Toronto Eglinton Line 5 Crosstown West Extension | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx

We've talked about Sunnybrook ad nauseum on here, but its clear it needs to be brought up again.

The Sunnybrook stop and above ground section between Laird and Science Center should have easily and simply been shifted to the south side of the road, making it entirely grade separated (avoiding a 3 way intersection is not hard if you understand simple geometry) No need for a tunnel, stop could have stayed.

Everyone agreed with this, including city council and planners. Unfortunately, this was not the initial Crosstown plan and it wasn't thought of when the first EA went through. But plans are usually refined as we go along. This could have been easily changed and everyone involved in the project wanted it so.

However, because of Rob Ford, they couldn't do it. After council won back the above ground portion to go ahead, after Rob Ford declared the whole line would be buried, they would have had to open up the entire line for city debate again, not just the Sunnybrook fix. This would have potentially meant the line could have been buried again, scrapped entirely etc etc.

They simply decided it was best to move ahead, after the line already had been through so many delays and changes.
 
EnviroTO said:
Why would this transfer be advantageous? They will be able to turn trains around at Laird if schedules aren't being maintained on the surface portion.
Click to expand...

If you are going to turn trains around to maintain schedules anyway, why not call it a diffrent line. I have said this before. If you are expecting a transfer, it won't be a shock when you get there. But if the trains through run between 5 and 7, its a nice surprise. (Compared with the nasty surprise of learning your train; which is supposed to just keep going because its supposedly the same line; has to be turned around and you have to get off.)
If we have to have two lines anyway, I don't see why we can't do it there and have a completely separate grade separated line with ATC (maybe ATO and PSDs someday) (Line 5), and a at-grade line which is just a glorified streetcar. (Line 7 which would be the current Line 5 from Science Centre to Kennedy, as well as the east extension, assuming the TTC cuts the crap and actually plans that as a true extension and not a "separate line which does not connect to Kennedy" because that would be "too hard".)
 
LemonCondo said:
If you are going to turn trains around to maintain schedules anyway, why not call it a diffrent line. I have said this before. If you are expecting a transfer, it won't be a shock when you get there. But if the trains through run between 5 and 7, its a nice surprise. (Compared with the nasty surprise of learning your train; which is supposed to just keep going because its supposedly the same line; has to be turned around and you have to get off.)
If we have to have two lines anyway, I don't see why we can't do it there and have a completely separate grade separated line with ATC (maybe ATO and PSDs someday) (Line 5), and a at-grade line which is just a glorified streetcar. (Line 7 which would be the current Line 5 from Science Centre to Kennedy, as well as the east extension, assuming the TTC cuts the crap and actually plans that as a true extension and not a "separate line which does not connect to Kennedy" because that would be "too hard".)
Click to expand...

Line 5 is going to be an odd duck, 70% light-metro in the west, 30% tram in exclusive lanes in the east. If such a strange set of requirements had been given from the onset (must be grade-separated in the centre and in all of Etobicoke, but has to be on-street through the Golden Mile), then indeed the most sane implementation would be to split the line in two at the Science Centre interchange.

However, creating that kind of split close to the end of construction would be cumbersome and expensive. The Science Centre station is not designed to be a terminus of 2 separate lines, it will have just 2 platforms and a tail track in the east. To split there, would have to either rebuild, or adopt some odd solution like using one platform only for each line (and that's likely to create more operational delays than simply running through).

Hardly worth the effort. The eastern segment will be slower than the rest of the line, but the notion that it will cause delays and wreck the schedule is just a theory at this point. IMO, it will just be slower, add a few minutes to the travel time, require an extra train or two to maintain the same headways, but won't affect the reliability.
 
Rainforest said:
Line 5 is going to be an odd duck, 70% light-metro in the west, 30% tram in exclusive lanes in the east. If such a strange set of requirements had been given from the onset (must be grade-separated in the centre and in all of Etobicoke, but has to be on-street through the Golden Mile), then indeed the most sane implementation would be to split the line in two at the Science Centre interchange.

