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

[EastYorkTTCFan]

What’s with the French on every announcement? Does the Montreal subway run English on every stop?

It's because it's owned by Metrolink, which is owned by the provicne and as a requirement of the province everythig needs to be in both official languages. I believe the TTC is looking into having both when the line 2 and line 1 extensions open so as to avoid having one section having English only and another section having bilingual

 

[nfitz]

To your point, yes it should be considered as quick math showing the directional flow of passengers rather than what peak passenger demand should be expected at Yonge-Eglinton station. People will be alighting at Mt Pleasant, Leaside, Avenue, etc. before reaching Yonge (and I suspect in practice, many travel patterns will shift towards Cedarvale).

Both those graphs and the earlier EA show the peak point is eastbound approaching Cedarvale station. Though the numbers here seem about 25% higher; I wonder if they assumed faster travel times or something. Still, relatively comparable.

I think you need to compare this to the previous bus route capacity. Quickly looking, at the (future) peak point eastbound approaching Eglinton West were (last week) the following routes: 32, 63, 90, and 164. The frequencies on these four routes were 3'13", 5", 10", and 22". That makes a total frequency of 1.52 minutes (39.4 buses an hour). That would be a peak capacity (at 51 riders/bus) of only about 2,000 per hour!

This all assumes that all the buses are at peak capacity for an entire hour.

Eastbound approaching Cedarvale station

Bus Route	Frequency (min)	Buses/hour	Capacity/hour
32 Eglinton West	3.2	18.7	951
63 Ossington	10	6	306
90 Vaughan	10	6	306
164 Castlefield	22	2.7	139
Total	1.80	33.4	1702

(including 63 Ossington may be overkill, as I doubt it's that busy approaching Cedarvale station!)


Also, we had routes 34, 51, 54, and 56 westbound approaching Eglinton

Westbound approaching Eglinton station

Bus Route	Frequency (min)	Buses/hour	Capacity/hour
34 Eglinton East	6	10	510
51 Leslie	24	2.5	128
54 Lawrence East	6	10	510
56 Leaside	15	4	204
88 South Leaside	8	7.5	383
Total	1.76	34.0	1734

Though I do think that there may be a lot more people changing travel patterns, induced demand, and some modal shift. Double seems a lot, (you'd need triple, which is what you'd need to match the EA 2030s estimates is generous). I don't see how it would be an order of magnitude.

Your approach make sense, but I don't think the math/assumptions you are using to go from weekday ridership over the entire route in both directions to peak point ridership in one direction is quite right.

 

[eglinton1661]

lol: Forest Hill residents may be wondering why the entrance on the south side of Eglinton isn’t open. That’s because it’s not even connected to the station underground yet.

Station manager says the condo developer is still negotiating about the fare gates(?) so they haven’t even broken through the wall to connect to the station. Here is the section of where the entrance is supposed to connect.

 

[nottoban]

That’s much better. Still doesn’t explain why Finch has a single line number while the streetcars are relegated to a secondary numbering system. Also noticing St Clair is a skinny line and is honestly no different in any way to Finch. This is all politics I guess. Metrolinx built this (Doug Ford himself with his own bare hands) so it must be considered a major transit line. Perhaps the TTC will correct this in the future.

The use of a line number was at TTC's insistence. Originally their intent was to refer to both lines 5 and 6 as subway lines. Part of why the term "light rail" is now used is because of the need to reconcile that decision with the fact that there was a significant gap between what someone could reasonably describe as a subway and how the LRTs (especially line 6) would function. The solution, which is probably a bit clunky, was to group them as a 'category' of mode referred to as 'subway and light rail' when referring to the network, but still use light rail when referring to lines 5 and 6.

 

[McGillicuddy]

The use of a line number was at TTC's insistence. Originally their intent was to refer to both lines 5 and 6 as subway lines. Part of why the term "light rail" is now used is because of the need to reconcile that decision with the fact that there was a significant gap between what someone could reasonably describe as a subway and how the LRTs (especially line 6) would function. The solution, which is probably a bit clunky, was to group them as a 'category' of mode referred to as 'subway and light rail' when referring to the network, but still use light rail when referring to lines 5 and 6.

