News   May 01, 2024
 1K     1 
News   May 01, 2024
 301     0 
News   May 01, 2024
 349     0 

Chief Planner Jennifer Keesmaat to leave City of Toronto

City Planning was and is ridiculously understaffed. They have to meet the planning demands of a rapidly developing city, in addition to transit planning.

If Council won't fund City Planning Department, then maybe it is better for it to return to TTC. Hopefully in a manner where TTC reports transit expansions to council rather than council direct TTC on what transit expansions to study.
 
City Planning was and is ridiculously understaffed. They have to meet the planning demands of a rapidly developing city, in addition to transit planning.

If Council won't fund City Planning Department, then maybe it is better for it to return to TTC. Hopefully in a manner where TTC reports transit expansions to council rather than council direct TTC on what transit expansions to study.
thats the way it should be
 
Steve Munro has a piece on Waterfront transit.
Waterfront Transit Reset Phase 2 Update
One comment is not too flattering of Keesmaat.
Comment:

I've gained a lot of respect for City Planning, seeing how well they've handled transit planning over the past few years. They've really injected a breath of fresh air into the process. However, their Waterfront proposals (the Union connection, specifically) are utterly bizarre. I suspect the bean counters are forcing City Planning to promote such poor options as a cost saving measure (as Steve Munro suggests), or City Planning is proposing these poor options to say they tried to find a cheaper solution, but that the loop remains the only viable option.

I wonder if this has anything to do with Keesmaat's early departure.
 
Steve Munro has a piece on Waterfront transit.
Waterfront Transit Reset Phase 2 Update
One comment is not too flattering of Keesmaat.
Comment:

City Planning was and is ridiculously understaffed. They have to meet the planning demands of a rapidly developing city, in addition to transit planning.

If Council won't fund City Planning Department, then maybe it is better for it to return to TTC. Hopefully in a manner where TTC reports transit expansions to council rather than council direct TTC on what transit expansions to study.

How did City Planning end up responsible for transit planning anyways?
 
Amalgamation.

It took roughly a decade before City Planning took over from the TTC, but city staff intended for City Planning to take over transit planning immediately post-amalgamation.
I was going to say that Byford appeared too close to Ford, so they moved planning to a less Ford friendly department. It seemed reasonable, after all, the past 5 or 6 years have all been about stopping Ford - with little regard for transit.
 
I was going to say that Byford appeared too close to Ford, so they moved planning to a less Ford friendly department. It seemed reasonable, after all, the past 5 or 6 years have all been about stopping Ford - with little regard for transit.
It was due to massive cost overruns and the Spadina Extension going so wildly over budget was the straw that broke the camel's back.

Many articles on-line, but this one covers it very well:
https://stevemunro.ca/category/transit/a-grand-plan/subways/spadina-subway/

Here's the camel's back breaking, albeit these two were fall guys for an institution beyond competence, much of it due to political interference:
http://nationalpost.com/news/toront...er-budget-spadina-subway-fired-by-andy-byford
 
Last edited:
Amalgamation is far from it. The first transit planning project City Planning took on was the Scarborough subway. Previous to that it was all handled by the TTC.

It was a Keesmaat request as far as I know. The idea behind it was that the TTC plans too much with an operational focus - while City Planning would think more holistically about it. For the Scarborough Subway, the TTC would likely have planned a large, single level, above grade bus terminal that maximized operational efficiency. City Planning sees that they want to create a downtown environment around the station, and then plans to put the terminal below ground to allow for that.
 
Amalgamation is far from it. The first transit planning project City Planning took on was the Scarborough subway. Previous to that it was all handled by the TTC.

It was a Keesmaat request as far as I know. The idea behind it was that the TTC plans too much with an operational focus - while City Planning would think more holistically about it. For the Scarborough Subway, the TTC would likely have planned a large, single level, above grade bus terminal that maximized operational efficiency. City Planning sees that they want to create a downtown environment around the station, and then plans to put the terminal below ground to allow for that.
That's about as well as I can find details to describe it. There might be a more definitive article that details the machinations, but Keesmaat *may* have recommended this, but she had zero power to make it happen. That lies completely with Council. For the stories I read before posting above, it was driven by Tory who was reported to be "livid" in at least two media reports.

