It’s a bad week for chief planners. Following last Tuesday’s news that Halifax chief planner Bob Bjerke lost his job, Toronto’s chief planner announced yesterday that she’ll be stepping down. Jennifer Keesmaat has been chief planner and executive director of the city’s planning division since 2012 and will be vacating her position at the end of September.

In an interview with CBC, Keesmaat admitted that she always planned to review her career options after five years in the public service. Before working for the City in its highest-ranking planning job, she was a planning consultant. She is also very involved in the Canadian Institute of Planners, in recent years spearheading an effort to maintain the national organization rather than have just provincial/territorial licensing bodies. She is known for speaking her mind, even when that puts her at odds with Mayor John Tory. In particular, she championed a seven-stop LRT line to replace the aging Scarborough RT and advocated for the removal of the Gardiner East expressway. Many cite her as responsible for maintaining the agenda of sustainable planning in Toronto through the Ford and Tory regimes. Critics have said she’s too outspoken, too interested in stating her own opinion rather than giving more neutral advice, and takes to Twitter to engage in debates (we’ve seen a lot of this recently, but Keesmaat has been doing it since 2012).

Keesmaat certainly possesses many of the characteristics necessary for such a high-ranking position in Canada’s largest city: she’s media-savvy, determined, smart, engages the public in more transparent decision-making, and tackles issues that appeal to younger generations, such as sustainable transportation. She is the city’s first female chief planner and was just 42 years old when she got the job (it was a young administration–Mayor Rob Ford was only 43 at the time). Christopher Hume portrayed her as a novice in the Toronto Star, writing that she “quickly found out that the chief planner’s role is to advise not decide”, but I’d argue that she already knew exactly how planning worked at a municipality the day she was hired. The fact that she obtained the position of chief planner despite her inexperience as a civil servant, and kept it despite disagreements with those in power, demonstrates her political savviness. As we know from Halifax and Vancouver, it’s not unusual for chief planners to be ousted when their vision for the city conflicts with those of other powerful figures.

Many have expressed their support for Keesmaat should she run for public office, but she seems to excel at planning. Let’s hope she brings more of her expertise to Toronto’s critical infrastructure projects.

Reversing former mayor Rob Ford’s decision to slash the municipal budget by decreasing transit service, Mayor John Tory and TTC Chair Josh Colle have announced service improvements on the city’s 33 busiest bus and streetcar routes starting this fall.

With a $95 million transit investment in this year’s City budget, increases to service will be in off-peak times where ridership growth is strongest. Colle estimates that 55 million passenger trips annually will benefit from the service increase, and 2 million additional trips could be generated. Tory linked better transit service to the city’s poverty reduction strategy, saying that people need transit to access jobs. Improvements to 61 bus routes on overnight and all day service were announced earlier this year.

Tory began taking action to reverse Ford’s cuts to transit immediately after winning the 2014 municipal election, approving of many of the TTC’s suggested service improvements released just before the election. Running on a platform of regional express rail, Tory seemed to view transit as at least part of the solution to Toronto’s wicked transportation problem. But recently he took a more conservative stand on the Gardiner Expressway proposal before council, favouring the hybrid alternative rather than removal of the eastern section of the expressway.

In just over a month, Toronto will be hosting the Pan Am Games (July 6-26) and Para-Pan Games (August 6-15). International events like this require extraordinary efforts to get athletes, media, and spectators to their events on time. When Vancouver hosted the 2010 Olympics, planning started years before the event, and planners learned from experts who had hosted Olympic Games in their own regions.

The Pan Am Games won’t draw the millions that the Olympics did: about 250,000 spectators and 6,100 athletes are expected, compared to 500,000 spectators and 2,700 athletes at the Olympics. But Torontonians have experienced travel delays for years from construction of the athletic facilities in Milton, Hamilton, Mississauga, Ajax, and other municipalities in the region.

