, the Toronto Region Board of Trade seeks to plunge us into a massive transit amalgamation process.
Reminiscent of arguments made two decades ago touting the efficacy of the megacity, the board sees magical solutions for revenue shortages, better planning, superior service levels and the adoption of modern technologies through the creation of a mega transit corporation, Superlinx.
Like Toronto’s municipal amalgamation 20 years ago, total transit amalgamation threatens to be a cure worse than the disease. It’s a solution that misses the mark on most of the problems it identifies, while overlooking other critical realities of city building. The board identifies fare integration and municipal border issues, but these are being addressed through the capabilities of the Presto card. And lumping together regional transit operations ignores our region’s most basic land-use reality — this region isn’t designed to accommodate transit.
The intersection between land use and transit is an area where regional authorities fail — and it is the biggest challenge we currently need to fix. While the city is far from perfect in leveraging the city building potential of its TTC stations, they stand in stark contrast to the regional GO stations designed as desolate wastelands with almost no connection to the urban fabric. Current strategies for future GO stations show little improvement.
Indeed, local sensitivities to social need, public realm, economic vitality and the broader mobility matrix of walking, cycling and evolving “last mile” technologies are core reasons for keeping local transit governance local. These detailed and nuanced considerations were at the heart of the city’s multi-year Feeling Congested consultation process that, combined with other land-use planning strategies, has produced the most integrated transit and land-use policies of any city in North America.
The economic importance of inter-regional transit is well understood, but the facts show that transit is overwhelmingly a local service. Regional and local transit are entirely different creatures — a point missed by the board’s recommendation. Regional transit interests put a premium on longer distance commuting. In doing so, they often compete with local interests that put a premium on access and connectivity. A good example of this was the design of the Eglinton Crosstown and the Davenport Diamond: Metrolinx was preoccupied with the speed of the journey, whereas Toronto planners were concerned with neighbourhood access.
If another key goal is to deliver higher density development around transit stations, let’s not dive into the distraction of amalgamating the operations of 11 transit services. Let’s focus on development, perhaps by expanding the mandate of Metrolinx and the TTC to include asset redevelopment.
During my tenure as chief planner, I had multiple meetings with Mayor Tory about redevelopment of transit stations — in particular Davisville — and stressed that an agency to drive forward such redevelopment needs to be put in place or it simply won’t happen. While the mayor is an advocate of such an approach, no mechanism yet exists.
On transit funding, the Board of Trade identifies “a long list of unfunded transit priorities” as the driver for amalgamation. Ignoring the real need for new, dedicated revenue sources (once at the core of the board’s policy work), the report overlooks that amalgamations always drive up costs. This was the experience of the Toronto amalgamation that saw its operating costs jump18 per cent in a single year. If funding is the primary challenge, then let’s build consensus around new funding models instead of creating a costly new bureaucracy.
We should also be deeply concerned about service levels, the other proven downside of amalgamations. Rarely do service levels rise to meet the highest level — rather they are pressured downward. This is especially troubling as Toronto currently represents over 80 per cent of the region’s ridership.
On the eve of a double election year, let’s embrace thoughtful options to deliver transit better — options that emerge from due diligence and robust public discourse.
Now is not the time for desperation — or magical thinking. It is a time for steady leadership and renewed investment, not greater expense. Abandoning course could take us fundamentally off course — and create another transit mess that another generation will be left to untangle.