Talk:Line 5 Eglinton/Archive 1

Eglinton Crosstown LRT has been renamed officially
The new name is "The Crosstown." See here: http://www3.ttc.ca/About_the_TTC/Projects_and_initiatives/The_Crosstown/index.jsp. One problem is that there are many places called Crosstown, right down to the existence of the IND Crosstown Line in New York City. Should this article be renamed "Crosstown LRT" as the line in New York City is a subway and there are no other LRT lines called "Crosstown"? We cannot use "The Crosstown," as it would redirect to Crosstown. We can use "Crosstown Line," but that would confuse people who want to look for the IND Crosstown Line and are not interested in the Crosstown LRT. Therefore, I believe that "Crosstown LRT" is the best name for the article for now. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 16:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that Crosstown LRT could be an apt name for the meantime. However, once the TTC begins to use a common name for a line (or uses an official name in its reports), we would have to stick with that name. I'm assuming that the TTC would name the line "Crosstown line" in the future for consistent naming with other lines (Sheppard line, Bloor-Danforth line, etc.) or the TTC may name it Crosstown RT to go with the Scarborough RT and maintain the system's name (Toronto Subway and RT). If "Crosstown line" is the name, the page would have to move to "Crosstown line" with the following tag on the top:




 * EelamStyleZ (talk) 18:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * That can work, but until all environmental assessments related to the line is complete. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 23:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * How about
 * for the hatnote?
 * Note that the word page is replaced with article in the main namespace. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 03:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that the word page is replaced with article in the main namespace. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 03:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, the format in the above tag can also be used. However, I am skeptical about referring to the line as LRT, since it will eventually become part of a rapid transit system (Ford did call the plan as "subway expansion"). EelamStyleZ (talk) 06:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Therefore, the hatnote should read (if the article were to be moved to Crosstown Line):
 * Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 15:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would be correct. EelamStyleZ (talk) 01:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 22:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 22:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

This one should be used:

after this article is moved to "Crosstown Line" and the other New York City Crosstown Lines are probably moved to a disambiguation page called Crosstown Line (New York City). Alternatively, the disambiguation page Crosstown Line can be kept as is, but move the Toronto one to Crosstown Line (Toronto). Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 20:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I think we should go with the name "York-Scarborought Crosstown Line. Makes more sense. DE40LFR (talk) 01:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess "Rob Ford's Great Big Hole" is out of the question. Ground Zero | t 02:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Also out of question: "Hole dug up, filled in, dug up again, and possibly filled in again along Eglinton." Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 02:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Eglinton Crosstown LRT has been renamed officially II
According to Metrolinx, the name of the LRT line is "Eglinton-Scarborough Crosstown line." See here: Toronto transit Expansion Projects. Therefore, when it is time, we can rename this article to Eglinton-Scarborough Crosstown line. In fact, there is a link to this article in the French Wikipedia: Ligne Eglinton-Scarborough Crosstown du métro de Toronto, which translates to "Eglinton-Scarborough Crosstown subway line of Toronto." Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it's really hard to say for sure what the official name of the line is right now. I'm assuming that the names that have so far been suggested are just for the purpose of a temporary name for the project. Our best bet is actually waiting until station names are announced, etc. which will obviously take years from now. In the meantime, I support moving this page to "Eglinton Crosstown line" or "Eglinton-Scarborough Crosstown line". EelamStyleZ (talk) 00:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

My preference is for "Eglinton-Scarborough Crosstown line", but WP:COMMONNAME will probably be "Eglinton Crosstown line", so I support the current usage. Ng.j (talk) 16:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

After a lot of research, the new "Eglinton-Scarborough Crosstown" nomenclature seems to be fairly established, having been used extensive in documents released by both the TTC and Metrolinx (see branding Sect 3.2 and 3.3). There seem to be a desire to move away from the "Eglinton Crosstown LRT" and use "Eglinton-Scarborough Crosstown" to reflect the inclusion of the Scarborough RT portion. I will WP:BOLD move. Ng.j (talk) 05:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 1

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: WITHDRAWN BY NOMINATOR Ng.j (talk) 10:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC) Eglinton Crosstown line → Eglinton-Scarborough Crosstown line – The new article title reflects the inclusion of the Scarborough RT into the transit line. WP:COMMONNAME may also apply: Google shows "Eglinton-Scarborough Crosstown" 88,300 results, "Eglinton Crosstown" 24,000 results. There is existing support for the new name on the article talk page, and would've been boldly moved if there wasn't already a redirect blocking it. Ng.j (talk) 05:31, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Shouldn't this be a move to Eglinton–Scarborough Crosstown line per Manual of Style?  Or even to Eglinton–Scarborough Crosstown Line, as it's a proper name?  Skinsmoke (talk) 20:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Missing the Richmond Hill GO line crossing in the infobox diagram
Title says it all, missing the crossing the Richmond Hill GO line at the east branch of the Don River. I'm not familiar with the train diagrams so I'll leave it to someone more capable to insert it. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  16:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Useddenim (talk) 04:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

POP or fare gates?

