News   Mar 28, 2024
 1.4K     3 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 684     2 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 941     0 

Moving Transit Forward - Adam Giambrone's tenure in review

The full report is here: http://www.movingtransitforward.ca/ - it is 26 MB because the TTC loves nothing if not gigantic documents. The design of this document is actually really nice, though.

Couple of highlights/interesting things:

Screen%20shot%202010-09-28%20at%2011.15.38%20PM.png


These graphs are disingenuous as hell, but it is impressive how much both ridership and the size of the bus fleet grew through Miller and Giambrone's tenure.

Screen%20shot%202010-09-28%20at%2011.17.02%20PM.png


Financial outlook until 2015 - you can see that Smitherman's 100 million transfer from the province is pretty well a necessity unless they cut service and stop ridership numbers from increasing. TTC fare at $3.70 in 2015 seems a little bit out of whack.

Screen%20shot%202010-09-28%20at%2011.19.30%20PM.png


Stuff on the DRL - thought it was interesting they're looking at a Queen alignment.

Screen%20shot%202010-09-28%20at%2011.19.36%20PM.png


This bit is just in the report to piss off some people on this forum.
 
LOL.. DRL as an LRT and I'm moving to greener pastures.. Maybe back to Madrid?

Just gonna add.. I'm actually surprised they are even considering LRT for the DRL - I mean if anything that is THE corridor in Toronto that can't be anything but a high-capacity subway. This borderline obsession with LRTs is now getting to the point of sad.
 
Last edited:
Cute how he talks about electronic payment methods integrating with regional systems, and him using a Presto card when he has come off as being as anti-Presto as possible.

Also cute how he talks about timed transfers, when on his CP24 PR show when asked about it, was dead-set against it.

Many of the other improvements mentioned were either reactionary to bad publicity, and/or rushed in at the end of his term.

Surface frequency has improved considerably though, will give him that.
 
If you're looking to get plastered, play a drinking game with the report - take a shot every time you see a picture of Giambrone.

Dude's got an ego, and I agree that he was often reactionary rather than visionary, but, hell, better than Moscoe, I think, and likely better than the guy who will come after him. We'll see.
 
LOL.. DRL as an LRT and I'm moving to greener pastures.. Maybe back to Madrid?

Just gonna add.. I'm actually surprised they are even considering LRT for the DRL - I mean if anything that is THE corridor in Toronto that can't be anything but a high-capacity subway. This borderline obsession with LRTs is now getting to the point of sad.

Not directed at you specifically, but I find it a little interesting that one agency (GO) can be criticised for (seemingly) not studying all the alternatives for the airport, while another agencies gets criticised for doing the exact opposite when it comes to downtown.

Just sayin'.
 
Nice chart. Ridership went up by 17% over 8 years (i.e. 2% a year), yet the chart makes it looks like the ridership doubled.

The little buses are even funnier.

What are the chance of either Ford or Smitherman keep Adam Giambrone?
 
Another question I have, and this is directed obviously to someone with more knowledge in planning than me: how is it that the EA for a tunnelled LRT is 6 months yet for a tunnelled subway is a few years?

Is there some anti-subway bias running down from the provincial level to municipal? All of this just doesn't add up.
 
LOL.. DRL as an LRT and I'm moving to greener pastures.. Maybe back to Madrid?

Just gonna add.. I'm actually surprised they are even considering LRT for the DRL - I mean if anything that is THE corridor in Toronto that can't be anything but a high-capacity subway. This borderline obsession with LRTs is now getting to the point of sad.

Unless it's a 4 tracked LRT, with local and express tracks (local running the existing Queen Streetcar). Otherwise, no way in hell should it be LRT.
 
Mission accomplished. WTF is that? Do LRT tunnels magically have less environmental impact than subway tunnels?

The law was an exercise to reduce research overhead for low cost projects like St. Clair and new GO stations/extensions. I agree that the differentiation should have been tunnel versus surface; but oh well.

Subway and LRT in a tunnel requires nearly all of the research be completed anyway due to engineering requirements. LRT out of the tunnel does not require the paperwork be completed. Reducing the EA period for subway would not accelerate the process in any way just as the shortened EA process has not accelerated the tunnelled portion of Eglinton.
 
Unless it's a 4 tracked LRT, with local and express tracks (local running the existing Queen Streetcar). Otherwise, no way in hell should it be LRT.

I'm still not sure why people think LRT (or HRT for that matter) actually has meaning as to cacity capabilities.

It is important for Toronto to minimize different types of rolling stock, to allow diversions to take place, and to minimize rolling stock costs.

A 500 foot long train which is 2 meters wide with frequencies every 90 seconds has the exact same capacity as a 500 foot long 2 meter wide train with frequencies every 90 seconds; whether HRT, LRT, or has rubber tires.

The signalling system and grade separation determines frequencies and all 3 types of rolling stock may be fully automated using exactly the same signalling kits. 3rd rail versus catenary determines none of those items either.

Toronto Rockets appear to be the cheapest rolling stock (procurement and maintenance), so I am in favour of that option specifically.


Frankly, we should just dump the term LRT and focus on capacity necessary then go backward to the cheapest option to procure, build, and maintain from there.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top