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

[Bojaxs]

Metrolinx should post a video on their social media showing the trains travelling in the underground portion. Give us a sense of how fast they're going to be.

 

[Rainforest]

There is no way Sheppard could shift any statistically significant amount of demand from Eglinton and vice versa. Are you suggesting that densification and development be shifted north to Sheppard instead of Eglinton? That is the only way that would make sense, even then there are just too many jobs downtown. Also, the 401 basically cannot be widened in most of North York any more, so densifying Sheppard without a much more robust rapid transit (2-3 times larger) and/or RER system would be disastrous for road congestion. And our government(s) clearly can't afford much more subway anytime soon. IMO This would be a colossal mistake in urban planning.

That's not how it works. Outside downtown, every major transit line gets the bulk of its riders from the feeder routes. Living right next to a subway station is great, but walk-in riders are the minority of all passengers.

The same will apply to Sheppard and Eglinton. Therefore, an extended Sheppard subway certainly can divert a statistically significant amount of riders from Eglinton.

Of course, if someone's trip begins near Eglinton and ends near Eglinton, they will not detour via Sheppard just to use the subway.

But many other origin-destination pairs include both a north-south portion and an east-west portion. Riders making such trips, if they have multiple options, will take into account the speed and the load level. Say, someone who wants to get from McCowan & Sheppard to Yonge & Eglinton, will be more likely to take Sheppard subway to Yonge and then Yonge subway south, rather then BD subway to Kennedy and then Eglinton LRT west.

 

[urbanclient]

But what's the evidence that any part of the city is responsible for line 5 and 6 problems? This has been the province's baby until just recently. The TTC didn't build the lines, the city didn't design the car interactions, etc. Laying blame on any part of the city seems just like going for an easy target simply because it's now in their hands. Metrolinx has been anything but transparent over the years, and Ford has had a pretty firm grip on that.

I'm hard-pressed not to find it completely plausible that a guy who's spent a career hating on "streetcars" and sabotaging reasonable, working methods of traffic calming and enforcement (against the will of the majority no less), would quietly work to sabotage two LRT lines that were too far gone to cancel. We're not talking about a normal Premier here; we're talking about a guy who as one of his first acts in government was to threaten the NWC in an attack democratic rights in the middle of a freaking election.

Ford shouldn't be normalized or underestimated, simply because he gives folksy vibes to 905ers.

The evidence for slow operations being mostly the responsibility of the TTC is all on Urban Toronto. If you don't have the time to find it, here are some examples: "The transcripts and youtube video of the TTC Board meeting from December 10".
youtube.com/watch?v=-5Xz9HS6ank

Myers: TSP is not actually new right?

TTC: I believe this is used in Europe but I'm not aware of it being used in North America.

Myers: so are we talking to those other transit systems? Are we going to those places?

TTC staff: [chuckling] haha yeah we would love to

Funny how a quick google search reveals all the places in North America where it is already used.

Is this "playing dumb" ? Does TTC really not know?

Matlow: why wouldn't we proactively ensure that Finch and Eglinton are ready with TSP as we understand it [with priority over left turning cars]?

TTC staff: during the contact and Metrolinx managing the contract there wasn't really the opportunity for us to intervene.

Matlow: was there a request thru the mayor, city manager, TTC CEO to say: this is really important to the success of the line, we want to work with you proactively?

TTC staff: that's not the way the contract works. Metrolinx has a contract with Mosaic. They were abiding by the terms that were set. There was no opportunity to alter the contact, and if they did it could have caused further delay

Matlow: but in the midst of it all... there are discussions that happen... with all these people here at TTC and the city, didn't somebody just think of picking up the phone and call the CEO of Metrolinx and say can we get our act together?

TTC staff: The TSP that was mentioned preivously was always contemplated in the base contract. This more aggressive form that is proposed now... this is a new change. We wouldn't have contemplated it then. I'm not sure that Transportation Services contemplated it then.

Matlow: so for those of us asking for TSP, meaning priority for transit, that is not the form of TSP that was envisaged in the contact? What... what does it mean in the contract? To the average viewer it doesn't seem like transit actually has any more priority than the cars turning. So what does that mean?

