Once again, Toronto finds itself at a crossroad. As the civic election has made clear, some want Toronto to become a fully engaged 21st century metropolis; others would prefer it remained the little city that grew. Old Toronto versus New Toronto — that is the subtext to the campaign now being waged. The issue takes many forms — transit, taxes and governance — but one way or another, it boils down not just to a question of where we’re headed as a city, but whether we even want to be a city. With its green roofs, bicycle lanes and expanded public transit, New Toronto is an attempt, admittedly clumsy, to enlist the forces of urbanity — proximity, density and variety — in the fight against the great crisis of the age, climate change. Old Toronto, full of fear and loathing, views such concerns as bogus and would rather carry on regardless. Although differences between the two Torontos go beyond the car, the role of the automobile in cities lies at the heart of these opposing visions.

Article Continued Below

Now we’re being asked to leave our cars at home and share the road with bicycles and pedestrians. Some are even suggesting road tolls and congestion fees. Given the unfolding disaster of global warming, this makes sense. Some say it’s the least we can do. Besides, at a certain point, driving becomes counterproductive as a means of mass transportation. There can simply be too many cars on the roads. But not all Canadians, let alone Torontonians, agree. Just ask leading mayoral contender Rob Ford; they are prepared to fight tooth and nail to maintain the disappearing status quo.

And so, depending on whether you’re in front or behind, streetcars are either in the way or on the way. They are the road to a brighter future or a lumbering obstacle from the past. In fact, the outgoing civic regime has introduced many changes that mayoral wannabes would undo if they could. They would stop the institutionalization of progress and restore Toronto to some imagined past when the car was king and the milkman arrived every morning on cue. They should remember, the past is a foreign country. We don’t live there any more. That’s why their promises to cancel Transit City and replace the plan’s LRTs with subways is another way of saying streets are for cars.

Article Continued Below

But if Ford’s popularity is based on anything, it’s not transit so much as his promise to end the waste at city hall, to stop what he likes to call the gravy train. The city is broke, he declares at every opportunity, and though there are many things we would like, we can’t afford them. Again, the subtext says something different. Reading between the lines, it’s clear the argument that the city is too poor to afford new programs pretty well eliminates the sort of inconvenient changes Torontonians fear, everything from green roofs and environmental measures to, well, bike lanes, plastic bag charges and vehicle registration fees. George Smitherman likes to say that Toronto faces “a time of sacrifice.” He may be right, but we are not alone. So does the rest of the planet. We are a microcosm; our reluctance to rise to the challenges is not unique to us. If we were capable of rational behaviour; the environmental crisis would never have happened in the first place. Even though it’s not all our fault, it’s still not fun to watch Torontonians using the municipal election as an occasion to stick their collective head into the proverbial sand. Christopher Hume can be reached at chume@thestar.ca