Public transit not for the poor, Mayor Tory: Hume

Though there are undoubtedly some who think Toronto Mayor John Tory’s trip to London was just another taxpayer-funded freebee — Rob Ford where are you? — in fact, he and other local politicians need to get out a whole lot more.

But they also need to pay attention to what they see, not simply go searching for justification for their pet projects and grand schemes.

Word is that His Worship was mightily impressed by what he saw of transit in the British capital. Touring the $30-billion Crossrail line now under construction, the mayor was agog, his eyes lit up with visions of what his own SmartTrack scheme could be.

No one would begrudge the chief magistrate his fantasies, but there’s more to transit in London than tunnels, high-speed trains, Oyster cards and new subway lines. To begin with, though more than 50 companies, mostly private, provide transit in Greater London, the system is held together by an overarching agency that controls everything related to mobility. That includes roads, bicycle lanes, London’s controversial congestion fee as well as walking and licensing taxis.

Founded in 2000, Transport for London has succeeded for two reasons: first, its mandate is mobility, not simply transit, and, second, its starting point is the passenger. “The whole ethic of the TfL is built around passengers,” explains its creator, David Quarmby. “It eliminates the squabbling; the results have been spectacular.”

In Toronto, where squabbling hasn’t been eliminated, the results have been less than spectacular. The city has not managed, intellectually or politically, to grasp the notion that there are many ways of getting around and that each one plays a role. In Toronto, there is the car and then there’s everything else.

Public transit, the mayor has stated, is for those “who can’t afford a car.” That helps accounts for the assumption that we cannot afford it. We’re happy to spend billions accommodating drivers, but wring our hands when it comes to funding the TTC. Accommodating drivers is seen as an investment in the economy. It’s about moving goods, services and people, keeping the wheels of commerce turning over. Transit, on the other hand, is a drag on the economy, less an investment than an expenditure.

How interesting that while the mayor was oohing and aahing in London, Waterfront Toronto released figures about bike traffic on the newly reconfigured Queens Quay. Despite initial confusion about how to navigate the city’s first multi-modal street, things seem to sorting themselves out. As many as 600 cyclists an hour are now using the Queens Quay bike lanes, an increase of well over 1,000 per cent. And yet Toronto remains reluctant about installing new lanes throughout the city. When it does, most recently on Adelaide and Richmond, the results are positive.

This reluctance can only be justified on the basis that bikes get in the way of cars. From the broader perspective of urban mobility, however, two-wheeled transit makes enormous sense. Indeed, it appears bikes are one of the best ways to get people out their vehicles, thus easing congestion.

In London, Mayor Boris Johnson, who has made the bicycle a big part of his political persona, talks enthusiastically about his plan for a 29-kilometre segregated bike lane running directly through the centre of that city. This is as much a part of London’s transit strategy as any new commuter line.

It helps, of course, that riding buses and bikes in London is less an issue of socio-economic status than in Toronto. Tory’s comment equating transit with poverty make that clear. But as traffic conditions worsen, that will change. Even the rich may just have to adjust to chauffeur-driven bicycles built for two.