TTC staff: The TSP in the contract is the basic TSP that goes back decades, which is either extending the green or shortening the red.

Matlow: and is that on right now?

TTC staff: That is on right now

"This more aggressive form that is proposed now... this is a new change." The notion that having some effective TSP versus borderline non-existent TSP was never considered before, while scapegoating the other stakeholders is infuriating to many onlookers. Yes, Metrolinx shares responsibility, because they could have overrode the dumb ideas with better ones) years ago. I also want to point out that the original contract definitely specified something between 33-38 minute trip times, not the currently scheduled 46.

Here's something City Transportation Services sent to City Council in April, which I have cited multiple times since then.
"Regarding the use of TSP on the new Light Rapid Transit (LRT) lines in the City,Transportation Services and Transit Expansion Office staff have worked very closely over the years with both Metrolinx and their consortia building the new transit lines to ensure that the City's policies and practices that support TSP are incorporated as requirements within their projects. [...] For these reasons, and in consultation with the City and TTC the Metrolinx consortia are implementing Conditional TSP on Line 5 Eglinton and Line 6 Finch West." This is TSP that might as well not exist. Which calls into question exactly what those policies and practices are, and what use, if any, that those consultations with the City and TTC had. Make no mistake about it, all the evidence points towards City transportation services and TTC were 100% ok with the line being opened in its current sorry state. One can assume maybe City council and the TTC Board were kept in the dark about this.

https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2025/cc/bgrd/backgroundfile-254795.pdf

You also have to read in between the lines. The general sentiment on Urban Toronto is that TTC staff are basically saying we tried nothing and we're all out of ideas. "TTC staff: during the contact and Metrolinx managing the contract there wasn't really the opportunity for us to intervene."
"wasn't really" = at best means: we could have said something, but we chose not to, because we're ok with conditional aka useless TSP. At worst, they were fully complicit as can be understood based on that April city report I cited. The TTC staff never outright say that they are contractually obliged to renegotiate a contract if they're just operating Line 6 to speeds dictated in the original contract. They just say they "need to consult" or "done in consideration". Need to consult is not the same as "contractually obliged". The original contract would've accounted for the maintenance needed for a 33-38 minute trip time. We're paying an exorbitant ~$1 billion for 30 years of maintenance for gosh sake, the notion that maintenance costs weren't accounted for in a maintenance contract is almost ridiculous. The TTC never say they are obligated to amend the contract, in the same manner that they reveal that they are not obligated to consult with City council on removing streetcar stops.
"Myers: when the decision is made to remove a stop there's nothing actually stopping the TTC from removing it right?
TTC staff: yes but we typically consult with the local councillor and their staff. The outcome in almost all cases is do not remove our stop"

 

[urbanclient]

Saxe: how similar is the transit experience on spadina to experience on dundas that don't have dedicated ROW. How much can we generalize learnings?

TTC staff: for those corridors in mixed traffic other factors are more relevant like removing parking

Saxe: do you need more authorization from the board to speed those up?

TTC staff: we do not need more authorization but we need city council approval to remove parking and that's where we get held up

Myers: can you explain relationship between frequency of stops and inability to reach higher speed?

TTC staff: we have quite a few more stops than many other cities.

Myers: has that been reviewed since we changed to the new streetcars?

TTC staff: we have in a more localized setting. we're now embarking on a more comprehensive network wide review. if the desire is faster service the recommendation will be stop removals, though we recognize those are always difficult and contentious

Myers: when the decision is made to remove a stop there's nothing actually stopping the TTC from removing it right?

TTC staff: yes but we typically consult with the local councillor and their staff. The outcome in almost all cases is do not remove our stop

Myers: is there any reason a streetcar in its own ROW should not be going faster than cars?

TTC staff: in pure theory no. however there's other factors to consider: stop spacing, TSP, folks entering our ROW.

Myers: have we looked into barriers to stop people entering our ROWs?

TTC staff: we're looking into it

Councillor Saxe: what is the status of improving the Spadina streetcar? When will we start seeing real improvements there?

