Talk:Line 5 Eglinton

Planned opening

December 2019 discussion

Special:Contributions/70.54.145.7 has changed the infobox "planned opening" from 2022 to 2023. In my opinion the "planned" opening is still 2022 despite a very strong chance it might be 2023. A recent Toronto Star article says ambiguously: "The Eglinton Crosstown has a new official completion date of next fall [2022], but the LRT likely won’t start taking passengers until 2023." A Metrolinx article says: "Under the settlement agreement, CTS has committed to substantially complete the project’s construction and systems scope by the end of September 2022. The in-service date for passenger revenue services may be several months later and Metrolinx and TTC will continue to track CTS’s performance during 2022 to determine when the Eglinton Crosstown Line will open for passengers." A decision on 2022 or 2023 could affect the station/stop articles. Perhaps we should put this volitile date into a template. @Joeyconnick, Johnny Au, and Blaixx: Seeking a decision. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 22:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with your opinion – 2022 is still the planned open date for now. BLAIXX 00:28, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I also agree. Based on reliable sources, including from Metrolinx themselves, (late) 2022 is still the planned opening date. We don't do crystal-balling here, even if some stations look far from complete. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:39, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I reverted the planned opening date back to 2022. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 15:38, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 17:22, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think sticking with the final verified hard date, 2022, is the way to go until speculation becomes a statement. I think a template might be overkill at this point, as one would like to think it'll only slip one more year at this late date, and even if it does slip until 2024 or after, that's only one set of changes each year, and once it's opened, the template wouldn't be of use. —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:45, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed for now. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:36, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

September 2022 discussion

It has been confirmed by Metrolinx that Line 5 will not open in 2022. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:22, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

A CBC News article stated September 2023. Read here Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:02, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

The CBC article cited an unnamed source who said that that the opening would be in September 2023. Thus, this is an unofficial estimate, however plausible it may be. blogTO says the opening is "now officially 2023" although the recent Metrolinx announcement is not so explicit. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 20:12, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

@Joeyconnick, Johnny Au, Transportfan70, and Blaixx: In August, IP user 76.64.134.234 set the line's completion date to 2023. Given the recent Metrolinx announcement that the line would not be completed in the "fall" (which user:Joeyconnick interpreted as "Q4") of 2022, should we change the completion date to 2023 in all related articles such as for stations and stops? TheTrolleyPole (talk) 20:12, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

As meteorological autumn ends four days before the start of the holiday season, there's no reasonable expectation it will open in 2022, so putting 2023 makes perfect sense. Radagast (talk) 20:43, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

The TYSSE opened on December 17, 2017 which was pretty close to the winter equinox. However, a 2022 opening still appears to be unlikely as there is still a lot of work to do at Eglinton station. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 21:12, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Thus, should we decree that the line will open in 2023 given that Metrolinx has not clearly said so? TheTrolleyPole (talk) 21:59, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Based on consensus and based on the available recent reliable sources, it is very safe to assume an unspecified date in 2023 for Line 5's public opening. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

December 2022 discussion

CBC Toronto has reported that Metrolinx does not believe there is a "credible plan" to complete Line 5 [1]. I don't think it is now accurate to say that the LRT will be completed in 2023 - there is simply no updated finish date. Alexwaolson (talk) 18:22, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:12, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Eglinton East LRT

The city is planning that the Eglinton East LRT be a separate LRT line with no track connection to Line 5. Thus, it would not be a Line 5 extension. At Kennedy station, the EELRT would either terminate on the surface on the east side of the GO line or terminate as an elevated station near the Line 3 station. The EELRT may use different vehicles that could climb steeper grades and have a different train length. A Steve Munro article summarizes two City of Toronto reports on the subject. Since the EELRT is being planned as a completely separate line resembling the Scarborough Malvern LRT, should we merge Line 5 Eglinton#Eglinton East LRT into Scarborough Malvern LRT, and then rename the latter as Eglinton East LRT? @Joeyconnick, Blaixx, Transportfan70, and Johnny Au: Request to split Eglinton East LRT. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 01:10, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I think {{Split portions|section=y|Scarborough Malvern LRT}} would be more accurate, then {{Merge portions from}} on the SMLRT article?

But only if it is extremely similar to the SMLRT... and it might be best to wait to see if this new EELRT proposal gains traction since we all know how transit projects in Toronto swing back and forth between modes, integrated/not integrated, planned/cancelled, etc. Given the WP:RECENCY, it may be best to just mention in the Line 5 Eglinton § Eglinton East LRT section that the proposal changed in April/May/June/whatever and then wait to see if they proceed substantively with an LRT line separate from Line 5. There is no rush. 🙂 —Joeyconnick (talk) 02:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

The SMLRT is essentially a subset of the EELRT. The SMLRT would have had through-service at Kennedy while the EELRT would not. The SMLRT terminates at Sheppard while the SMLRT continues to Marvern and the SSE terminus. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 00:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I would rather wait and see first as circumstances may change within the next few months, especially given the upcoming municipal election. As Joey said above, there's no rush. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 14:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