However, creating that kind of split close to the end of construction would be cumbersome and expensive. The Science Centre station is not designed to be a terminus of 2 separate lines, it will have just 2 platforms and a tail track in the east. To split there, would have to either rebuild, or adopt some odd solution like using one platform only for each line (and that's likely to create more operational delays than simply running through).

Hardly worth the effort. The eastern segment will be slower than the rest of the line, but the notion that it will cause delays and wreck the schedule is just a theory at this point. IMO, it will just be slower, add a few minutes to the travel time, require an extra train or two to maintain the same headways, but won't affect the reliability.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying this would be required right now, but maybe in the 10 years it will take to build "Line 7", they could reconfigure this.
 
Just elevate the eastern section. We have the right of way set up already and the utilities have already been relocated.
 
MrGoose said:
Just elevate the eastern section. We have the right of way set up already and the utilities have already been relocated.
Click to expand...

Imagine how much longer that would take, and you would have to stop the service along the section. Maybe when they build the east extension we could do that. (Please, oh god, please.)
 
LemonCondo said:
Imagine how much longer that would take, and you would have to stop the service along the section. Maybe when they build the east extension we could do that. (Please, oh god, please.)
Click to expand...
Run the line from Science Center to Mt Dennis now and rebuild the eastern section for 3 more years. It couldn't possibly take that long. Look at how quickly the davenport grade separation on the Barrie line is coming together.
 
MrGoose said:
Run the line from Science Center to Mt Dennis now and rebuild the eastern section for 3 more years. It couldn't possibly take that long. Look at how quickly the davenport grade separation on the Barrie line is coming together.
Click to expand...

If I was the almighty dictator I would have that built but if we are being realistic that is not going to happen unfortunately.
 
Rainforest said:
Line 5 is going to be an odd duck, 70% light-metro in the west, 30% tram in exclusive lanes in the east.
Click to expand...
Light metro? The platforms are longer than Line 4, and the trains are wider than most of the trains in Montreal Metro, Paris Metro, and London Underground.

The train capacity is well beyond light-metro (and the current Line 3 - which was called intermediate capacity) - even if they had lower frequencies than planned.

Is Line 4 "light-metro"?
 
nfitz said:
Light metro? The platforms are longer than Line 4, and the trains are wider than most of the trains in Montreal Metro, Paris Metro, and London Underground.

The train capacity is well beyond light-metro (and the current Line 3 - which was called intermediate capacity) - even if they had lower frequencies than planned.

Is Line 4 "light-metro"?
Click to expand...

Light Metro is a metro system that does not use heavy rail vehicles. Vancouver Skytrain, London DLR, Montreal REM, Ontario Line, and so on. It's a very murky descriptor but its basically the middle ground between LRT and Subway. Is the grade separated portion of Line 5 LRT or Light Metro? Who knows. Its kind of semantics. However the low floor trains point more to LRT in my mind.
 
LemonCondo said:
Imagine how much longer that would take, and you would have to stop the service along the section. Maybe when they build the east extension we could do that. (Please, oh god, please.)
Click to expand...
Would you have to stop service - or even elevate the whole thing? Closing some intersections (and perhaps a stop or two), fly-overs at some key roads (VP, Pharmacy, Warden, Birchmount, ??) might do it - perhaps even shallow tunnels similar to Don Mills Road and Kennedy Road). You can build temporary tracks on the surface around the construction - which has been done elsewhere, and even historically in Toronto).

I'm not unconvinced Leslie can't be dealt with by running a contra-flow lane on the north side, which only connects to the south near Brentcliff and Don Mills Road. Mind, there's a lot of land there, perhaps they can move the whole thing to the north, or deflect the tracks to the south. That design is criminally bad though at Leslie.

LemonCondo said:
Light Metro is a metro system that does not use heavy rail vehicles
Click to expand...
That's not true. Light and Heavy are a function of capacity of the line - not the weight of the vehicles or rail. If you run a 20-metre long car similar to a T1, every 10 minutes, with 20-metre long platforms, on grade-separated track, it's light metro.

Recall that the H5 and H6 trains were going to be sold somewhere else for a light metro.

We've discussed this at length in other threads over the last couple of decades.