At some point, someone is going to write a 'tell-all' on this. Keesmaat has hinted at events, but it needs to be from an ostensibly objective writer/investigative journalist, or it comes down to "he says, she says."

My thought on planning moving to City is "out of the pot and into the fire". A pox on both their crooked houses. Toronto is a case study of how planning can and does go wildly wrong.

It's not Houston, by any means (the Province ensures that's the case, for all their faults) but it's a heck long way from many European cities.
 
Amalgamation is far from it. The first transit planning project City Planning took on was the Scarborough subway. Previous to that it was all handled by the TTC.

It was a Keesmaat request as far as I know. The idea behind it was that the TTC plans too much with an operational focus - while City Planning would think more holistically about it. For the Scarborough Subway, the TTC would likely have planned a large, single level, above grade bus terminal that maximized operational efficiency. City Planning sees that they want to create a downtown environment around the station, and then plans to put the terminal below ground to allow for that.
To be clear, this was not a Keesmaat innovation.

Paul Bedford is the one who pioneered the idea of City Planning taking over transit planning from the TTC, for the same reasons Keesmaat has. A more holistic approach to city planning that incorporated transit planning.

I tried google searching but I can't really find sources confirming that, it may have been from a talk that Bedford gave. But my understanding is that he is the one who pushed for City Planning to take over the transit profile, there was just a time lag where existing projects at the time were still being done by TTC (like Spadina), until recent projects like Scarborough fell under Keesmaat's jurisdiction.
 
Paul Bedford is the one who pioneered the idea of City Planning taking over transit planning from the TTC, for the same reasons Keesmaat has. A more holistic approach to city planning that incorporated transit planning.

I tried google searching but I can't really find sources confirming that, it may have been from a talk that Bedford gave. But my understanding is that he is the one who pushed for City Planning to take over the transit profile, there was just a time lag where existing projects at the time were still being done by TTC (like Spadina), until recent projects like Scarborough fell under Keesmaat's jurisdiction.
It's an important point that will come up in the civic election. I too Googled briefly, fully expecting to get a clear answer, but couldn't find one, only events where patience snapped and what may have been in the works for some time was rammed into being through Council.

I'll search again later, time permitting, as Keesmaat herself may have had something to say on this. Her podcasts are goldmines of info, but of course, unless transcripted, won't show on a Google search.

The real concern about this point is that Keesmaat would have been the one to clear up the confusion and elucidate a clearer path forward had she decided to run for Mayor. In the event, the two least able to divulge the facts, and in fact make things worse are running, Tory and Ford.

Edit to Add: Another quick Google still not showing much, and not definitive but helpful is this:
What Toronto’s big transit plans are forgetting: The riders
Richard Gilbert
Special to The Globe and Mail
Published Thursday, Sep. 11, 2014 9:31AM EDT

Richard Gilbert is a Toronto-based consultant on energy and transportation. He served on the City of Toronto Planning Board from 1973 to 1976 and on the councils of the City of Toronto and Metropolitan Toronto from 1976-1991

Polls suggest that transit is the biggest issue in Toronto’s ongoing municipal election campaign. Among the main candidates for mayor, David Soknacki, former city budget chief, had the most comprehensive, fiscally responsible, and relevant transit platform. His withdrawal from the campaign for lack of poll support is a sad reflection on the state of municipal politics in Toronto.

The biggest problem with the proposals of the remaining three main candidates for mayor is their relative lack of attention to the current poor performance of the buses, streetcars and subway trains of the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC). Several transit systems in third-world countries provide users with a better experience than transit users have in Toronto, where crowding, decay, and daily indifference to the plight of users are endemic.