A July 2022 TTC report has repeated the assertion that through-operation is not feasible. The TTC has also assigned the EELRT the route number of 7, thus: "Line 7 Eglinton East". TheTrolleyPole (talk) 00:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:49, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I would support the split, as it could go hand-in-hand with an overhaul of how this whole line is framed. With Eglinton West now under construction, it should be less differentiated as a separate proposal, and more of one line with two stages and a storied overall history. The extensions section should be a mention of the split article, as well as the "Planned Pearson Connection" as the province puts it. --Natural R_X 15:58, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I support the split as Eglinton East LRT does not share the same trackage as the rest of the Eglinton LRT. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 16:37, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm surprised the Eglinton East LRT is still redirected here. It's not connected to this line, it tentatively doesn't have the same route number as this line. It has a different colour on proposed maps. The route is 100% identical to the early Scarborough Malvern LRT proposals, and includes 100% of the final proposal - with the exception of the inclusion of much of the proposed Sheppard East LRT as a spur. Now that the public consultation has started for Line 7 - this needs to be done asap. Merge into Scarborough Malvern LRT and rename to Eglinton East LRT (seems too early to call it Line 7 Eglinton East - but that perhaps should be a redirect. Nfitz (talk) 05:51, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I strongly agree. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 14:41, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

absolutely, now that the project has it's own site, here, it should finally be it's own wiki article, perhaps renaming the Scarborough-malvern LRT wiki and having that portion in it's history section. 142.181.47.157 (talk) 03:19, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I've done a partial rewrite of Scarborough Malvern LRT and requested it be moved to Eglinton East LRT at WP:Requested moves/Technical requests#Uncontroversial technical requests. Article needs more work, and I've not (yet?) tried to merge in the information from Line 5 Eglinton#Eglinton East LRT - there's some work there, as some is redundant, some is unnecessary, but there's some good references and history. The new City/TTC presentation dropped today, and I referenced it. I feel no ownership, so if anyone else wants to jump in, please do so! Nfitz (talk) 08:20, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

That would be great. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 15:19, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Section Line 5 Eglinton#Eglinton East LRT has been reduced to a stub after transferring and merging all its many details to Eglinton East LRT. This completes the proposed split. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 00:53, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:43, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

EELRT wiki page

I believe the EELRT deserves its own wiki article at this time, especially since it’s official numbering of line 7. Currently, “line 7” redirects to an article on the old Shepard east LRT proposal. 184.146.202.26 (talk) 02:57, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Where was it officially designated Line 7? —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:25, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

This report: https://ttc-cdn.azureedge.net/-/media/Project/TTC/DevProto/Documents/Home/Public-Meetings/Board/2022/July-14/8_Transit_Network_Expansion_Update.pdf Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 14:03, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

What is the exact "line 7" link that redirects to Sheppard East LRT? I can't find it. BLAIXX 17:22, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

However, there is a Line 7 Finch West LRT link, which is redirected to Line 6 Finch West. There are no Line 7 links to Sheppard East LRT. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:02, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:44, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

recent edits to more closely incorporate the westward extension

hi Natural RX,

I don't think we should be describing Line 5 from Renforth to Kennedy all in one go in the lead, given the central section should open well before 2031 (despite the many changes). Is their sourcing to believe the central section will be delayed that long? —Joeyconnick (talk) 23:52, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi there. I mentioned the possible shift of this towards a more wholesome article in the section about the Eglinton East LRT above. After seeing no action on it and with the western extension of the same exact line with the same track and same vehicles now under construction, I was bold and moved forward with getting this article to be more cohesive. I'd like to restore some of the effort I put into shifting this article unless there are other significant objections, because I don't see how a separate article makes sense. I will also mention that I intended to put work into moving a lot of the timeline into a separate article to whittle this thing down, it is horridly long. Lastly, I sourced and quoted what has been reported; I kept the 2024 date that was posted before, and added the factual statements from Metrolinx that they will not announce an opening date, so I don't see the issue there. --Natural R_X 02:15, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I re-reverted the lead changes, mostly because there were inconsistencies in what was reverted (lead vs infobox vs body). I am still open to discussing how to break up / restructure this article into segments if trying to move towards melding this all together more cohesively isn't agreed upon. --Natural R_X 17:18, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah no, we can't have it combined as you have when the central section is opening 6 years before the western segment. Saying it goes from Renforth to Kennedy is entirely misleading and will be for those 6 years.

So your lead changes need to be reverted until we can figure out a way forward. —Joeyconnick (talk) 17:35, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm welcome to you being bold and and making the necessary clarifications on opening and staging, instead of undoing contributions. I'd also welcome input by others. --Natural R_X 17:56, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I have no problem helping out but I feel like the onus is on the person making a significant change to make sure that change actually makes sense. No? Otherwise per WP:STATUSQUO, they should be reverted. —Joeyconnick (talk) 22:27, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

That would not be my interpretation of WP:STATUSQUO, rather that reads as a double-edged sword. My main reason for reverting from your version back to mine was that it seems your revert didn't cover everything, some things still read as if it was covering the whole thing instead of a clean revert (e.g. parts of the infobox, the route diagram template, the timeline, etc.). I believe it's a double-edged sword. Ultimately, I'm not saying I'm right and it's final, I'm saying I disagree with your position but would a) welcome input from others, and b) if the consensus / lack of input from others points to going back to a version where this focuses on the central section, then we need to reconcile the fact that this is the same line, with the same plan origin, operating seamslessly with the same vehicles and MSF, just under separate contracts and timelines.

I agree there's more onus on me to complete more work to finish this transition, but after less than 50 edits over the last year, this was a lot of effort to start the change. I have more stuff drafted, but between having some wind taken out of my sails (not personal and no grudge held) and parenting and a full-time job, I just haven't got there yet. --Natural R_X 01:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)