News   Jan 08, 2026
UTPro Crane Report Q4 2025: Down and Up and Down and Down
 413     0 
News   Jan 08, 2026
Four-Tower Le Parc Redevelopment Proposed Along Highway 7 in Markham
 783     1 
News   Jan 08, 2026
News Roundup for January 8, 2026
 475     0 

Metrolinx: Other Items (catch all)

Here I am, grinding my axe again, this time with a hint of support from the Supreme Court of Canada.

The question would be, if private investors have this level of transparency around their personal investments.... why would the taxpayer not be entitled to a comparable level of legal transparency around their investment in infrastructure.... when the amount each taxpayer contributes may equal or exceed their annual TFSA contribution?

Supreme Court rules investors can sue companies that fail to disclose ‘material changes’ fast enough​


- Paul
 
I live nearest to the Scarborough GO station, and they really need to rename it for wayfinding purposes. Without fail, whenever I have people visit me and give them specific instructions about getting to Scarborough GO, they get confused when buying tickets because when you type in “Scarborough”, all the stations in Scarborough pop up.
 
EllaW said:
I live nearest to the Scarborough GO station, and they really need to rename it for wayfinding purposes. Without fail, whenever I have people visit me and give them specific instructions about getting to Scarborough GO, they get confused when buying tickets because when you type in “Scarborough”, all the stations in Scarborough pop up.
Click to expand...
Well that's what Metrolinx loves, dont you know?

(As evidenced by the 3 Eglinton Stations we'll have in the GTA).
 
EllaW said:
I live nearest to the Scarborough GO station, and they really need to rename it for wayfinding purposes. Without fail, whenever I have people visit me and give them specific instructions about getting to Scarborough GO, they get confused when buying tickets because when you type in “Scarborough”, all the stations in Scarborough pop up.
Click to expand...

Scarborough Junction would be just fine! That’s what the station was originally known as.
 
I was right. Line 5 Eglinton is completely cooked. Assuming 12 minutes recovery time at terminuses. The round trip is in fact 100 minutes, or 50 minutes end-to-end. Not 38 minutes as advertised.

***Breaking News***
eglinton1661 said:
- 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
- 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.

[Source]
Click to expand...
urbanclient said:
Let's get the facts straight, a 34 bus travelling at 15.2 km/h beat the Line 5 Eglinton east of Victoria Park (O'Connor). The 34 bus had up to 10 stops before Kennedy, while Line 5 had 5 mandatory stops. 3.3/(13/60)= 15.2 km/h.

More to the point, the eastern mostly-at-grade section of Line 5 Eglinton is 7.7 km long. If Line 5 manages even 15 km/h speeds, that would imply a 30.8 minute travel time for that section. (7.7/15)*60=30.8 minutes; This is entirely congruent with my earlier estimate of 30 minutes for the eastern section (see previous post).
Click to expand...
urbanclient said:
Therefore, Line 5 east of the Brentcliffe tunnel portal should take at least 30 minutes if operated like Line 6.
Total end-to-end trip times on Line 5 Eglinton should be 51 minutes for 19km for an average of 22.35 km/h.

I am calling it right now, there is NO way Line 5 will be 42 minutes end-to-end, much less 38 minutes if operated like Line 6 on opening day. It won't be any faster than 50 minutes until operations significantly improve, if ever.
Click to expand...
 
Bojaxs said:
Do people ever suspect that Metrolinx's main objective with transit proposals is to boost nearby property values for "well connected" developers, and not so much about actually moving people around quickly and efficiently?
Click to expand...
A lot of the strategic planning of where lines go and what ought to be prioritised is done at MTO. Metrolinx provides the technical expertise and manages the consultants who provide further expertise. The work done at MTO by bureaucrats is not done with the goal of boosting property values for PC Party donors. The public service just doesn't work like that. Sure, certain projects are prioritised for political objectives (SSE), but it isn't because a landowner called MTO and told them to put a line through their property.
 