“Toronto needs improvements to transit now” are the key words in the TTC’s August, 2014, report “Opportunities to Improve Transit Service in Toronto.” It invites Toronto City to fund numerous improvements, notably a change in what a fare purchases: from a single ride by the most direct route to two hours’ unlimited used of the system.
[...]
The candidates are even more silent on another major transit issue: the lack of co-ordination between transit planning and land-use planning. The strongest example of Toronto’s remarkably inept co-ordination is the subway’s Spadina branch, installed more than 35 years ago and still with little development along this underused route. The Bloor-Danforth line, nearly 50 years old, is almost as bad as the Spadina branch in having too little associated development, as are most parts of streetcar routes.

The way to approach ideal loading of transit vehicles – when about three-quarters of seats are occupied for most of the day – is to have mixed residential and commercial development at and near every station and stop, substantial amounts of it in the case of rail routes. On average throughout the day, well under a quarter of transit seats are occupied, allowing scope for a doubling or more in the number of users. A doubling could raise annual fare revenue by more than $1-billion.

Transit planning today seems designed to serve users produced by previous development decisions. Giving transit’s overriding importance for Toronto, a better approach would be to guide development so that it results in the most efficient operation of transit.

Toronto’s chief planner, Jennifer Keesmaat, who has inherited much of the responsibility for poor planning co-ordination, has complained that in formulating their transit platforms the mayoralty candidates may be ignoring evidence and data and “scratching transit plans on the back of a napkin.”
[...]
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opi...tting-the-riders/article20531465/?arc404=true

Which emphasizes the question again: 'Who's going to reference the facts and record if the race remains just Tory and Ford?' Tweedle Dum, and Tweedle Dummer...

Maybe a third candidate will declare, and have Keesmaat on the team. One can only hope...
 
Last edited:
That's about as well as I can find details to describe it. There might be a more definitive article that details the machinations, but Keesmaat *may* have recommended this, but she had zero power to make it happen. That lies completely with Council. For the stories I read before posting above, it was driven by Tory who was reported to be "livid" in at least two media reports.

Tory was livid about what?
 
Tory was livid about what?
Sorry about dangling the reference. I read the term "livid" twice, but this story uses "furious". I'll see what I can dig out further on this later, as it has to come up in any effective mayoralty campaign to address what's *still* an ongoing issue.

Whoops! This story does include the term "livid":
John Tory ‘furious’ at ballooning costs of Spadina subway extension
Mayor says “accountability … includes people losing their jobs” while the TTC chair is calling for third-party review of all capital projects.

Mayor John Tory is livid that the cost for delayed York-Spadina subway extension has ballooned — repeating what he called a disturbing pattern of large capital project overruns.

He was reacting to revelations in the Star that the troubled line is $400 million over budget.

“We have lurched from one fiasco to another costing taxpayers … tens of millions of dollars, and just as important, delaying the day we get desperately needed transit service to move people,” Tory said Friday at city hall.

“I am furious that this happens over and over and over again.”

He blames what he called “an entrenched culture of nonaccountability at city hall.”

Tory said TTC chief executive Andy Byford, who is away, briefed him a few days ago on the possibility of significant cost overruns. The amount of money it will take to finish the extension depends on what options are chosen, including whether the subway could initially run only as far as York University.

While Toronto and York Region are contractually responsible for the overruns, the mayor said it is premature to speculate on how the additional costs will be paid.

Asked why no one ever gets fired for projects that run over budget, Tory said: “I think that’s a darn good question.”[...]
https://www.thestar.com/news/queens...ost-overruns-on-spadina-subway-extension.html

Oh the irony in his words! (SSE)

There is no direct clue to Keesmaat there, but a lot is written between the lines as to making Wisla's point.
 
So with Keesmaat all but endorsing John Tory for re-election the past few days, it is interesting to bump this thread up again.

I wonder if a counter-endorsement from Tory will take place in either 2018 (council) or 2022 (mayor).
 

Back
Top