The leaders’ unwavering support as they stood side by side at a Queen’s Park news conference Wednesday morning, has drawn criticism that the subway plan — which will cost at least $2 billion more than the light-rail alternative — is a political gambit not based on sound planning policy.

“My support for this was predicated on the notion that I think people want to see us move ahead and actually do something,” Tory said after meeting with Wynne to discuss various city issues.

When asked whether the public can be confident when earlier justification for the subway was based on analysis deemed “problematic” by the city’s top planner, Tory said all three governments have already made their decision — one he called “carefully considered.”

Wrong on so many levels — it’s hard to imagine any policy undertaken at Toronto city hall worse than councillors’ feckless approval of a Scarborough subway extension.

Even so, conventional wisdom holds that this is a done deal. Mayor John Tory (open John Tory's policard) has publicly declared: “My work plan has Scarborough subway No. 1.” Premier Kathleen Wynne’s government is committed to the underground route. And most city councillors appear to have little appetite for re-opening debate on the issue. Shame on them all.

In a pair of exclusive stories, the Star’s Jennifer Pagliaro has revealed new details about the mess that is the Scarborough subway, underlining how it should never have been allowed to happen in the first place. Given what’s at stake, there’s every reason to change course and fix this mistake.

Toronto’s chief planner says an analysis given to councillors in 2013 that was used to justify a subway in Scarborough — a decision that will cost the city more than $2 billion — was “problematic.”

Jennifer Keesmaat, in a Friday interview with the Star, described a “very, very chaotic” and “sub-optimal” process as city staff scrambled in summer 2013 to produce a report that would provide some background for council’s decision to scrap plans for a fully funded LRT in favour of the far costlier subway.

Of crucial importance was the projected ridership number presented in that report — considerably higher than the TTC’s figure — wielded by pro-subway councillors to justify tunnelling, a number Keesmaat says is now “irrelevant.”

“Should there have been an extensive due-diligence process before those numbers were quoted and used publicly? Yes. Was there? No,” Keesmaat said.

“If the objective here is to parse the planning analysis that was on the floor of council as being problematic, I would like to suggest: Yes. We didn’t go through a fulsome process. We were not given the opportunity to go through a fulsome process. We were not expected to go through a fulsome process because it was a politically driven process.”