TTC staff: we believe we should start to have that online by early February at this point in time

Saxe: how much will that improve travel time?

TTC staff: there's gonna be changes to the surrounding traffic time so it's still a little early... the intent is to report in the congestion management report early next year

Saxe: are you thinking about eliminating left turns?

TTC staff: we're looking at parking changes. we can certainly look at impact of left turns but would require larger study than what we're doing

Saxe: two stage pedestrian crossings in Spadina? have you considered staggered crossings?

TTC staff: we're looking at that

Saxe: I understand that Kitchener has true TSP. Have you reviewed their system?

TTC staff: we can certainly look into that but it's always depending on what technology they use and how it varies with us

Saxe: but not something you've reviewed?

TTC staff: not yet

 

[urbanclient]

"Lower than what would be possible to do" in case of what, all parties involved doing nothing to try to lower travel times? Evident a year ago or earlier? Didn't bother informing the public of this setback/incompetence/laziness?

- TTC staff says original stated runtime for Line 6 and Line 5 are "lower than what would be possible to do." "That was developed by Metrolinx in consultation with TTC and the city... as part of the original contract." Became evident last year "or possibly earlier than that" that those run times would not be possible.

- Myers asks if there was ever a discussion about updating the public about the new run times. TTC staff says no because "this was a contractual issue and they wanted to have that discussion internally"

Myers: did we know or anticipate at the TTC that the vehicles would not meet their expected travel times due to factor such as the lack of TSP?

TTC staff: the original contract contemplated a 30 plus minute run time. What happened was during the development and into discussions amongst city, TTC and metrolinx, there was a discussion that it wouldn't be possible to meet that shorter time frame and there was a revised service level

Myers: what were the reasons given?

TTC: because the original estimate for the run time for Line 5 and 6 was lower than what was actually possible to do

Myers: so where did the 36 minutes for Finch West number come from?

TTC: that was developed by Metrolinx in consultation with city and TTC... was part of the original contract

Myers: and when did it become apparent that that time frame was no longer possible?

TTC: became evident during discussions between TTC metrolinx and mosaic

Myers: what's the date approximately?

TTC: it would've been last year or possibly earlier.

Myers: was there ever a discussion about updating the public?

TTC: no

...

Myers: what is the estimated run time for Line 5. TTC staff: contractual number for round trip time is 98 minutes during rush hour and 90 minutes outside rush hour

TTC staff: The current schedule we have for RSD is currently scheduling 112 minutes round trip

Myers: are there any measures being considered to speed up the runtime? TTC staff: Any moves would have to be done in consideration with Mosaic and Metrolinx. At this point in time cannot say there are alternatives being discussed.

"There are TRANSIT signal lights?? Surely this advanced technology hasn't been used in our hemisphere. IT'S BEEN USED TWO TOWNS OVER??? Incredible. We will have to study this remarkable breakthrough. What a time to be alive."

-TTC Streetcar culture has definitely permeated into the operations of this brand spanking new line. Operators are slowing down at every dip on the line that heads into a valley or underpass. This operations culture comes squarely from the period when the new Flexities got caught in underpasses and flooded due to poor storm drainage. This has no place to exist on a brand new modern LRT line that has also had significant sewer, storm and roadway construction to accommodate a new LRT.

-One can tell who is a veteran or came from the downtown Streetcar operations by their over timidness to slow down to a crawl at every intersection even with a green transit light. In addition, these operators are slowing to slight stop-and-proceed at all special trackwork. Once again this streetcar operations culture has absolutely no business being on a new modern LRT system with 100% operating switches.

It’s time to light a fire and smoke out all the incompetent managerial and personnel who refuse to adopt to a modern LRT operations and in general refuse to update their archaic streetcar operations.

I’m hoping that Metrolinx has stiff penalties against the TTC if operations are not satisfactory.