I might add: this all happened on the shoulders of a decades-long headache about what to do with the Scarborough Urban GO / Scarborough RT / Scarborough LRT / Line 3 Scarborough / Oh God The Scarborough Thing Can We Just Stop @%^$ing Arguing.

 

[interchange42]

The use of a line number was at TTC's insistence. Originally their intent was to refer to both lines 5 and 6 as subway lines. Part of why the term "light rail" is now used is because of the need to reconcile that decision with the fact that there was a significant gap between what someone could reasonably describe as a subway and how the LRTs (especially line 6) would function. The solution, which is probably a bit clunky, was to group them as a 'category' of mode referred to as 'subway and light rail' when referring to the network, but still use light rail when referring to lines 5 and 6.

The point being made, I believe, is that Finch just isn't different enough from St Clair to warrant a single digit number and that Finch should be a 5XX line. Line 5, at least, is a light metro with an LRT appendage at its east end.

In the meantime, not perfect, but so much better today than Finch opening day.

At Yonge'n'Eg

42

 

[Westey]

That's a very interesting thought! I'd suggested moving the turning lanes to the north, but that would have required upgrades at the tunnel. I think this is an even better idea! Does anyone see a major flaw in this suggestion? You'd have to rejig the Mike Palmateer intersection somehow.

I need to understand this better.

• The through lanes are to the south of the tracks. There are only 2 lanes there, so it becomes 1 in each direction?
• If a new tunnel is punched through the rail embankment to the south, that messes up the Celestica Overpass even more.
• Now on the north is the Leslie lanes. Where does the switch happen, before the portals I assume. So someone turning from Leslie SB to Eglinton EB, would only be able to switch back to their proper side of the road 150m from Don Mills. Then they have to cut across several lanes of traffic if they want SB Don Mills.

I can't imagine it working.

 

[Westey]

The use of a line number was at TTC's insistence. Originally their intent was to refer to both lines 5 and 6 as subway lines. Part of why the term "light rail" is now used is because of the need to reconcile that decision with the fact that there was a significant gap between what someone could reasonably describe as a subway and how the LRTs (especially line 6) would function. The solution, which is probably a bit clunky, was to group them as a 'category' of mode referred to as 'subway and light rail' when referring to the network, but still use light rail when referring to lines 5 and 6.

I guess Line 5 would terminate at Pearson, with a few stops to the current terminus at Humber. So, Humber Station would be called 510, the 10th station on line 5. Highway 27 would be 511, etc.
That was they will clearly be almost subway-like with no relation to a streetcar at all.

 

[nfitz]

I need to understand this better.

• The through lanes are to the south of the tracks. There are only 2 lanes there, so it becomes 1 in each direction?
• If a new tunnel is punched through the rail embankment to the south, that messes up the Celestica Overpass even more.
• Now on the north is the Leslie lanes. Where does the switch happen, before the portals I assume. So someone turning from Leslie SB to Eglinton EB, would only be able to switch back to their proper side of the road 150m from Don Mills. Then they have to cut across several lanes of traffic if they want SB Don Mills.

I can't imagine it working.

Ah ... yeah, I see the problem ... you'd still need an extra lane on the north side through the tunnel ... so similar problem as my own suggestion. And SB to Don MIlls adds a twist as well.

I guess that leaves moving the track a bit further south, and shifting one or both of the eastbound lanes to the north side of the tracks. Which I just don't see happening. Especially if they can iron out the lights - should be an easier one with such long distance to the next light at Aga Khan.

 

[Johnny Au]

February 8, 2026:

As promised, the first one for me: Oakwood station:

 

[yurt2022]

Some observations after riding the line for the first time:

Trains are especially slow around the at-grade section from Pharmacy-Kennedy. Shuttle busses were flying past me even though I was riding around 9PM on a Sunday with minimal traffic around the ROW. While it is better than FW, I think Line 6 has ruined our perspectives on what a "good" speed should be.

Observed operation of TSP at a few intersections, i.e extended greens and shortened reds, trains still have many opportunities to get stuck at a red however.

