I really just think this line is a slap in the face to transit riders who are desperate for any new line.
To me, this sentiment really does underscore the scale and harm of the GTA infrastructure deficit and the pervasiveness of that unfortunate reality into many aspects of the regional transit debate; in some ways the express-vs-local aspect of the UPX debate is set up as false choice, because we shouldn't have to choose -- to me, three levels of government should be partnering (or at least supporting and/or not standing in the way of) all of the following:
1. The continuation of an express UPX service using non-GO rolling stock without adding new local stations;
2. The continuation of electrified GO RER with an added significant TOD component at every station where both the surrounding context and resulting network-effect demand can withhold it;
3. In concert with the above, an actually-serious MX-led effort to fix the last-mile solution at major GO stations;
4. An expedited build-out of all of the Toronto-area priority rapid transit projects (scaled back to exclude silly and expensive shit like burying the Eglinton West LRT), plus the Waterfront LRT;
5. A robust dedicated BRT lane implementation strategy for all Toronto bus routes that currently carry more than 20,000 riders per day;
6. A robust dedicated streetcar priority (via grade separation or King St.-esque solution) implementation strategy for some or all of the College, Dundas, Broadview, and Bathurst streetcars;
Many would dismiss the above as unfeasible because of the scale of the cost, which itself again speaks more to the chronic misalignment of mobility-related priorities- and resource-setting that plagues the region than to the inherent practicality of it. (Again, take London for example, which despite already having one of the most robust rail systems in the world is currently wrapping up construction of the CAD $31 billion Elizabeth Line).
But when you break it down, the 6 priorities listed above are in no way out of the realm of financial feasibility: #1 is a continuation of existing service; #2 is a continuation of an existing, largely funded, plan; #3 largely depends on what appropriate last-mile solutions are in each case, but there are many different possible orders of magnitude; #4 is largely funded, and the savings from scaling back some of the projects (and with re-diverting SmartTrack monies) could pay for much of #s 5 and 6.
It's all about prioritization.