The transportation demand management measures introduced for the Pan Am Games were just announced today, less than a month before the Games begin. They include:

  • Encouraging people to work at home, carpool, and work flex hours
  • Installing more HOV lanes on Highway 401, Highway 404, the DVP, Lake Shore Boulevard, the Gardiner Expressway and the QEW, which will require drivers to have three persons or more per car to use from June 29 to July 27. From July 28 to August 18 this will decrease to two or more persons per car
  • Providing extra TTC and GO services will also include services starting at 6am on Sundays. Ticketholders will be able to take transit for free on the day of their events

Because of the venues are spread across the region, the Games transit network includes Brampton Transit (Züm), Burlington Transit, Durham Region Transit (DRT), GO Transit (rail and bus), Hamilton Street Railway (HSR), Milton Transit, MiWay (Mississauga Transit), Oakville Transit, Toronto Transit Commission (TTC), St. Catharines Transit, Welland Transit, and York Region Transit (YRT)/Viva.

You can find out about the Pan Am venues on the Pan Am Games website, www.toronto2015.org. This screenshot shows the transportation options for the baseball venue in Ajax.

Screen Shot 2015-06-09 at 1.41.53 PM

Transportation options for the Presidents’ Choice Ajax Ballpark

Skeptical that transit can handle the extra bodies, Toronto residents? You should be. Just yesterday, a power surge forced the entire subway system shut down for 95 minutes, stranding 100,000 commuters during morning rush hour. The TTC normally deploys shuttle buses when the subway fails, but couldn’t supply enough vehicles to replace all four lines. With no backup plan in place, the massive communications failure that took out all the subway trains but left buses and streetcars running left both residents and politicians shaking their heads. Toronto’s transportation system is so poorly funded and organized that even Mayor John Tory, who campaigned on a public transit plan for the city, could merely apologize to commuters for the inconvenience. Taxi companies rushed to send cars to subway stations to serve stranded commuters and Uber’s surge pricing caused its rates to quadruple in some parts of the city. The same day, starting at 9:25am, three Toronto Star reporters raced from Broadview Avenue to the airport to see who would make it first: Tess Kalinowski drove, Steven Spencer Davis took transit (TTC) and Lauren Pelley took the newly opened Union-Pearson Express. Kalinowski got to the airport in half the time of Pelley (40 minutes versus 80 minutes). What does this say about our alternative transportation options for travel during the Games?

When I lived in Vancouver during the Olympic Games, many of my friends and acquaintances left the city altogether during the event, renting out their apartments for exorbitant fees. The absence of thousands of regular working folks, the agreement many companies and institutions made to adjust to flex hours during the two-week event, and residents’ fear of being caught in traffic, took tens of thousands of cars off the roads. Downtown and at venues like Richmond’s speed skating oval, public transit had been carefully coordinated with walking and bike sharing options–tens of thousands of people walked the 20 minutes from the Skytrain to the Oval. In addition to planning and funding these alternative options, TransLink had been advertising these options for almost a year before the Games started. Transit ridership increased by 50% during the Games and remained higher than average for months afterward. Maybe it’s just my own experience, but in Toronto I started seeing ads for carpooling, flex hours and working at home just a few weeks ago, and today was the first that I heard about increased transit during the Games.

Incidentally, carpooling, flex hours, and working at home are TDM measures that are integral to decreasing peak-hour demand (and levelling out the peaks) in any metropolitan region, not just when we’re hosting an international sporting event.

 

Real estate speculation happens across the country, but is particularly popular in our largest cities. Some say foreign ownership and speculation is driving housing prices up for local residents: wealthy investors living in far-off countries buy housing with no intention of living in it. But should the government step in and regulate the practice of flipping houses?

