News   Dec 15, 2025
News Roundup for December 15, 2025
 166     0 
News   Dec 15, 2025
Heated Rivalry S1 E1
 459     0 
News   Dec 12, 2025
Year in Review: Amexon's Residences at Central Park in 2025
 839     0 

Toronto Eglinton Line 5 | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx | Arcadis

The Crosstown is expected to be *well* below capacity on opening day. Given reduced peak transit volumes coming post-COVID, this is doubly-true. The TTC has been in active discussions with Metrolinx to actually run well above capacity-matching frequencies just so the line meets minimum frequency standards.

Capacity on the Crosstown won't be a problem for a long while, especially without the western extension.

As the Golden Mile builds out over the long term it may become problematic on the surface section, but I've had discussions elsewhere about how I think developers are being overly ambitious in the Golden Mile and how that stretch is unlikely to reach full buildout for several generations given general growth patterns.
 
From what I've seen from his YouTube channel, Reece having questionable takes is nothing new. I think the bigger controversy after it opens will be how slow the surface sections are, and all the stopping at red lights.

rbt said:
There's no destinations on Eglinton; meaning the majority of riders will be transferring to another line [meaning Yonge or Spadina].
Click to expand...
Or the Barrie line, Stouffville line, Kitchener line, or Ontario line. Obviously those lines aren't what they will be in a decade, but as they get completed/expanded there will be lots of options for transfers to other lines.

I'm not sure I agree that there are no destinations on Eglinton.
 
innsertnamehere said:
The Crosstown is expected to be *well* below capacity on opening day. Given reduced peak transit volumes coming post-COVID, this is doubly-true. The TTC has been in active discussions with Metrolinx to actually run well above capacity-matching frequencies just so the line meets minimum frequency standards.

Capacity on the Crosstown won't be a problem for a long while, especially without the western extension.

As the Golden Mile builds out over the long term it may become problematic on the surface section, but I've had discussions elsewhere about how I think developers are being overly ambitious in the Golden Mile and how that stretch is unlikely to reach full buildout for several generations given general growth patterns.
Click to expand...

There's also this as a contextual piece. Not saying it will or won't be the case for Crosstown, but interesting and not often brought up by those worried about capacity....(I'm not sure if there's a similar one for population & units).

1745509636389.png

1745509657374.png
 
Allandale25 said:
There's also this as a contextual piece. Not saying it will or won't be the case for Crosstown, but interesting and not often brought up by those worried about capacity....(I'm not sure if there's a similar one for population & units).

View attachment 646173
View attachment 646175
Click to expand...
there are a lot of reasons and trends as to why that graph occured - those original job projections assumed jobs would shift from the downtown to the 416 centres in the 1980's and 1990's. Instead they shifted to 905 business parks.

Since 2011 trends have actually generally reversed, with most job growth occurring downtown. New transit capacity is not needed to traverse the 416 or even 905, as planned in the early 2000's when job growth was still focused in the suburbs, but rather is needed to transport workers downtown.

In this way Eglinton will serve as feeder into the OL and Yonge Line. There is a decent amount of employment along Eglinton, especially on it's far west end in the Mississauga employment park, so it won't operate exclusively in that manner, but there will be a strong correlation to that trip pattern.

Of course COVID has thrown even these patterns into a loop as well. office commuters have dropped dramatically and now travel patterns focus more on blue-collar and healthcare work and recreational trips - a wildly different commuting pattern than what has historically dominated.
 
evandyk said:
I've seen mainly one person constantly tweeting about how it will be over capacity from day 1, but I haven't actually seen any analysis that would support that conclusion. I'm not even sure that person has the data or tools to do that analysis. It seems to be just vibes.
Click to expand...
All one has to do is read the original EA and just see how grossly oversized it is (which I think is a good thing for future growth - otherwise you end up with the disastrous Canada Line scenario where the 40-metre "trains" and platforms are pushing ultimate capacity even now - and may be over-capacity too soon.

I must not have seen those tweets.


innsertnamehere said:
there are a lot of reasons and trends as to why that graph occured - those original job projections assumed jobs would shift from the downtown to the 416 centres in the 1980's and 1990's. Instead they shifted to 905 business parks.

Since 2011 trends have actually generally reversed, with most job growth occurring downtown. New transit capacity is not needed to traverse the 416 or even 905, as planned in the early 2000's when job growth was still focused in the suburbs, but rather is needed to transport workers downtown.
Click to expand...
Those centres have become more residential than I think they originally anticipated.