I could buy medium-capacity rather than Light Metro or Heavy Rail - but that would probably apply to Line 4 as well.

Either way, both TTC and Metrolinx have been branding both Line 5 and Line 6 as Subway.
 
Last edited:
nfitz said:
Would you have to stop service - or even elevate the whole thing? Closing some intersections (and perhaps a stop or two), fly-overs at some key roads (VP, Pharmacy, Warden, Birchmount, ??) might do it - perhaps even shallow tunnels similar to Don Mills Road and Kennedy Road). You can build temporary tracks on the surface around the construction - which has been done elsewhere, and even historically in Toronto).

I'm not unconvinced Leslie can't be dealt with by running a contra-flow lane on the north side, which only connects to the south near Brentcliff and Don Mills Road. Mind, there's a lot of land there, perhaps they can move the whole thing to the north, or deflect the tracks to the south. That design is criminally bad though at Leslie.

That's not true. Light and Heavy are a function of capacity of the line - not the weight of the vehicles or rail. If you run a 20-metre long car similar to a T1, every 10 minutes, with 20-metre long platforms, on grade-separated track, it's light metro.

Recall that the H5 and H6 trains were going to be sold somewhere else for a light metro.

We've discussed this at length in other threads over the last couple of decades.

I could buy medium-capacity rather than Light Metro or Heavy Rail - but that would probably apply to Line 4 as well.

Either way, both TTC and Metrolinx have been branding both Line 5 and Line 6 as Subway.
Click to expand...
Light Metros also typically have higher tolerance for grades and corners typically.

I think if we get around to upgrading our streetcar lines to be on par with LRT, we should rebrand the "Subway" to the "Metro", with subway and light rail components. A good example is the Metro map of Paris. They have metro lines like 1, 2, and 3, as well as tram lines like T1, T2, and T3 on the same map. I think lines like Line 6 would be rebranded to a "T" line. And again, since Line 5 has so much subway, it should be such with either cutting it off at Science Centre, or like you said, upgrade the east.

If you were gonna upgrade stuff you would probably want to construct pre-cast components, bring them in, and install in a fraction of the time it would take if you "stick built" them.

As far as Leslie goes, what about that crazy interchange right next door. That is not being used for anything. Could you hook that up to Leslie? Upgrade it?
 
nfitz said:
Higher than the grades of the Montréal and Paris metros handle?

"Light Metro" is less likely to have a stainless steel finish too.
Click to expand...

I would like to hear your thoughts on what I said about that underutilized interchange in respect to Leslie.

And on a note about stainless steel finish, I agree. I really hope our next generation of TTC Line 1/2/4 rolling stock ditches this North American trend to keep building subway cars that "harken back" to past designs. Since Line 2 is getting ATC eventually, not to mention the two subway extensions now in progress, I think we are coming up on ordering more trains. Now whether they would go straight to Line 2, or if they would go to Line 1 and then Line 2 would get the hand-me-down TRs is anybody's guess. One could imagine that since the TR is in the Bombardier/Alstom Movia family, a new rolling stock model might just also be in the same family. Assuming that, I think the absolute best looking Movia is the C30 of the Stockholm Metro. They were built between 2016-2022:
C30_Bredäng_200909_2.jpg


For a moment I want you to image this train, at a Toronto Subway station, with a TTC logo in white instead of SL, possibly with red doors. How amazing would that look?!?
A super sleek modern design is more then possible on the Movia platform, so I really hope they don't screw it up with the next order of rolling stock.
 
nfitz said:
Light metro? The platforms are longer than Line 4, and the trains are wider than most of the trains in Montreal Metro, Paris Metro, and London Underground.

The train capacity is well beyond light-metro (and the current Line 3 - which was called intermediate capacity) - even if they had lower frequencies than planned.

Is Line 4 "light-metro"?
Click to expand...

There is no hard rule, but based on capacity, Line 5 is either LRT or light metro. Definitely not heavy metro. Line 5's maximum is 13-15k per hour per direction, while Lines 1 and 2 can do 30-35k each.

In a way, Line 4 functions as a light metro today. Although it could be easily reconfigured to do a heavy metro's job, if the demand for that existed.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top