Just a month ago, the Simon Fraser University Urban Studies program held a symposium on housing affordability. Their data-packed brochure indicated that Vancouver has been second to last in housing affordability for the past six years, and 40% of residents consider the high cost of housing to be the most important issue in the city. The city’s annual homeless count has identified an increasing number of homeless people in the city–some 2,700 people in 2014 compared to about 1,100 in 2002. While 35% of homes in Vancouver are rented, only 17% of new construction was purpose built rental housing. Urban Futures has done a number of studies on foreign ownership: in one, they found that the 2011 Census (National Household Survey) showed that Vancouver didn’t have an excessive level of foreign occupancy–that is, about 1.4% of the apartment units in the city were occupied by foreign or temporary residents, but there are no Census data that specify their citizenship, length of stay, or that support a thesis on foreign investment. In another, they found that only 0.4% of purchases in the region in 2010 were made by people living outside of Canada. But an article in the New Yorker last year quoted a report from Sotheby’s International Realty Canada: in the first half of 2013, foreign buyers accounted for nearly half of luxury home sales in Vancouver.

Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson announced on Friday that he has proposed that the BC government develop a speculation tax who “buy a home just to make a quick buck” by selling it 6 months later. He’s asking Vision voters to support the call for a new tax on investors, and other tools like an increased property tax on the most expensive residential properties with proceeds invested in new affordable housing.

“Together, we can send a message that housing shouldn’t just be an investment commodity – it should be for living in.” –Mayor Gregor Robertson

Less than two days after Robertson’s announcement, a petition started circulating in Toronto calling on Brad Duguid, Minister of Economic Development, Employment, and Infrastructure, to restrict foreign investment in residential real estate in the Toronto region. As of 5 pm today Shaan Brach’s petition had 10,491 supporters.

I’m sure that the Liberal governments of both Ontario and BC will shy away from regulating real estate speculation and taxing the rich, but nevertheless the petition and call for a new tax do raise several troubling questions: who should be allowed to buy housing in Canada? Should the government (either provincial or federal) intervene when housing prices climb too high for the average person or household to afford? And if so, how should this be done?

Canadian governments have a history of intervening when market conditions create affordability issues for local residents or when housing conditions are poor. Forty years ago, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation was busy supporting the development of co-operative and non-profit housing with the ample funding of the federal government. The federal government helped develop co-operative housing from 1973-1991, establishing long-term operating agreements coinciding with the length of the mortgage. They also had programs to help first time homebuyers, supplement rents, and rehabilitate housing in historic and central neighbourhoods. But over the years, their balanced approach to housing affordability changed. The two ends of the spectrum (households with very low incomes and homeowners with enough equity to buy) continued to benefit, but programs that helped renters and low- to middle-income households were gradually dropped.

Municipalities and developers have also introduced innovative solutions to housing affordability:

  • Equity loans–Toronto’s Option for Homes and the City of Saskatoon/Affinity Credit Union Equity Building Program help people move into affordable ownership by loaning purchasers a small percentage of the downpayment
  • Shared equity–at SFU, units in the Verdant building are reserved for university faculty and staff and resale prices are restricted to 20% below market value), and community land trusts.
  • Affordable Housing Trusts–municipalities such as Vancouver, Surrey, Richmond, Coquitlam, and Whistler have developed housing trusts through legislation and with the cooperation of the BC government

The issue of foreign investors driving up housing prices is critical in cities like Toronto and Vancouver, but there’s no quick fix for the affordability problems that took decades to create. In cities like Calgary, Fort McMurray, and Kelowna, affordability is still a major issue even without high levels of foreign investment. In Edmonton, 33.5% of all condominium units are rented. Researchers and policymakers across the country have been trying to find and implement the solutions for at least two decades. A speculation tax would only be part of the solution, but combined with better rent controls and a higher high-end property tax whose revenues would be used to build and maintain housing of different types for different income levels, it could be a good start. We definitely need an increased role for the provincial and federal governments in affordable housing, but that’s not news.

gardinerexpressway.jpeg.size.xxlarge.letterboxToday, Toronto City Councillors received a staff report that could have major implications on a longstanding issue: what to do about the Gardiner Expressway. Built during the heyday of highway infrastructure, the Gardiner has become an expensive and dangerous piece for the City to maintain, costing millions each year. Chunks of the concrete have fallen onto roadways below the expressway in recent years, and the Gardiner has become emblematic of North America’s lagging postwar faith in technological solutions to urban problems.