 * The LRT will use Presto, but will the stations be POP or have fare gates? In4matt (talk) ) 02:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If plans remain as they are, there will be no entry to the trains outside stations, so I imagine fare gates would be the way. Should surface running go back on the books at any point, though, they may go POP or do a hybrid system. Radagast (talk) 01:25, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * All that will require a reliable source. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 02:23, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Naturally, and this is just talk-page speculation. As transit plans under the Ford administration remain somewhat unconcluded, we probably can't give a definitive answer until much closer to the line's opening date. Radagast (talk) 02:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Hopefully, we will soon have some more definitive answers.In4matt (talk) 15:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * ...and surface running IS back on the books. Hey presto! Radagast (talk) 05:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Canned?
Did Mr. Rob Ford can this project or was (were) it other project(s) that he scuttled? Peter Horn User talk 17:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I do not understand that at all. Can you rephrase? -- Natural  R X 18:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "To can" and "to scuttle" figuratively mean the same thing in this context, namely "to cancel". The former is an informal expression and the latter is a marine term. A ship that is deliberately run unto a sandbank and abandoned is "scuttled". Peter Horn User talk 17:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The Eglinton Crosstown line was revived to the Transit City version, therefore, it is not cancelled. In fact, the Eglinton Crosstown line is being constructed and cancelling it at this point would be political suicide for Ford (and invoking the shades of Mike Harris to voters).  Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 17:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Given the current state of affairs at city hall, I don't believe he'd be able to make any changes. The councillors have told the people quite clearly "You want it but you ain't gettin' it!". Sheppard debate is March 21. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  19:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * City council today voted in favour of LRT. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 02:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes The Eglinton Crosstown Line is under construction since late 2011. At this point only phase 1 is under construction. This phase 1 is only the underground 'subway' part of the line. There is still the possibility that the street level part of the LRT might be canceled again before construction on this part of the line begins. There is still time to change it. I doubt that construction on the second phase of the line will begin before the next municipal elections that will bring in a new city hall and possible change of mayor. I put this in the article at one time but it was reverted out as the other user referred to it as a crystal ball. I put it in there because Rob Ford has not given up his fight to keep trains off of Eglinton avenue and he still has a chance to kill that part of the line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roverfan77 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This is why the article can only have information that is not speculative, since anything can happen. A future mayor can make any amendments to the line or can fill in the hole. Next time, please remember to sign your comment by typing ~ .  This way, we would know who wrote it and when.  Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 01:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

No merger, need a name change?
Just a question. Since April 2012, I believe that the merger is not happening. Shouldn't this article be renamed back to Eglinton Crosstown LRT? I can provide a few sources of this change.

http://swanboatsteve.wordpress.com/2012/04/26/metrolinx-resurrects-transit-city This site is from one of Toronto's transit critics, Steve Munro. He has been following the TTC's meetings and decisions, and critiques them on his website.