To top this all off, Steve Munro said this yesterday, which I already cited on this thread. "Although the TTC takes the blame for rotten operations, their shuttle buses keep service available to riders. The overwhelming cause of delay is with systems provided and maintained by Metrolinx’ P3 partner, Mosaic." emphasis mine. Current unscheduled delays are attributable to Metrolinx and by extension Mosaic (i.e. like Line 1 sporadic delays due to signalling issues). However, the schedule being 46 minutes, 8 to 13 slower than the original contract, and further added time leading to average trip times during testing being 51-52* minutes, is entirely and mostly on the TTC respectively. *told to me in person by a TTC instructor on opening day.

I think if Steve Munro goes out and says the TTC is responsible for rotten operations, perhaps you should believe it as well. As much as I would love for Metrolinx and by extension Mr. Ford to be at fault for the slow way the line is operated, it's clear that this is on the TTC. The TTC is the transit operator in Toronto. Is it really surprising that ION LRT can be run better with an operator like Keolis?

6 Finch West: Six Days of Delays

Line 6 Finch West opened for service on Sunday, December 7. Beside the basic issue of glacial train speed are questions of vehicle and infrastructure reliability. This post summarizes the delays th…

stevemunro.ca

 

[nfitz]

Surface LRTs are cheaper than subways. Yes, about 1/3 per-km cost. Good or bad ROI is a separate issue; I guess depends on the chosen corridor and on the quality of implementation.

The capacity is more than adequate for many years to come. And tunnelling was necessary if you wanted to build it. With 90-metre long stations the capacity reduction is primarily in the length of the stations than anything else; which is similar to what we see on the Ontario line as well. If it ever gets to needing 4 times the current anticipated ridership, we'll be into another generation of equipment. At that point a vehicle could be selected that can run automatically every 90 seconds between Pearson and Don Valley station, with minor modifications at Leslie, increasing capacity to heavy rail numbers.

There's certainly modern subways with less capacity. The 40-metres stations (perhaps expandable to 50 metres) of the Canada line come to mind!

Nothing inherently wrong with Sheppard having more capacity than Eglinton. Yes, Eglinton is closer to downtown, but also closer to the competing Line 2. Furthermore, the demand level partly depends on the structure of feeder routes. It is possible to shift a portion of the demand from Eglinton to Sheppard, and thus delay the moment when Eglinton runs over capacity.

Sheppard seems a bit far to me. But there's other alternatives on Lawrence and/or St. Clair - which would be fantastic. But long after most of us are dead, I'd think.

But imagine a St. Clair line, from Warden station to Kipling station. With rail crossings of the ravines and valleys between Mount Pleasant and Woodbine!

 

[ARG1]

Demand is forecast to be lower east of Don Valley station (at least after the Ontario line opens). I am concerned that with the frequent service proposed on the Ontario Line, compared to less frequent service on Ion and the Finch West line, that signal priority won't work well, as you'd be challenged to give both directions what they need at the same time.

Except how much money would such a thing cost? Remember, Science Centre is a simple island platform station. Ignoring having to introduce crossovers somewhere, without major modifications that means each track would have to service a single line/direction. You don't have access to any pocket tracks, nor any other facility to improve turning trains around. Simply put it's effectively a single track station (similar to the Canada Line termini) and there is going to be a very harsh limit with how many trains you can run out west in such a configuration. If you want to split the service in such a way to have say 90s headways west of Science Center, you're basically going to have to rebuild the station from scratch.

And keep in mind, I'm not convinced that the line east of Eglinton won't have capacity issues in the coming decades. The amount of development that is being planned for Golden Mile is enormous, far outgrowing what any of the planners had in mind when they were making the ridership projections. It is quite unlikely that the surface Line 5 on its own would be able to cope with all of the demand.

 

[nfitz]

Except how much money would such a thing cost? Remember, Science Centre is a simple island platform station. Ignoring having to introduce crossovers somewhere, without major modifications that means each track would have to service a single line/direction. You don't have access to any pocket tracks, nor any other facility to improve turning trains around. Simply put it's effectively a single track station (similar to the Canada Line termini) and there is going to be a very harsh limit with how many trains you can run out west in such a configuration. If you want to split the service in such a way to have say 90s headways west of Science Center, you're basically going to have to rebuild the station from scratch.

