News   Feb 20, 2026
Amica Retirement Community Nears Topping Off at Dundas and Burnhamthorpe
 900     0 
News   Feb 20, 2026
State of Construction: How Digital Tools Are Transforming Construction in the GTA
 912     1 
News   Feb 20, 2026
Safehaven Plans 14-Storey Supportive Housing on Bloor Near Dufferin
 1.3K     2 

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

If capacity is a problem, the solution is to build more lines. Not to spend billions on shutting a line down for years to convert it to something else.

There's a lot of relief built into the design of the Line 5. Lines that go directly downtown from Eglinton act as relief lines of sorts at four different locations. That will increase to six when Caledonia GO and the Ontario Line open and their relief effect will improve as GO expansion proceeds.
 
Eglinton obviously not suited for LRT, but it does leave opportunities for future on-street branches serving Eglinton in Mississauga and Lawrence East in Scarborough. Mississauga was considering Eglinton as the next candidate for LRT but ultimately they chose Derry instead. Lawrence East of course has always featured prominently in Toronto's "Avenues" plan. Such a network with on street branches converging onto an underground trunk would be similar to Muni Metro in SF. Light rail was a mistake but why not make the most of it.
 
There is no issue with how Eglinton was built. Over time there are many options to allow the line to grow with the city:

Vehicle Capacity
  1. Greater frequency. +100%
  2. Add another car with the same specifications to the train. +50%
  3. Switch to module arrangement with less dead space (e.g. 9 module car + 7 module car, 17 module single car) or upgrade to completely different vehicles +10-25%
So if a 500 passenger train comes every 5 minutes today that is a 6000 pax/h capacity, running at 2.5min 12,000 pax/h, with a three car train 18,000 pax/h, with a zero dead space car set 22,000 pax/h. In addition one would assume that frequent GO services and Line 3 opening, and other new service yet envisioned would direct some trips to other paths.

Station Capacity
  1. Accessibility investments in secondary exits.

Speed
  1. Signal priority
  2. Increased protection against incursions
  3. Strategic investments for fly-under stations at the most problematic intersections. There should be some metrics, similar to rail level crossing risk calculations, that drive this.
 
EnviroTO said:
There is no issue with how Eglinton was built. Over time there are many options to allow the line to grow with the city:

Vehicle Capacity
  1. Greater frequency. +100%
  2. Add another car with the same specifications to the train. +50%
  3. Switch to module arrangement with less dead space (e.g. 9 module car + 7 module car, 17 module single car) or upgrade to completely different vehicles +10-25%
So if a 500 passenger train comes every 5 minutes today that is a 6000 pax/h capacity, running at 2.5min 12,000 pax/h, with a three car train 18,000 pax/h, with a zero dead space car set 22,000 pax/h. In addition one would assume that frequent GO services and Line 3 opening, and other new service yet envisioned would direct some trips to other paths.

Station Capacity
  1. Accessibility investments in secondary exits.

Speed
  1. Signal priority
  2. Increased protection against incursions
  3. Strategic investments for fly-under stations at the most problematic intersections. There should be some metrics, similar to rail level crossing risk calculations, that drive this.
Click to expand...
With more grass and hedges, instead of concrete. Some drivers know they shouldn't drive on grass.
 
EnviroTO said:
Yes, they seem to be a little better with grass. Do not enter signs, flashing lights, and raised curbs for some reason don't give enough visual cues to prevent people entering the Queens Quay tunnel. Even drunk people seem to figure out they are off-roading through bushes and grass.
Click to expand...
Maybe fake geese and fake "goose dropping" to get pedestrians to circumnavigation them off the right-of-way.
1771707601417.png
 
Story to share. Was heading eastbound on Line 5 this morning at around 11-noon. I noticed something me and left me disappointed but also to makes one think twice that Transit signal priority will solve anything for the surface portions of line 5 and line 6.