http://thecrosstown.ca/ This is the website for the Eglinton Crosstown LRT. It shows the new plan for Toronto's LRT system, with the map and description clearly stating the that Eglinton Crosstown will terminate at Kennedy Station. Zilong1217 (talk) 23:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I support the name change. We need to request a move to Eglinton Crosstown line. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 01:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Not to point out the obvious... but when you goto http://thecrosstown.ca/ and look in the upper left corner the logo still says "Eglinton-Scarborough Crosstown" furthermore when you goto the map http://thecrosstown.ca/the-project/interactive-route-map and click on the line it pulls up a descriptor that says "Eglinton-Scarborough Crosstown" eja2k 03:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That is true, but the logo and the map are not updated to reflect the name change. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 13:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Support name change. Radagast (talk) 17:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. See Article titles: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." The case that the target page is the common name has not been made. One of the two supports is without a rationale, whereas the two opposers refer to the policy and to an official source which appears to contradict the opening statement. DrKiernan (talk) 21:07, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Eglinton–Scarborough Crosstown line → Eglinton Crosstown LRT – This light rail transit project was for some time officially referred to as "Eglinton-Scarborough Crosstown line" which is not the case anymore following the amendment by Metrolinx to have it be built as an above ground light rail transit line. Latest official documents released by Metrolinx suggest the name "Eglinton Crosstown LRT". relisting see below Andrewa (talk) 02:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC) EelamStyleZ   talk  13:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with the proposed move. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 13:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose but relisting. Is there any evidence that this official name has already been adopted in other sources? If not, the article name should not change either. See also WP:AT of course. Andrewa (talk) 02:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose until I stop seeing their logo on this website and the back of trucks at borehole sites along the future line. -  Floydian  τ ¢  18:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: In which case there's not only the article name policy to consider, but also the possibility that this official name change is just a political and/or marketing exercise and likely to change again at the whim of the relevant parties, which is one of the reasons for the policy. No change of vote. Andrewa (talk) 19:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you provide evidence of your proposed name being the common name? -  Floydian  τ ¢  08:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not proposing a name. The onus of proof is on those who wish to change the name. Andrewa (talk) 22:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"premetro"?
The article currently calls this a "premetro" system. This is a term I have never heard before. Is this a premetro system, as per the description on the article on premetro systems? We are all entitled to our own opinions on this. Personally, I don't think so. But my personal opinion, or the personal opinion of the individual who added this description, don't matter. What matters is whether any reliable, authoritative reference explicitly calls the system a premetro system.

I added a cn to that passage and a or-section to the lead section. Geo Swan (talk) 08:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * There is a single 2006 column, by Christopher Hume, in the Toronto Star, found by this google search, that mentions both Toronto and "premetro". It criticizes the construction of Line 4 Sheppard -- saying a premetro line on Eglington should have been built instead.  In my opinion this is not the same as calling the line currently under construction a premetro line.  Geo Swan (talk) 08:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Whoever classified it as such seems to have confused 'running partially in tunnel, partially at-grade', which this project is, with 'running at-grade with intention to tunnel in future', which is the premetro definition. Radagast (talk) 18:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Updating Route Template
Can someone update Eglinton Crosstown line to reflect that Metrolinx reverted back to the old plan of having a stop at Leslie, and that the line will be above ground between Laird and Kennedy? -- Natural  R X 17:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. 98.118.186.28 (talk) 23:57, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That's wicked, thank you so much for your help! I'm not adept enough to deal with those templates. -- Natural  R X 17:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Stale OR tag removed
In a previous edit  flagged the lede section as containing original research. The discussion above indicates that the section was tagged because it discussed the status of the line as a "premetro" system, which other editors disagreed with. The article currently contains no mention of this, so I have removed the tag. Ivanvector (talk) 17:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Yonge–University–Spadina line which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Eglinton Crosstown controversy
I was a bit surprised to see absolutely no mention of any of the controversy around the Eglinton Crosstown Line. I know a construction and design conglomerate put out a number of press releases around the scope of the bundling and the effect it would have on driving up cost. I think an extra $500 million was the estimate. This was covered through a spate of newspapers and has been discussed at some length through various questions periods in parliament. Right now, this article reads like a government press release and makes it seem like everything is rainbows and sunshine. I'd like to see someone integrate a media/controversy/commentary/critique section into the article.Adtrace (talk) 20:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Please help by link and reference to press release and newspapers that you say you know about. Martin Morin (talk) 20:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, and it has to be from a reliable source. Tweets are very unreliable, as they are user-generated content. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 02:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