St. George and Yonge stations have been served by island platforms for 60 or so years. Not ideal but functional. I doubt that Don Valley will ever see the number of transfers we see at either St. George or Bloor/Yonge. Yes, the track layout is bit unfortunate - but the right-of-way is very wide just east of Don Valley station. Lots of room to add a pocket track in a few decades. In the interim, Laird should serve well to deal with the peak points between Bayview and Oakdale.

And keep in mind, I'm not convinced that the line east of Eglinton won't have capacity issues in the coming decades. The amount of development that is being planned for Golden Mile is enormous, far outgrowing what any of the planners had in mind when they were making the ridership projections. It is quite unlikely that the surface Line 5 on its own would be able to cope with all of the demand.

I guess we'll have to see. I can see demand being a bit higher. But the AM peak point east of Victoria Park was only 3,000 (westbound approaching Victoria Park). Eastbound was only 700 riders at Warden. You could easily quadruple the westbound - event at Don Valley and Laird, westbound was only 4,200 to 4,300.

Given all the reports we are hearing of how slow the surface-level LRT will be, if we have capacity problems, then I'd think that be good news!

 

[zang]

The evidence for slow operations being mostly the responsibility of the TTC is all on Urban Toronto. If you don't have the time to find it, here are some examples: "The transcripts and youtube video of the TTC Board meeting from December 10".
youtube.com/watch?v=-5Xz9HS6ank




"This more aggressive form that is proposed now... this is a new change." The notion that having some effective TSP versus borderline non-existent TSP was never considered before, while scapegoating the other stakeholders is infuriating to many onlookers. Yes, Metrolinx shares responsibility, because they could have overrode the dumb ideas with better ones) years ago. I also want to point out that the original contract definitely specified something between 33-38 minute trip times, not the currently scheduled 46.

Here's something City Transportation Services sent to City Council in April, which I have cited multiple times since then.
"Regarding the use of TSP on the new Light Rapid Transit (LRT) lines in the City,Transportation Services and Transit Expansion Office staff have worked very closely over the years with both Metrolinx and their consortia building the new transit lines to ensure that the City's policies and practices that support TSP are incorporated as requirements within their projects. [...] For these reasons, and in consultation with the City and TTC the Metrolinx consortia are implementing Conditional TSP on Line 5 Eglinton and Line 6 Finch West." This is TSP that might as well not exist. Which calls into question exactly what those policies and practices are, and what use, if any, that those consultations with the City and TTC had. Make no mistake about it, all the evidence points towards City transportation services and TTC were 100% ok with the line being opened in its current sorry state. One can assume maybe City council and the TTC Board were kept in the dark about this.

https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2025/cc/bgrd/backgroundfile-254795.pdf

You also have to read in between the lines. The general sentiment on Urban Toronto is that TTC staff are basically saying we tried nothing and we're all out of ideas. "TTC staff: during the contact and Metrolinx managing the contract there wasn't really the opportunity for us to intervene."
"wasn't really" = at best means: we could have said something, but we chose not to, because we're ok with conditional aka useless TSP. At worst, they were fully complicit as can be understood based on that April city report I cited. The TTC staff never outright say that they are contractually obliged to renegotiate a contract if they're just operating Line 6 to speeds dictated in the original contract. They just say they "need to consult" or "done in consideration". Need to consult is not the same as "contractually obliged". The original contract would've accounted for the maintenance needed for a 33-38 minute trip time. We're paying an exorbitant ~$1 billion for 30 years of maintenance for gosh sake, the notion that maintenance costs weren't accounted for in a maintenance contract is almost ridiculous. The TTC never say they are obligated to amend the contract, in the same manner that they reveal that they are not obligated to consult with City council on removing streetcar stops.
"Myers: when the decision is made to remove a stop there's nothing actually stopping the TTC from removing it right?
TTC staff: yes but we typically consult with the local councillor and their staff. The outcome in almost all cases is do not remove our stop"

If we’re to read between the lines, square that with Matlow’s own statement:

“The TTC is often told, rather than consulting with the Metrolinx organization, that it is accountable only to premier [Doug] Ford and the transportation minister, it seems, rather than us and the people of Toronto,” he said. “The behaviour of Metrolinx has been bullyish.”