I think in the longer term it will work. Though the answer to the then controversial 1990s discussion about which gets built first (Eglinton West, Sheppard East, or the Relief Line) seems to be that they should have built them in the complete reverse order (Relief ... Eglinton ... Sheppard). With a possible downgrade of Sheppard to LRT.

I'm a bit concerned about the intermediate-term capacity of the Ontario Line - though the 90-second headways go a long way to achieve that - about 33% more trains, for 2/3 the platform length - but now with 80-metre platforms instead of 100-metre, I fear they might have not allowed for future growth beyond the first 2 or 3 decades. Perhaps we'll have a Relief Relief line one day. Though I'm not convinced that the current projects will provide enough relief for the Yonge portion of Line 1 - I can see needing another line (perhaps express!) adjacent to it.
 
Last edited:
nfitz said:
All one has to do is read the original EA and just see how grossly oversized it is (which I think is a good thing for future growth - otherwise you end up with the disastrous Canada Line scenario where the 40-metre "trains" and platforms are pushing ultimate capacity even now - and may be over-capacity too soon.

I must not have seen those tweets.


Those centres have become more residential than I think they originally anticipated.

I think in the longer term it will work. Though the answer to the then controversial 1990s discussion about which gets built first (Eglinton West, Sheppard East, or the Relief Line) seems to be that they should have built them in the complete reverse order (Relief ... Eglinton ... Sheppard). With a possible downgrade of Sheppard to LRT.

I'm a bit concerned about the intermediate-term capacity of the Ontario Line - though the 90-second headways go a long way to achieve that - about 33% more trains, for 2/3 the platform length - but now with 80-metre platforms instead of 100-metre, I fear they might have not allowed for future growth beyond the first 2 or 3 decades. Perhaps we'll have a Relief Relief line one day. Though I'm not convinced that the current projects will provide enough relief for the Yonge portion of Line 1 - I can see needing another line (perhaps express!) adjacent to it.
Click to expand...

Are there any provisions for platform extensions on either line in the station box design? The Canada Line was designed to go to 50m (which isn't much, but would allow a short middle car), and the Confederation Line has provisions for 120m.
 
Kyle Campbell said:
Are there any provisions for platform extensions on either line in the station box design? The Canada Line was designed to go to 50m (which isn't much, but would allow a short middle car), and the Confederation Line has provisions for 120m.
Click to expand...
My understanding is to go for the the extra 10 metres, that some of the stations would need extensive work. It's not like Line 4 where they could probably knock down the cinder block wall overnight.
 
Kyle Campbell said:
Are there any provisions for platform extensions on either line in the station box design? The Canada Line was designed to go to 50m (which isn't much, but would allow a short middle car), and the Confederation Line has provisions for 120m.
Click to expand...

Yes, ish.

The actual physical station box is about one more LRT train longer than the platform.

However, no provision was put in place to easily use it, like with the Sheppard Line (there is a fake wall covering up some of the platform)

There are things like maintenence rooms, ventilation systems, stairwells etc at the end of the station boxes in some cases.

Anything is possible, for a price and these things could be moved and the station platforms extended, but it would be a big project, and not simply knocking down a wall.

EDIT: im not sure re-reading if you are asking for Ontario Line or Eglinton Line. I answered per the Crosstown as this is the forum for it.
 
I visited eglinton ave for about 45 minutes in total spread out over a morning and afternoon session. I spotted 1 train moving slowly in the morning and noticed workers sitting at the surface stops.

In the afternoon, no trains spotted. I’m guessing training new operator does not require constant running trains.
 
robmausser said:
Yes, ish.

The actual physical station box is about one more LRT train longer than the platform.
Click to expand...
Is that it? Ten metres?

And is that expandable at all (other than at extreme costs)? You still need all that stuff, so they'd have to expand the station boxes! I think most TTC and Metrolinx stations have a much bigger station box than the 150-metre platform!
 
Whatever money used for platform extensions in the highly theoretical world that the Crosstown demand would necessitate that, would be much better off being used in changing the type of vehicles used and modifying the MSF facility to accommodate those vehicles.

The amount of space wasted between the coupled Flexities is pretty significant (more so than the space between two T1's for instance).
 
I think that's what they ended up with for this line. I fear how they value-engineered the Ontario Line though.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top