Removing the Gardiner Expressway completely has never been on the agenda, at least not in realistic terms, even though cities around the world are struggling through similar decisions. The City is at the end of an extensive environmental assessment process that looked at options for repairing, replacing, or maintaining the section of the Gardiner that runs from Jarvis to the Don Valley Parkway. This 1.7km stretch of the expressway handles only 3% of peak hour trips to downtown. During the morning rush, about 5000 trucks and 500 cars use this stretch every hour. The EA process has spanned six years and consulted over 3,500 stakeholders, but did a thorough job of investigating each option using cost estimates over a 100-year life cycle. The transportation projections used in the evaluation of the options included the assumption that transit alternatives to the expressway will be in place by 2031, including the waterfront LRT, the downtown relief line, and improvements to GO Transit; this would negatively impact demand for the expressway.

The three options currently being discussed are:

  • Remove and replace. An eight-lane boulevard from Jarvis to the DVP would replace the Gardiner This is the cheapest option but you can imagine how long and disruptive the construction would be–it’s estimated at six years but this is Toronto, so figure on a decade–and there would be detours for at least four years. It’s estimated that 75% of driving trips would not change. The cost is estimated at $326 million in capital costs and $135 million in operations and maintenance over the 100-year life cycle ($461 million). This was the City’s preferred option back in 2013–and it’s still the cheapest.
  • Maintain. The City spends millions on maintaining the Gardiner each year because it’s near the end of its lifespan–and because like many cities, maintaining existing infrastructure isn’t exactly a sexy budget expenditure. The cost would be $342 million in capital costs and $522 million in operations and maintenance over the 100-year cycle ($864 million).
  • Replace with a hybrid. This would involve building a new connection to the DVP. Construction is estimated at six years–but would likely be much longer and involve traffic rerouting as well. An estimated 90% of driving trips would not change. The cost is estimated at $414 million in capital and $505 million in operations and maintenance over the 100-year life cycle ($919 million).

City staff is now conducting what is likely the final round of public consultation on the options (never say never) and will present a final report to Council on June 21st. If the selected option is approved by the Province, construction could begin in 2018.

Update: Chief planner Jennifer Keesmaat came out in favour of the Remove and Replace option on May 22nd, although Mayor John Tory favours Maintain.

 

Mid-rise development on Kingston Road in Scarborough

Mid-rise development on Kingston Road in Scarborough, from the City of Toronto website

With the Eglington Crosstown LRT scheduled for completion by 2020, developers are eyeing sites along its 19km length. Eglington is designated as one of the City of Toronto’s Avenues, major streets with the potential for higher densities, redevelopment, and transit services, and is and slated for mid-rise development of six to eight stories. But developers want to capitalize on the established high-rise trend at Yonge and Eglington.

The City isn’t so sure. So far, as Toronto Star’s Maria Vanta reported, six requests for rezoning lots to mixed-use development near Don Mills Road have been denied because they don’t line up with the City’s planning objectives (“Crosstown LRT brings new development, and controversy, to Eglinton“, Friday Jan 9, 2015). A total of 40 similar rezoning requests have been made since construction of the LRT was announced–about half are in appeals at the Ontario Municipal Board. Although the height of many of these proposals may have been an issue, another argument against the rezonings is that protecting office space and other employment land uses will ensure the LRT’s success. The City’s Official Plan protects existing office space; Lorna Day, manager of the Eglington Connects Planning Study at the City, says that jobs make better use of transit than residences. The City doesn’t want to make the mistake of losing office space, something that is speculated to happen at high-demand areas such as Yonge and Eglington, because when employment is located far from transit, most people opt to drive. Yet Day expects new workplaces to eventually come along with the residential developments–just not quite yet.

