Mobility means more than driving

Toronto Mayor John Tory didn’t create the mess that is transit planning in this city, but he has certainly contributed his fair share.

The point was remade recently when His Worship revealed that his “hybrid” proposal for the Gardiner Expressway — the one he promoted so vigorously earlier this year — is now an actual fleshedout proposal.

When city council approved it last June — by a narrow 24-21 margin — members didn’t know what they were voting for. All they really knew was that the scheme, however vague, didn’t involve tearing down the eastern portion of the elevated highway, but reconfiguring it somehow and keeping the raised connection to the Don Valley Parkway.

“This was a vote to keep congestion under control,” Tory explained at the time, “and to ensure our residents can get to work and home to their families in a reasonable time.”

Interesting use of language, that. Note how the mayor equates keeping the Gardiner standing with “families.” Presumably, to treat the Gardiner differently — e.g., to take down a portion of it — would, therefore, be anti-family.

But if anything, the opposite is true. Still, Tory’s statement said much. To begin with, it made clear that in his mind — and in the minds of countless other Torontonians like him — there’s the car and then there’s everything else. Public transit’s all very well; so is walking and bicycling, though to a much lesser extent.

In the end though, the car is king and Tory its grand vizier.

He’s right; the overwhelming majority of rides in the Greater Toronto Area are by car. However, as we are fast finding out, the automobile has taken us as far as it can. We need alternatives. That’s where bikes, boats, trains, taxis and transit and even pedestrians come into the picture.

The more they’re encouraged, the fewer vehicles there will be on the roads, the more space for cars.

But Tory has failed to understand that the big issue is mobility, which means more than simply facilitating the car. As easy and politically attractive as pandering to drivers may be, it is lazy and ultimately irresponsible to pretend their dominance can last forever.

Even the local development industry — typically far to the right of Ivan the Terrible — has urged the city to tear down the 1.7-kilometre stretch of the Gardiner and allow tens of acres to be opened up for revitalization.

But no, official Toronto is persuaded that the city can’t afford to be bold, even though, as a wistful Tory once noted, “It is nice to talk about tearing down expressways.”

The only argument against such an option is that it would inconvenience drivers. When last mentioned, the cost of Tory’s hybrid option was $919 million, double the price of removal. That’s why, on balance, growth would benefit the city more than the continuation of a broken model.

So when Tory asked councillors to accept the doctrine of vehicular primacy last June, it was as an article of faith. That’s not a hard sell in these parts, but the experience of other cities shows that the biggest gains in mobility are to be made without the automobile. It means those same alternatives that Toronto has steadfastly refused to take seriously.

Even so, the hybrid barely made it through council intact. But the fact it was approved despite the lack of detail is a reminder that when it comes to the religion of the automobile, Toronto has yet to undergo its Reformation. Separating church and state will take time, but it’s coming. Christopher Hume can be reached at chume@thestar.ca.