New article for further station detail?
I'm thinking of starting an article, likely titled List of Eglinton Crosstown stations, to flesh out station design/layout details in more density than can fit in this article (but I don't think individual stations need articles yet). If there are no objections, I'll likely start it in a sandbox and link to the work-in-progress here. Radagast (talk) 14:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Why not try making a table that lists them, address, square footage, depth, and eventually the number of riders served daily, once we know? -  Floydian  τ ¢  17:23, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * A table doesn't bring across the kind of prose information I'm trying to convey. I'm thinking a couple paragraphs of description (if that) of each station's context and layout, that can be moved into a full-fledged article as we get closer to the line's opening. Radagast (talk) 18:39, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I say "Just do it!" These will eventually be fully fledged stations, as large and as important as subway or commuter stations, and will have individual articles. A separate article will allow you to assemble that info without overwhelming this article, which will relate only to the line. That is just like any of the other line-station relationships. I am very busy at the moment, but I will be looking over your shoulder. Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I've started. Feel free to chip in: User:Radagast/List of Eglinton Crosstown stations -- Radagast (talk) 23:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That is good. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 03:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Should this be renamed Line 5 Eglinton Crosstown?
Since the existing lines have their respective articles renamed, it would be consistent to rename this article "Line 5 Eglinton Crosstown." Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to say no, as the line is a Metrolinx project for now and the TTC may yet change their mind on official names, etc. upon assuming operations. Radagast (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Probably a little premature. Wait until we see something official. Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * proposed TTC graphics keep referring this to Line 5 Eglinton or Eglinton Line rather than using the word Crosstown.  Best to wait, given it likely won't open for another 7 years or so. Nfitz (talk) 00:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I also say wait. Keep WP:COMMONNAME in mind - The official name isn't always best either. -  Floydian  τ ¢  01:21, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No: the line won't be operational for another five years at least. Accordingly, the article title (w/ 'line,' lc) is reflected as is in the lead - change the article title, change the lead. 70.55.48.123 (talk) 06:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Station Names
So I know the changes looked like a sure thing, but the Metrolinx board wants them to go back to the drawing board. So I would say it's still unofficial, and the original working names still hold, and sould be reflected as such in the article. Thoughts? -- Natural  R X 16:09, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The name differences should be listed in the article. There is already a table with station names; we can have one column be the working names and another column be the Metrolinx names.  Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 17:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That is politician way to do thing. Martin Morin (talk) 21:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Station names have been finalized and information has been expanded. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 17:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Station article nomenclature
Now that the station names are (more or less) settled, I am curious if our article naming convention here is still appropriate. As the TTC will be considering this a rapid transit line, and the station names have been selected to avoid conflict with existing names, should we switch to the Stationname (TTC) format from the current Stationname LRT station format? Radagast (talk) 22:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That would be a good idea, especially given how likely some other city would have an "Oakwood LRT station," as Oakwood is a common street name in many cities. The same can be said about Forest Hill.  Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 02:29, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No! Completely the opposite. All TTC subway stations should be renamed Stationname subway station in line with normal naming conventions. It is the "TTC" that is problematic. Secondarywaltz (talk) 14:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Shall we open this up to a wider discussion, then? Perhaps on Talk:Toronto rapid transit or Talk:Toronto Transit Commission? Radagast (talk) 15:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. I would be interested in opening that discussion. It would be worthy, given we do not have a Toronto/Canada equivalent of WP:USSTATION. -- Natural  R X 15:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * US station naming convention is a mess and a bitchfest! Canada is more in line with WP:UKSTATION in what is already used. Since Toronto is not the centre of the universe, a Canadian station naming convention has been started. (link to follow). Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:09, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, a Canadian convention would be great! -- Natural  R X 16:45, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I am curious to see the Canadian naming convention as well. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 02:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * WP:CANSTATION is more extensive, and now applies to every Canadian station and system. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:46, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Extensions
As you can see, I have now added information about extensions, officially called "Crosstown East" and "Crosstown West" by the city. Just as an FYI, I am planning to keep those sections formatted as subsections of a Future extension section for now. But in the event that city council officially votes in favour of these extensions, I think then and only then should we make effort to integrate that information into the main body of the article.