The Avenues and Mid-Rise Guidelines, which were approved by the City of Toronto in 2010 and are now used to guide the development application process, represent an attempt to achieve higher densities while keeping to the scale and character of development that many residents want. Many don’t want to live in a high-rise condo, but would not mind a third storey apartment. Since 2010, the City has been monitoring the Performance Standards for Mid-Rise Buildings as the first step toward setting the Performance Standards in guidelines, policies, and as-of-right zoning. This may be the real reason that all those applications have been denied–the existing zoning does not yet reflect the City’s mid-rise ambitions, including mixed-use zoning on the Avenues. But it will soon–the City’s monitoring period was over at the end of 2014. The City’s Project Manager on the Mid-Rise Buildings Study was none other than Lorna Day.

An argument could be made for high density nodes within a 500m radius of the major road intersections offering transit service, with mid-rise in-between. This is the TTC’s established pattern for subway lines. The LRT will link to 54 bus routes, 3 subway stations and a number of regional GO Transit lines, so there are many opportunities for high-density nodes. Zoning mixed use development along the corridor would also seem critical to a future jobs-housing mix. Recent changes to the Ontario Building Code, in effect January 1st, 2015, permit wood-frame construction for buildings up to six feet in height, which has finally made mid-rise profitable for many developers. This may result in developers scaling back on height as they no longer need it to obtain profits–witness mid-rise construction in British Columbia since 2009. Perhaps a more livable, community-oriented density is more desirable than another canyon of high-rises.

Election maps are hot, but this one shows what happened in a lot more detail. Web developer and designer Pete Smaluck and policy analyst Tom Weatherburn have developed a map that disaggregates ward results in Toronto down to the neighbourhood level. The map allows the user to scan subdivisions based on three key characteristics at a time (from education, income, occupation, transportation to work, religion, immigration, and visible minorities) to see the percentage of votes John Tory, Doug Ford, and Olivia Chow got in last month’s election. The map shows a much more nuanced picture than the “divided Toronto” we’re always hearing about.

Here’s what the map and analytics look like if you choose mode of transportation taken to work, immigration, and visible minorities–hover over the riding to see the trends broken down by neighbourhood.

Screen Shot 2014-12-23 at 7.08.12 PM

Rendering of the UP Express by Metrolinx

Rendering of the UP Express by Metrolinx

Many cities have rail links to their airports, including Vancouver, New York, London, Amsterdam, and Paris. Although many of these are cities historically built on rail lines, municipalities built during the postwar era are now adding trains to add sustainable transportation options to their transit systems. Toronto will join in next spring with the Union-Pearson Express (UPX), set to open for service in time for the Pan Am Games in July 2015. This long-awaited service will take only 25 minutes and offer travellers luggage racks, luggage tags, and wi-fi. It will make only two stops (Weston and Bloor West GO Stations), reaching top speeds of 79 km/h. It’s particularly needed in Toronto, where traffic in Mississauga has increased to unmanageable proportions in the past few years. Current options include express buses run by the TTC, but for many in the region a bus stop or route is too far awa to make the trip viable by transit.

However, since September Metrolinx officials have been fending off accusations that the cost of the UPX service will prevent many from using it–at least on a regular basis. Metrolinx chair Bruce McQuaig played the elitism card, saying that the train is “meant to be an extension of the airport experience, rather than a daily commuter service.” (As if people most people using Lester B. Pearson International Airport (YYZ) don’t fly economy and take the cheapest alternative to the airport). The real goal is to help Metrolinx recover operating costs–estimated at $79 million annually.