Below grade section:

ATC is programmed to be overly cautious when approaching stations. Trains brake a bit too hard, too early, and come crawling in and stop jerkily and unsurely unlike Line 1 which has a much smoother operation.

Lots of wind/rail noise in the tunnels even at only 60 km/h. The tunnelled section sounds very loud in the Flexities which was suprising, it will probably be way worse if the cap is raised to 80 km/h. Also noticed a lot of oscillation/hunting in the cars above 55. Not at all unbearable, but not as smooth as Line 1/2, will also probably get worse with the increased speed limit.

Otherwise, the underground section of Line 5 has ok potential if these issues are properly ironed out. I still have my reservations about the at-grade section however, and I think this part will always be the crux of the line.

Another bottleneck are the vehicles which are cramped in some parts, and the abysmally small doors. Will definitely cause flow and capacity issues in the future.

 

[Jac.]

I wonder how many of the people that trot out this bullshit argument actually use the line they are condemning for being built as the wrong form of transit?

I have no idea how anyone can look at the overcrowded, traffic logged buses that were running on Eglinton and think that those were preferable to a vehicle that has infinitely higher capacity and its own lanes to boot, just because it's not the proper form of transit, whatever the hell that means. Thank Christ we don't have people like you making decisions on what gets built.

Just because the previous situation was demonstrably bad, doesn't mean people aren't allowed to point out the flaws of what succeeded it. And also you don't really need to live in area or actually use the line to know which form of transportation should have replaced it, ridership data etc all shows that the Eglinton corridor, specifically on the eastern portion would have greatly benefited from being underground as opposed to it's current configuration, or better yet had the whole line as a subway to begin with. But all is said and done at this point, and all we can do about it is improve what we have currently and maybe sometimes think about what life could have been had the people in charge of the project made the right decisions, I'm just not a fan of this idea of "hey you don't use the line, don't criticize it" as it shuns out a lot of valid points that even people in the neighbourhood who use the shiny new toy have to come to grips with.

 

[turini2]

Have really enjoyed seeing all the opening day festivities from the UK - and all your thoughts and observations. Not often that 19 kilometres of new rapid transit opens!
I do wish the orange colour was used a little less ... sparingly - some of those plain walls could have been livened up by some occasional flashes, strips or stripes of colour.

(Of course, in a perfect world, I want more public art)

 

[T3G]

Just because the previous situation was demonstrably bad, doesn't mean people aren't allowed to point out the flaws of what succeeded it. And also you don't really need to live in area or actually use the line to know which form of transportation should have replaced it, ridership data etc all shows that the Eglinton corridor, specifically on the eastern portion would have greatly benefited from being underground as opposed to it's current configuration, or better yet had the whole line as a subway to begin with. But all is said and done at this point, and all we can do about it is improve what we have currently and maybe sometimes think about what life could have been had the people in charge of the project made the right decisions, I'm just not a fan of this idea of "hey you don't use the line, don't criticize it" as it shuns out a lot of valid points that even people in the neighbourhood who use the shiny new toy have to come to grips with.

Ah, but declaring on behalf of the line's users that actually, buses were enough for them until such time as a full subway was feasible is quite a bit more than merely criticizing the line.

Thank God you do not have any position of power. You and small minded limited thinking people like yourselves are the reason why we have a hard time making progress in our city and are the reason for screwing over our children and grandchildren who will use transit in the future. You and others like you make our city a worse place to live and make the quality of life for our future generations much worse.

Funnily enough, I have the exact same opinion of unimaginative people like you who have no idea how transit works in other parts of the world and believe that subways are the only valid form of transit, and insist on hogging all the capital cost dollars on building a few highly limited megalomaniacal transit projects that deliver far less upgraded transit per km than a network of surface LRTs ever would. I'm sure all the people who would be stuck riding buses in mixed traffic under your transit vision because there isn't enough money to go around and upgrade their line are absolutely thrilled with you.

 

[PL1]

Incidentally, Google Maps does not show the updated bus routes. For instance, it shows the 56A for me this morning. I filed an report with them.

Transit app is fine