News   Dec 05, 2025
Renowned Toronto-Born Architect Frank Gehry, Dead at 96
 66     0 
News   Dec 05, 2025
Finch West Line 6 Opens Sunday: It Could Use Some Improvements
 1K     1 
News   Dec 05, 2025
First Phase Advances at Multi-Tower Proposal on Steeles in Brampton
 317     0 

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

nfitz said:
After? So a few more years yet.
Click to expand...
unfortunately it would actually do more harm than good at this stage to fire him. short of a major scandal you cant afford to fire the ceo at a critical juncture, its like the leafs letting go of the GM and head coach during the middle of the stanley cup playoffs. these things are done afterwards.
 
cplchanb said:
honestly by giving no deadlines Verster is allowing contractors to go carte blanche on their construction schedules. they are under no pressure to deliver on time since their opening date goals are secret from the main stakeholders of this project: the public.
verster needs to be relieved of duty after this project is finished. he is at fault for most of these delays.
Click to expand...
remember, just because they dont have public dates, doesnt mean that there are no actual completion dates.
 
cplchanb said:
unfortunately it would actually do more harm than good at this stage to fire him. short of a major scandal you cant afford to fire the ceo at a critical juncture, its like the leafs letting go of the GM and head coach during the middle of the stanley cup playoffs. these things are done afterwards.
Click to expand...
I disagree. It's like MLSE letting go of their CEO and president - Keith Pelley.

Verster does nothing day-to-day. They lose nothing on this projct with him gone, and have everything to gain on this project.
 
generalcanada said:
remember, just because they dont have public dates, doesnt mean that there are no actual completion dates.
Click to expand...
yea but who holds them accountable if the ones that make the deadlines allow for it to slip or such a low bar deadline that if scrutinised would be almost scandalous?
dont forget this is a public project, and the lack of transparency and moving goalposting is really driving a nerve on everyone
 
nfitz said:
I disagree. It's like MLSE letting go of their CEO and president - Keith Pelley.

Verster does nothing day-to-day. They lose nothing on this projct with him gone, and have everything to gain on this project.
Click to expand...
well in this case his lieutenants can also join him too in the unemployment line. they need to really clean up shop after this project is done.
 
cplchanb said:
yea but who holds them accountable if the ones that make the deadlines allow for it to slip or such a low bar deadline that if scrutinised would be almost scandalous?
dont forget this is a public project, and the lack of transparency and moving goalposting is really driving a nerve on everyone
Click to expand...
yea but then that's 2 different things.

"they're not holding contractors to the construction schedules and responsible for the delays

"they're not giving the public any construction estimates"

You can be mad about the transparency, but that's not on Verster, its on Ford muzzling the entire agency.

Remember it was Ford preventing an opening day from being announced a year ago
 
innercrow said:
I don't really understand the comparison here. Lots of people are very frustrated with slow zones or other limitations on line 1. They don't suggest rebuilding line 1 because that is obviously not the solution to the problem, maintenance and modernization is, and that is clearly on the long-term agenda!

Even with theoretically perfect operation and maintenance there are non-trivial capacity and speed limitations to road median tramways that grade separation potentially addresses. Whether you think that eventually will/should happen is another thing that I don't really care to argue about, but it's clearly not unorthodox. The first ttc subways were themselves built to replace streetcar lines. And the SSE most recently was always premised on ripping up the RT. Transit infrastructure is often iterative, this seems rather uncontroversial to me
Click to expand...

I can't predict what happens 50 or 70 years from now. Maybe, Eglinton LRT will be replaced by a subway, or by a yet-unknown new transit technology.

My post was in response to suggestions that the eastern section of ECLRT needs to be rebuilt soon after opening, or disconnected from the grade-separate section and operated separately, etc. I don't believe such actions are needed, and don't see them happening.
 
Bojaxs said:
So would it be possible to connect both the Eglinton line and Finch line at some point in the future? Perhaps at Toronto Pearson airport?
Click to expand...
Physically, it would be possible.

Contractually, probably not so much. I think we tend to forget that even though the TTC will be operating both lines, there are separate maintenance contracts for the next 30 years. The carhouses, rolling stock and physical infrastructure of each line for all intents and purposes, will be completely separate legal entities.
 
EYorker said:
Physically, it would be possible.

Contractually, probably not so much. I think we tend to forget that even though the TTC will be operating both lines, there are separate maintenance contracts for the next 30 years. The carhouses, rolling stock and physical infrastructure of each line for all intents and purposes, will be completely separate legal entities.
Click to expand...
That's terrible. Lack of foresight. And yet I'm not surprised.
 
Sept 5
was up at Yonge and Eglinton today after my last visited many months ago and surprise the north-east corner is still not finished considering the rest is done.

What is the hold up?
 
Bojaxs said:
That's terrible. Lack of foresight. And yet I'm not surprised.
Click to expand...
The idea behind the 30 year maintenance contracts under the PPP model is to:
1- Have the contractors build higher quality infrastructure that would last as they'd be on the hook for maintaining it for such a long period.
2- That the asset would be maintained in a better state of repair for when that 30 year period ends and the asset is handed over to the public sector.

How this plays out remains to be seen, as this seems to be the first time it's really been done on such large infrastructure in Ontario.
 
Bojaxs said:
That's terrible. Lack of foresight. And yet I'm not surprised.
Click to expand...

Not even lack of foresight, but a consious decision to ignore the interoperability aspect. Arguably, that makes it even worse.

But fortunately, this is not a hard physical constraint. The contract only lasts for 30 years. After that, TTC or Metrolinx or whoever is in charge can demand interoperability to be a part of the new deal.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top