The UPX fares were finally announced this week. Riders will pay $27.50 for a one-way trip, dropping to $19 for Presto card users. Airport workers can also purchase a $300 monthly pass which would work out to $7.50 per ride if they used it for 40 rides per month. Presto, at the moment, really only makes sense for those who cross the region on a regular basis: 1.3 million riders per month use it to access ten transit systems in the region, including Durham Region Transit, Mississauga’s MiWay, and the Hamilton Street Railway. Presto will be fully implemented by 2016–currently only a handful of TTC subway stations and the 510 Spadina streetcar have Presto card scanners.

Luckily, the UPX won’t be the only option to get to YYZ. The 192 Airport Rocket bus, which currently runs from Kipling Station to the airport, has a daily ridership of 4,500, is equipped with luggage racks and makes only three stops on its 20-minute trip to/from Terminal 1. The bus runs every 10 minutes for most of the day and costs the same as a regular bus, subway, or streetcar. The TTC is interested in doubling its ridership in 2015, and will spend $100,000 on efforts to raise its visibility. So the Rocket remains an option for those who can’t afford the money train.

imagesJohn Tory hasn’t been sworn in as mayor yet, but he’s already trying to undo some of the damage Rob Ford did to the transit system in the past four years. War on the car? Let’s talk about a war on transit.

Don Peat of the Toronto Sun and Oliver Moore of the Globe and Mail reported today on the cuts Ford imposed to bus service in 2011 and 2012, which saved the TTC around $18 million but resulted in significant service reductions on 41 bus routes and a further reduction along 63 other routes. Loading standards were also rolled back to 2004 levels, which is no surprise to anyone taking transit in Toronto today–the level of overcrowding is almost unbearable on many routes. Today’s TTC service is bursting at the seams with increased ridership, yet they have boasted budget surpluses in recent years reflecting their decreased spending on services. Does this make sense?

Tory has already asked TTC CEO Andy Byford to look at ways to restore these services and source the necessary vehicles, in order to have an immediate impact on the city’s transit problems. Funny–I think I remember someone else campaigning on a promise of increasing bus service because it would have the most impact on users for the lowest cost. Oh right–it was Olivia Chow. Interesting how nobody took her seriously on this except the TTC, which proposed 10-minute service on a network of bus routes in its extensive service improvement report, quietly released just before the election. The TTC also proposed solutions like time-based transfers and all-door boarding, two user-oriented options that other cities have been using for years.

Tory has also asked Byford to investigate whether it’s possible to move more quickly on the new signalling system that will allow subway trains to run more frequently (every 90 seconds), now scheduled for completion in 2020. Improvements to the system, as well as track upgrades, currently cause frequent daily delays on the subway. Tory has asked for a cost breakdown of the TTC’s proposed service improvements, and advice on which ones could be implemented quickly.

Quick wins will be necessary for Tory to prove that he is serious about improving transit, his key election promise.

 

In what was surely the most-anticipated municipal mayoral race of my lifetime, October 27th marked the finish line: election day. With Rob Ford registering his intent to run again on January 2nd, the 10-month race was on. Ford’s two foes in this race, John Tory and Olivia Chow, were the only others in that mattered–although dozens of other candidates ran for mayor. The debates were focused on these three from the get-go–and when the Ford brothers’ shocking last-minute switch occurred on September 12th, Doug Ford merely stepped into his brother’s place as Rob ran instead for the Etobicoke North riding he had represented for a decade (2000-2010). Would Ford Nation embrace Doug as they had embraced Rob?

Tonight’s results were a resounding “No!” With a record-breaking 60% voter turnout, Toronto has chosen John Tory as mayor.

From the Globe and Mail: Voter turnout last night was highest in the central and west sections of the city

From the Globe and Mail: Voter turnout last night was highest in the central and west sections of the city. Turnout was markedly higher in Toronto than its adjacent cities–just 38% in Mississauga, 36% in Brampton, and 26% in Oshawa.

