News   Dec 16, 2025
Eglinton Line 5: On Track to Fail?
 480     3 
News   Dec 16, 2025
News Roundup for December 16, 2025
 193     0 
News   Dec 16, 2025
Heated Rivalry S1 E2
 515     1 

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

With the wording given, I want it below ground too.

How about:

"Do you want the single 25km Eglinton LRT built below ground or for the same cost a 50km of rapid transit plan including Sheppard subway extension, an above ground Eglinton LRT and an above ground Finch BRT?"

Or:

"Do you want Eglinton build below-ground or do you prefer a cheque for $1500 to be mailed to your household and Eglinton to be build above-ground?"

If the majority still say underground Eglinton LRT then that is what we should be doing.
 
Last edited:
rbt said:
With the wording given, I want it below ground too.

How about:

"Do you want the single 25km Eglinton LRT built below ground or for the same cost a 50km of rapid transit including Sheppard subway extension, an above ground Eglinton LRT and an above ground Finch LRT?"

Or:

"Do you want Eglinton build below-ground or do you prefer a cheque for $1500 to be mailed to your household and Eglinton to be build above-ground?"
Click to expand...

What I find funny is that North York and Scarborough are actually better served by the second option you mentioned. Even the "compromise" plan works better in their favour.
 
JoeParez said:
What I find funny is that North York and Scarborough are actually better served by the second option you mentioned. Even the "compromise" plan works better in their favour.
Click to expand...

Most people don't watch/read political news except at elections and even then it's limited. They wouldn't know anything other than what was in the question.

The poll includes that 50% of the population who don't even bother voting; they don't follow day to day activities of city hall closely.

I would hazard a guess that 50% of respondants don't know about the compromise plan. Give it a couple more months of news/discussion and ask again and the result might be different (see York Region BRT approval rating as a less urban comparison).
 
Last edited:
denfromoakvillemilton said:
North York and Scarborough are the reasons why we are in this mess. Scarborough wanted a subway that serves half the people their instead of an LRT which covered the whole city.
Click to expand...

Because it's not about "covering" the city. It's about getting people where they want to go. There's no value in having a streetcar next to your house if it takes you down to Kingston Road where you have no interest in going. It's also useless if it's barely any faster than the existing bus, runs less frequently, and has a stop further from your house. Even Adam Giambrone said the Sheppard LRT isn't useful for people going all the way to the subway, and anybody who rides transit in Scarborough knows that's what a good chunk of the ridership is doing.
 
Show the people a video of that Seattle Sound LRT line when it's in the middle of the road, to get a true sense what an LRT running on a suburban arterial actually runs like.
 
Or this:

(From Wikipedia)

Paris_tramway_T3_p1140675.jpg
 
rbt said:
With the wording given, I want it below ground too.

How about:

"Do you want the single 25km Eglinton LRT built below ground or for the same cost a 50km of rapid transit plan including Sheppard subway extension, an above ground Eglinton LRT and an above ground Finch BRT?"

Or:

"Do you want Eglinton build below-ground or do you prefer a cheque for $1500 to be mailed to your household and Eglinton to be build above-ground?"

If the majority still say underground Eglinton LRT then that is what we should be doing.
Click to expand...

I suspect that many of the respondents don't even realize that an underground line costs more than a line in street median.

If the question contained a fair description of alternatives - either a fully underground line and nothing else, or a subway-surface option plus $2 billion for other corridors - something tells me that the second option would win with a large margin.
 
I think the question is framed wrong, and I think this whole debate is wrong.

Eglinton underground all the way is wrong.

Eglinton as per Transit City is wrong.

Central portion underground is fine. But having it at-grade in the street on the east side is wrong. It should be either (a) in a ditch or (b) elevated or (c) duck under intersections.

It bothers me that the option that gives the best bang for the buck is ignored.



And that. Is why we fail.
 
Rainforest said:
I suspect that many of the respondents don't even realize that an underground line costs more than a line in street median.

If the question contained a fair description of alternatives - either a fully underground line and nothing else, or a subway-surface option plus $2 billion for other corridors - something tells me that the second option would win with a large margin.
Click to expand...

The Tram T3 line along the outer edges of Paris isn't very fast, probably only marginally faster than the St. Clair streetcar. The only real difference is that it uses modern rolling stock. In fact, there was a proposal to run it grade separated along a nearby abandoned rail line ("Petite Ceinture") which would have been faster, but it was built along Boulevard des Maréchaux instead (bad decision). Now Île de France (Paris) is building a much larger circular subway line outside city limits, with the first phase running east west approximately 5 km south of the city limits from Pont de Sèvres to Noisy-Champs. This clearly shows that tram lines alone simply aren't adequate to deal with the lack of adequate suburb to suburb transit in Île de France and horrible traffic congestion on roads like the Péripherique and A86.

I feel that light rail is a low-speed, low capacity technology that is not suitable for anything other than minor feeder lines like St. Clair. There needs to be at least one continuous, grade separated (can be elevated in parts) rail line running across the entire north side of the city to provide a real alternative to driving on Highway 401.
 
Rainforest said:
I suspect that many of the respondents don't even realize that an underground line costs more than a line in street median.

If the question contained a fair description of alternatives - either a fully underground line and nothing else, or a subway-surface option plus $2 billion for other corridors - something tells me that the second option would win with a large margin.
Click to expand...

I imagine that if the question was "should we mothball the Gas/Electricity plant that was already built in Mississauga or should we built a subway", you would get a different answer again.
 
andrewpmk said:
I feel that light rail is a low-speed, low capacity technology that is not suitable for anything other than minor feeder lines like St. Clair. There needs to be at least one continuous, grade separated (can be elevated in parts) rail line running across the entire north side of the city to provide a real alternative to driving on Highway 401.
Click to expand...

If St. Clair is a "minor feeder" then so is Sheppard (both halves).
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top