Abdullah77 said:
A lot of the strategic planning of where lines go and what ought to be prioritised is done at MTO. Metrolinx provides the technical expertise and manages the consultants who provide further expertise. The work done at MTO by bureaucrats is not done with the goal of boosting property values for PC Party donors. The public service just doesn't work like that. Sure, certain projects are prioritised for political objectives (SSE), but it isn't because a landowner called MTO and told them to put a line through their property.
Click to expand...

Ahem. If you don't think the Ontario Line's gerrymandered alignment had a lot to do with future development............ I don't know what to tell you.

I can assure you, its not the only project like that; and yes, I'm sure.

The civil service, by and large, does its best to provide objective advice to politicians some coming from those more capable, some less.

But transit route proposals do not spontaneously arrive from inside the civil service, or at least that's rare. Suggestions are made as to what may be worth evaluating.

Go back and look at the way Business Cases were torqued to see how thumbs are on scales when seeking certain outcomes. In what world is it logical to consider more construction jobs a factor in where to route a transit line? But it is.
 
Northern Light said:
Ahem. If you don't think the Ontario Line's gerrymandered alignment had a lot to do with future development............ I don't know what to tell you.

I can assure you, its not the only project like that; and yes, I'm sure.

The civil service, by and large, does its best to provide objective advice to politicians some coming from those more capable, some less.

But transit route proposals do not spontaneously arrive from inside the civil service, or at least that's rare. Suggestions are made as to what may be worth evaluating.

Go back and look at the way Business Cases were torqued to see how thumbs are on scales when seeking certain outcomes. In what world is it logical to consider more construction jobs a factor in where to route a transit line? But it is.
Click to expand...
One of the more obvious examples would be the Lakeview GO station on the LSW line. A propsoed GO station to be squeezed between Port Credit and Long Branch GO stations. It didn't make any sense. The only reason the Ontario government wanted to construct it was to serve a nearby proposed development. How much did the developer influence the decision to construct this station? Although I'll give Metrolinx credit in this instance. They told the Ontario government this station wasn't a good idea.

My concern is that if there is some level of corruption going on with these transit lines being built by Metrolinx, it'll lead to "gerrymandering" of the lines, and we'll end up with a less than desirable finished product. Too many stops, unnecessary turns instead of a straighter line, etc.
 
Last edited:
Bojaxs said:
My concern is that if there is some level of corruption going on with these transit lines being built by Metrolinx, it'll lead to "gerrymandering" of the lines, and we'll end up with a less than desirable finished product. Too many stops, unnecessary turns instead of a straighter line, etc.
Click to expand...

The word "corruption" needs to be used carefully. Certainly the decisionmaking is not objective or impartial, and caters to certain insider interests, but this does not imply direct payoff or criminal culpability.

I would be a lot happier if it were revealed that somebody was actually getting paid off. That would at least imply business acumen. Ford especially appears to give it up for free, so long as you are a friend.

- Paul
 
Northern Light said:
If you don't think the Ontario Line's gerrymandered alignment had a lot to do with future development............ I don't know what to tell you.
Click to expand...
The East Harbour hub shifted slightly from the earlier City proposal (and would have been impossible to connect well with GO otherwise). But there's few changes from the earlier DRL plans other than Spadina/Queen, King/Bathurst, and Exhibition. Exhibition was already a major node with lots of development. And the other 2 don't seem to be development driven.

This isn't to say that stuff doesn't happen. But I don't see the Ontario line as a strong example of that. Closing the Science Centre might be a better example - but that's a different thread.
 
Last edited:
Im not really sure where this idea that the DRL was "gerrymandered" or "gutted" for the OL comes from. The OL serves the same goal as the DRL, except lengthened and rerouted for greater connectivity... Is this not a good thing? I think it would have been a great loss to have built the original DRL route, with no connection to 5, LSW, LSE, ST. It would also be cheaper from at-grade segment sharing.

If that makes OL "gerrymandered", I'm damn happy it is.

But I am also OOTL on development projects... In what way was this alignment more favourable to developers?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top