 

[ARG1]

If we’re to read between the lines, square that with Matlow’s own statement:

“The TTC is often told, rather than consulting with the Metrolinx organization, that it is accountable only to premier [Doug] Ford and the transportation minister, it seems, rather than us and the people of Toronto,” he said. “The behaviour of Metrolinx has been bullyish.”

Going through the articles trying to find the one comment that's anti-Metrolinx isn't "reading between the lines", it's desperately trying to find ammo. This only works if the argument you're trying to fight against is people claiming that Metrolinx is some perfect golden boy organization - nobody here will every to such a thing.

 

[urbanclient]

If we’re to read between the lines, square that with Matlow’s own statement:

“The TTC is often told, rather than consulting with the Metrolinx organization, that it is accountable only to premier [Doug] Ford and the transportation minister, it seems, rather than us and the people of Toronto,” he said. “The behaviour of Metrolinx has been bullyish.”

That is one anecdotal quote, and you earlier inferred that Dougie was almost solely responsible for this mess because he has openly railed against automated traffic enforcement in 2025. This is despite him only being elected in June 2018, when Line 6 works started in 2016 and Mosaic signed onto the project in April 2018. Don't get me started on Line 5. Your statements are tantamount to admissions of confirmation bias. You not even arguing against information presented to you, only to bring up two anecdotal pieces of evidence is bad faith. If I ignored all the evidence and context behind what has happened with 𝙻̶𝚒̶𝚗̶𝚎̶ ̶𝟻̶ ̶𝚊̶𝚗̶𝚍̶ ̶𝟼̶ Ontario, I too would conclude Doug Ford was the root of all human evil. I think you'll find among Urban Toronto members, that the vast majority of us are pro public healthcare, pro public education, pro-transit. We're not bootlicking Doug just because we're pointing out the facts.

Steve Munro: "Although the TTC takes the blame for rotten operations, their shuttle buses keep service available to riders. The overwhelming cause of delay is with systems provided and maintained by Metrolinx’ P3 partner, Mosaic." emphasis mine.

6 Finch West: Six Days of Delays

Line 6 Finch West opened for service on Sunday, December 7. Beside the basic issue of glacial train speed are questions of vehicle and infrastructure reliability. This post summarizes the delays th…

stevemunro.ca

At the end of the day, results matter, I could care less what anyone thinks what the exact percentage allotment of blame each responsible party should get. If anyone wants to factor this LRT blame calculus into how they vote, that's their freedom. All the stakeholders involved suck. Virtually none of us like Metrolinx, not even some of the Metrolinx employees on this forum.

@zang: "Ford shouldn't be normalized or underestimated, simply because he gives folksy vibes to 905ers." I can't believe I am saying this, but an ad hominem doesn't prove a thing.

Splitting hairs as to who is to blame more for this and that isn't productive, since all parties seem to be pointing the finger at anyone but themselves. In reality each party involved probably carries some of the blame. City council, city departments, TTC and its board, Metrolinx. And if the stupid idea(s) originated from one party, it's the other party(s) duty to keep those stupid ideas in check, not to complacently yes-man rubber stamp decisions. Even if they don't have the power to countermand decisions, they at least have a duty to voice discontent and dissent to stupid ideas. Death by committee isn't just about wasting time flapping gums, it's about metaphorical committees, organizations that are supposed to work together, but not critically evaluating each other's plans and intentions.

View attachment 702307

Here is another post on operations, namely TSP, being mostly the fault of the TTC et al rather than Metrolinx. I also already cited a city transportation services report on this, please read it. https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2025/cc/bgrd/backgroundfile-254795.pdf#:~:text=For these reasons, and in consultationwith the City and TTC the Metrolinx consortia are implementing Conditional TSP on Line5 Eglinton and Line 6 Finch West. . We have unconditional TSP at 300 intersections, mostly for streetcars; and they barely work, if at all, find @reaperexpress post on this. Conditional TSP is even worse.