How did Tory win? Or rather, how did the Fords lose? The public had gotten sick of the drama that was city hall, ironically from a mayor who was elected to reduce government waste and inefficiency. For many, the last-minute substitution of one Ford for another was simply too much to take. Suspicious voters turned out in droves to force the Fords out–but only in the mayoral race. Rob has been re-elected as city councillor in Ward 2 Etobicoke–cancer treatment and all. Olivia Chow entered the race strong, but many analysts and journalists say that she began to lose traction in the summer–for reasons nobody has been able to figure out. Tonight on CBC, journalists said she ran “too sensible” of a campaign, “always took the high road”, and noted that the twin spectres of racism and sexism had reared their ugly heads during the past few months; ironically a female journalist covering the results criticized Chow as “too nice”, a descriptor that would likely not be applied to a male candidate. Indeed, in the male-dominated arena of debates (or shouting matches), it was difficult for an intelligent and sensible woman to win over two candidates who alternately proposed pipe dreams and vague ideas with equal amounts of bluster–difficult, as well, to withstand members of the public who taunted her ethnocultural background or gender. By summer, the race had become about one issue: transit. Tory introduced his SmartTrack idea which, although vague and lacking a realistic funding strategy, gained remarkable traction with the public over Chow’s simpler, cheaper plan–by the time Doug Ford developed a plan for relieving congestion, late in September, the voters had already decided.

Those voters who may have liked Rob Ford’s fiscally prudent promises the first time around, but blanched at his drug and alcohol abuse issues, may have also been drawn to Tory as a fiscal conservative. In this area, leftist Chow stood no chance–even though in many cases her proposals were fiscally responsible (more so, in some cases, than her opponent Tory), the public knows her as an NDP Member of Parliament, which in their eyes means spending on socially relevant causes instead of balancing the budget. As Toronto Star columnist Royson James wrote, “They wanted Ford without the drama.”

Finally we have the polls, which beginning in August, have traced Tory’s rise to power. In many races in recent history (including the 2011 federal, 2012 Alberta provincial, and 2014 Ontario provincial elections) polls have been wildly inaccurate. It is worthwhile to note that polls did not correctly predict the winners of any of these major races–but they did tonight. Those who remained undecided until around Labour Day, which in Toronto circles seems to be when the race shifts into high gear, were subjected to a barrage of convincingly scientific-sounding polls that told them Tory was in the lead. Numerous articles urged Chow to give up the race in order to avoid splitting the vote, and many urged Torontonians to vote strategically against Ford.

Tory was the least controversial in comparison to Chow or Ford. Freelancer John Barber calls Tory “as boring as Nebraska” under the headline “Boredom replaces noise and strife at city hall.” Like others before him, Barber describes Tory’s program as “comfortingly vague, building on his natural strength as an inoffensive character.” As so often happens in politics, it was an election based on who the public didn’t want in office, rather than who they did want. As many have written, this race always had to be about getting rid of Rob and restoring Toronto’s internationally tarnished reputation–the highest voter turnout since Toronto’s 1998 amalgamation illustrates this. Neighbouring municipalities, with less spectacular, media-hogging candidates, had voter turnouts as low as 23% tonight. Tory inherits the difficult task of bridging a divided Toronto–less divided than in 2010, perhaps, but divided nonetheless–a task he promised to undertake as the Great Healer.

The Globe and Mail published this election results map showing John Tory's support in blue, Olivia Chow in purple and Rob Ford in green

The Globe and Mail published this election results map showing John Tory’s support in blue, Olivia Chow in purple and Rob Ford in green. Ford largely swept the eastern and western suburbs with 34% of the vote, leaving Tory and Chow to pick up the urban votes (40% and 23% respectively).

Toronto map 2010

Four years ago, the urban-suburban divide was even greater than it was today, showing almost exactly the divide between the pre-amalgamation City of Toronto (in purple) and the suburbs that joined it in 1998 (East York, Scarborough, North York, York, and Etobicoke, in blue).