I was seated and standing in the front car and able to see out the front with same view as the driver/conductor. As we approached Sloane station from a distance I could see the green arrow from about 300-400 meters away. I could even see much further beyond that and clearly there was no other streetcar in site in front of us. But at this point the train was advancing at very slow speeds and even slowing down more and more ( for no apparent reason) as he was approaching the intersection even though he had the green arrow for transit signal. Then as the green arrow signal changed(at approx 20 meters away), that's when he maintained his speed and came to full stop. Even though the station stop was situated on the other side of the intersection, he made every effort possible to force an unnecessary stop at the intersection for the commuters. That's frustrating!. When I got off that station stop, I could see from not too far behind another car coming. Hence there doesn't appear to be evidence that he was ahead of schedule somehow.

It is beyond me what the rationale or logic was for this kind of behavior by the driver/conductor. He was clearly making every effort to make an unnecessary stop for no apparent reason. So now we are hearing that TSP is supposed to be the magic bullet. Maybe it its time to look at the operators before we look at TSP.
 
Last edited:
Burnt creek said:
Story to share. Was heading eastbound on Line 5 this morning at around 11-noon. I noticed something me and left me disappointed but also to makes one think twice that Transit signal priority will solve anything for the surface portions of line 5 and line 6.

I was seated and standing in the front car and able to see out the front with same view as the driver/conductor. As we approached Sloane station from a distance I could see the green arrow from about 300-400 meters away. I could even see much further beyond that and clearly there was no other streetcar in site in front of us. But at this point the train was advancing at very slow speeds and even slowing down more and more ( for no apparent reason) as he was approaching the intersection even though he had the green arrow for transit signal. Then as the green arrow signal changed(at approx 20 meters away), that's when he maintained his speed and came to full stop. Even though the station stop was situated on the other side of the intersection, he made every effort possible to force an unnecessary stop at the intersection for the commuters. That's frustrating!. When I got off that station stop, I could see from not too far behind another car coming. Hence there doesn't appear to be evidence that he was ahead of schedule somehow.

It is beyond me what the rationale or logic was for this kind of behavior by the driver/conductor. He was clearly making every effort to make an unnecessary stop for no apparent reason. So now we are hearing that TSP is supposed to be the magic bullet. Maybe it its time to look at the operators before we look at TSP.
Click to expand...
I completely sympathize with your story. However, when I hear something like this, I always try to think if there might be another side to it.
Despite the next train being close behind, the driver might have received an instruction to slow down for reasons unknown.
Perhaps the driver saw something that concerned him, which you might not have seen, such as someone ahead standing close to the tracks and looking like they were thinking of crossing, or an animal (squirrel? bird?) by the tracks.
Maybe the driver was slightly distracted, drinking a sip of coffee or moving things around in the cab, and didn't feel safe going full speed at that moment.
Drivers of all TTC vehicles slow down or even stop all the time for reasons I can't determine, but I assume there is a reason, and would rather they err on the side of caution.
But if they were moving slow for a long stretch, which I certainly have seen, then yes, I'd be peeved too.
 
Burnt creek said:
It is beyond me what the rationale or logic was for this kind of behavior by the driver/conductor. He was clearly making every effort to make an unnecessary stop for no apparent reason. So now we are hearing that TSP is supposed to be the magic bullet. Maybe it its time to look at the operators before we look at TSP.
Click to expand...
Maybe the train behind was the one running ahead of schedule?
 
There may well be good reason for what you observed, but it does cause a suspicion that traditional TTC culture is infecting the line.

Do subway drivers slow down at their own discretion when they have green signals? Heck, no.

Line 5 operators need to be told emphatically - don't second guess or game the lights. Take every green you get. If timing needs adjustments, wait in a station, presumably with some system input governing your timing.

- Paul
 
Burnt creek said:
It is beyond me what the rationale or logic was for this kind of behavior by the driver/conductor. He was clearly making every effort to make an unnecessary stop for no apparent reason. So now we are hearing that TSP is supposed to be the magic bullet. Maybe it its time to look at the operators before we look at TSP.
Click to expand...
It sounds like the train was ahead of schedule. If a train is substantially early into a station, the signal system will not allow it to leave. He may very well have been trying to keep the train from sitting on the platform for a while with the doors open.

You see this on the bus and streetcar network all the time, even if you don't realize it. It happens on the subways too, although as most of the stations are underground it's not such a headache to leave the doors open for a minute or two.

Dan
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top