Not meaning to yank ML out from under a bus of their own making - but - the first mention of signal priority for Eglinton in this thread was made in message # 162 posted on April 6, 2009. (reading the first few pages of this thread from that era is actually quite thought provoking - some things have sure changed, others have not).

Over the years where EAs and plans were done and redone, plenty of commentary about signal priority happened.

it's worth noting history - how in that planning and replanning, TTC and ML were at loggerheads, to the extent of spawning talk that ML would take over TTC altogether - a silly idea, but evidence that many were convinced that nothing less than a total takeover would uproot TTC and City policy. One has to assume that ML was more amenable to using the technology, and the City was the opposing authority. This is reflected in the original speed and trip timing projections.

It is ludicrous that TTC staffers are now portraying signal priority as something new and unfamiliar in North America. That ought to be dealt with as deliberate attempt to mislead TTC Commissioners and City Councillors. Or incompetence.

Either way, had this project not included a handover to TTC, and had ML had a freer rein to override City decisions, one has to think there would be lots more signal priority included. Perhaps the valid criticism of ML is that they played too nice.

- Paul

TTC = bad operations; Metrolinx = bad build quality

 

[lastcommodore]

Okay, so so far the only evidence I have seen that the TTC is not at fault for slow ops is that they are claiming that *any* operational change of 6 FW needs to be OK'd with Metrolinx and Mosaic.

Despite this, Metrolinx has disagreed and said they can just go and do TSP if they want to, sans approval from Mosaic.

Can anyone actually explain what is going on here? Has the TTC even *attempted* to ask Mosaic if they can enable TSP or faster ops, or is this just an excuse from TTC to do nothing?

 

[urbanclient]

Okay, so so far the only evidence I have seen that the TTC is not at fault for slow ops is that they are claiming that *any* operational change of 6 FW needs to be OK'd with Metrolinx and Mosaic.

Despite this, Metrolinx has disagreed and said they can just go and do TSP if they want to, sans approval from Mosaic.

Can anyone actually explain what is going on here? Has the TTC even *attempted* to ask Mosaic if they can enable TSP or faster ops, or is this just an excuse from TTC to do nothing?

For TSP and streetcar-like speeds in some sections, it's clearly TTC. As for operating it to meet the original contracted trip times and speeds, that's not 100% clear, but logic would tell you that maintenance costs were accounted for when Metrolinx asked for 33-38 minute trip times when it drafted the 30 year contract in 2018. We're asking for a return to the norm, not an "increase" to maintenance costs. Increase from what? Maintenance costs if one way trips were 2 hours instead of the current 50-60 minutes? Get real here people. If by some quirk of legalese, the TTC were contractually obligated to be subservient to all other parties to simply drive the tram 1 km/h faster than opening day, then that would be insane, but STILL would not absolve them of not even hitting the scheduled 46 minute trip times, even accounting for occasional reliabilty delays. It's not like every trip on every tram is delayed by the bad build quality cited by Steve Munro.

 

[Bojaxs]

Okay, so so far the only evidence I have seen that the TTC is not at fault for slow ops is that they are claiming that *any* operational change of 6 FW needs to be OK'd with Metrolinx and Mosaic.

Despite this, Metrolinx has disagreed and said they can just go and do TSP if they want to, sans approval from Mosaic.

Can anyone actually explain what is going on here? Has the TTC even *attempted* to ask Mosaic if they can enable TSP or faster ops, or is this just an excuse from TTC to do nothing?

Isn't this incredible? No one seems to know who's responsible for what regarding Line 6. How many people does it take to turn on TPS?

How many people does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

 

[lastcommodore]

How many people does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

In Toronto? 7.
One for the environmental assessment
One to create the big sign saying "Your Tax Dollars at Work: Part of our $10 billion plan to replace lightbulbs."
One to replace it
One to operate the Lightbulb Revenue Service Demonstration for 40 days
And Doug Ford, the Minister of Lightbulbs, and the Olivia Chow at the replacement ceremony.