News   Jan 22, 2026
The Next Round of Transit in the GTHA: Bus Rapid Transit and Light Rail Lines
 424     2 
News   Jan 22, 2026
UnionCity South at Unionville GO Trims Tallest Tower to 45 Storeys
 376     0 
News   Jan 22, 2026
Industry Updates: Housing Policy Revisions, Market Softness, and City-Building Initiatives
 490     0 

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

T3G said:
That seems like a pretty nebulous quantifier... the 504 King, traditionally "light rail", carries a hell of a lot more people than the Sheppard line or the Franklin Avenue shuttle in New York, which most traditionally define as "heavy rail".
Click to expand...
Forgot about "heavy" and "light" rail

There are two main design differences I see between Line 5 EC and the legacy subway lines (Lines 1, 2 and 3)
1) Line 5 EC was designed with significantly less capacity
2) Line 5 was designed to be partially grade-separated

This has probably been discussed ad nauseum here with people questioning or supporting these design decisions. This topic came up though in the context of the update maps that started appearing this week. The issue being that the updated maps don't distinguish between the differences in Line 5 vs the legacy lines.

To passengers, the capacity probably doesn't matter since the speeds are similar (?) in the grade separated portions (unless there is a major outage and legacy line passengers are forced to rely on Line 5, in which I would imagine capacity constraints). But IMO passengers should definitely be informed via the map design where the non separated portions are since the line performs differently there, including no true enclosed stations as we think of them.

What's worrisome is that Cedarvale signs went up without saying the former station name (Eg West). This can be easily fixed with some stickers. But it doesn't give me a ton of hope that the TTC will communicate the new line capabilities properly.
 
T3G said:
How much does a subway car weigh, and how much does an LRV weigh?

The only passenger carrying heavy rail we have is GO and VIA.
Click to expand...
"Heavy Rail" versus "light rail" is not measured in absolutes.

Yes, as you point out, GO and VIA (and CN, and CP) are heavy rail versus subways, LRTs and streetcars. But that is in the railway regulatory sphere and the tell is their crashworthiness and strength capabilities, not their weight..

From a transit standpoint, the subway is absolutely considered "heavy rail" when compared to LRTs and streetcars by virtue of their ultimate passenger carrying capacities.

Dan
 
APTA-2048 said:
This aversion to putting line 5 and 6 on the map always seems silly (and kinda irrational). You look at the Los Angeles rapid transit map and it has subway, light rail, and even bus lines on it. I don’t see a problem with that.
Click to expand...
agreed - but they should appear differently where appropriate (eg thin or dotted line for Line 5 at grade portions and Line 6)
 
APTA-2048 said:
This aversion to putting line 5 and 6 on the map always seems silly (and kinda irrational). You look at the Los Angeles rapid transit map and it has subway, light rail, and even bus lines on it. I don’t see a problem with that.
Click to expand...
If that is the case, the grade separated Streetcar lines should also be on the map.
 
mrgrieves said:
agreed - but they should appear differently where appropriate (eg thin or dotted line for Line 5 at grade portions and Line 6)
Click to expand...

I personally think that would be unnecessary, and maybe more confusing? People riding from one end to the other are not going to care the line comes up from underground. They’re already on the train and it’s just going to be a continuous ride.
 
APTA-2048 said:
I personally think that would be unnecessary, and maybe more confusing? People riding from one end to the other are not going to care the line comes up from underground. They’re already on the train and it’s just going to be a continuous ride.
Click to expand...
The TTC has a "subway map", and a "streetcar and subway map". on the latter, streetcar lines are thinner. and no distinction is made between ROW or mixed traffic lines. Line 5 EC is a hybrid line due the partial grade separation. and so I think it would be misleading for passengers to expect the on-grade sections to be the same as grade separated. they are much slower, more stops, and no stations
 
mrgrieves said:
The TTC has a "subway map", and a "streetcar and subway map". on the latter, streetcar lines are thinner. and no distinction is made between ROW or mixed traffic lines. Line 5 EC is a hybrid line due the partial grade separation. and so I think it would be misleading for passengers to expect the on-grade sections to be the same as grade separated. they are much slower, more stops, and no stations
Click to expand...
This seems to be a thing transit nerds obsess over that the general public doesn’t even think of.

Like I said, the Los Angeles map doesn’t make a distinction. It looks clean and I’ve never heard anyone complain about it being misleading.
 
T3G said:
How much does a subway car weigh, and how much does an LRV weigh?

The only passenger carrying heavy rail we have is GO and VIA.
Click to expand...
Here's the guy to ask.

superman1.jpg
 
APTA-2048 said:
This seems to be a thing transit nerds obsess over that the general public doesn’t even think of.

Like I said, the Los Angeles map doesn’t make a distinction. It looks clean and I’ve never heard anyone complain about it being misleading.
Click to expand...
In case you didn’t notice this is where transit nerds come to nerd out and obsess over things that completely don’t matter to distract from bigger problems. Have fun polling everyone
 
mrgrieves said:
In case you didn’t notice this is where transit nerds come to nerd out and obsess over things that completely don’t matter to distract from bigger problems. Have fun polling everyone
Click to expand...

Yes but this is also a place where other transit nerds can come and voice their opinions on stuff thats posted here.

Identifying the above ground sections of Line 5 is an opinion I’ve seen a lot and I don’t agree with it.

I don’t think the public cares if the line is above ground or whatever. The point of a map is to show where the transit goes, not to give full context of how a line operates, that info isn’t going to change anyone’s trips.

The only differentiation I think rail lines on maps need is the level of service they have, and this is something that only applies to regional rail, not anything on the subway network.

IMG_6461.jpeg
 
Last edited:
The subway maps look sad in Toronto when compared to other cities. However, adding streetcars and LRTs would make it look slightly better.If you just use transit and don't care, it is indeed irrelevant. You just want to know how to get around. For the rest of us nerds, those lines on a map mean something much, much more.
 
An issue I could see arise from making the at-grade portions of the LRTs a thinner or dotted line is a potential association with the new standard on GO Transit maps, where dotted lines mean limited service. People could associate the two and end up confused, thinking parts of the TTC lines have limited service, which is not the case.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top