You will also notice I have created Crosstown West. I believe there is enough information to create a similar template for Crosstown East, but I am adverse to doing it as a separate template. Two rail diagram templates together just stack on top of each other, opposed to displaying side by side to my knowledge. I'd propose putting Crosstown East ans West together in a single template, probably in a BS3-2 format like Yonge-University_Line_Map, but without making them connected. Just leave continuation arrows. Thoughts before I get bold? -- Natural  R X 15:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Why don't you just go with two separate templates, but collapse them beside the relevant section. The problem that you see of being too long also exists as being too wide. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I have boldly collapsed the Crosstown West diagram. It was already running off the bottom of the page. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind Crosstown East is nearly identical to the Scarborough Malvern LRT, minus a stop or two and a highway crossing, which should make it easier. Radagast (talk) 16:55, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I have created Crosstown East and inserted it collapsed based on your guys' input. Thanks! -- Natural  R X 18:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * P.S. I looked at inserting both of them as collapsed sections in Eglinton Crosstown line, but they screwed up the template spacing. WP:ROUTE says the collapsible function is experimental anyway. -- Natural  R X 18:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * What you have now reflects the actual situation where The Crosstown line is under construction and the east and west extensions are two separate proposals. It's probably better not to lump them all together. What if Rob Ford gets elected mayor again? Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That's WP:CRYSTAL :P -- Natural  R X 21:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Natural RX is right. Nobody can predict the future. Some of the stuff here is tentative, albeit backed by reliable sources. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 15:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I was more joking around about Rob Ford, but yeah. Thanks for your feedback guys. -- Natural  R X 15:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I have moved the extension sections to the history part. The vote just happened and details are scarce, so I am leaving it only partially integrated for now (i.e. not alterting route diagram template, updating station list) until we can find more specific sources. Seems to be more about the largest transit network that was voted on for now. Crosstown West (and maybe East too) are still subject to optimization through detailed design and environmental assessment review. That and I just got back from vacation and I'm just catching up on all this. If you guys want to tweak my jetlag-influenced heading name changes I made, please, be my guest. -- Natural  R X 16:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Forest Hill station delay?
Should we mention more about the Forest Hill station delay amid the scaffolding collapse? Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's suitably covered at Forest Hill LRT station, I think. Radagast (talk) 15:58, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I removed premetro from the see also section
The Crosstown line is not a premetro line. The premetro meme is that cities should build cheaper light rail line, to save money, and, if the route starts to reach capacity, they can then spend the money to upgrade the line to higher capacity heavy rail. The meme requires the city to initially spend some extra money on the light rail line, so expansion is possible.

But the Crosstown will never be converted to a heavy rail route, so it is not a premetro line.

IMO premetro meme is a goofy idea. Taking a busy LRT route out of commission, for several years, to convert it to a heavy rail route will inconvenience its riders, just when it is at its most popular. IMO it is better to build the original route, without spending extra money to keep expansion to heavy rail a possibility. Planners should keep track of how popular the new route is becoming. When it is a five or ten years away from reaching capacity the city should build an additional route, near enough that some riders will choose it, but far enough away that a whole new set of riders will find the second route's stations within walking distance. Geo Swan (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It would be good to mention that the Eglinton Crosstown LRT is not designed to be a premetro to prevent confusion. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 16:21, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have added a hidden comment in the See also section that it is not a premetro. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 02:49, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Recent undiscussed rename
The article was recently renamed, without, so far as I can tell, any prior discussion.

A someone else noted, MetroLinx owns the line, not the TTC. So, won't they set the line's official name, MetroLinx will.

I plan to wait a reasonable amount of time, and then change the article back, if no one can explain why an extraordinary, undiscussed name change was in order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geo Swan (talk • contribs)


 * Without a doubt it will be a TTC line. All the planning shows that, and the number was assigned by the TTC when they rolled out their new signage for subway lines. The move was premature, but not necessarily incorrect. Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:22, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I wanted to move it, but I thought I'd let that sleeping dog lie. I have no objection to the change as per Secondarywaltz. -- Natural  R X 16:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It will be integrated into the TTC. Metrolinx just supervises the planning and construction phases, therefore Line 5 Eglinton is appropriate.  Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 03:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Line 5 Eglinton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FAQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101204123034/http://www.torontolife.com/daily/informer/streetcar-named-disaster/2010/12/01/mayor-rob-ford-%E2%80%9Ctransit-city-is-over%E2%80%9D/ to http://www.torontolife.com/daily/informer/streetcar-named-disaster/2010/12/01/mayor-rob-ford-%E2%80%9Ctransit-city-is-over%E2%80%9D/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.citytv.com/toronto/citynews/news/local/article/207847--eglinton-lrt-unlikely-to-meet-2020-completion-date-ttc-report
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1146793--toronto-transit-sheppard-panel-will-overwhelmingly-endorse-lrt-over-subway-options?bn=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Line 5 Eglinton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FAQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111021061801/http://www.toronto.ca/involved/projects/eglinton_crosstown_lrt/index.htm to http://www.toronto.ca/involved/projects/eglinton_crosstown_lrt/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Common name vs. official name
This is a really bizarre name for the line. Nobody calls it Line 5 Eglinton. It's commonly called Eglinton Crosstown which according to WP:COMMON is the name we should use. This is a technical name that is more confusing for the average reader. Mattximus (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * All the TTC lines are named based on their official name, for consistency and to match the TTC's own signage. It's also debatable that "Eglinton Crosstown" is the common name, given the line hasn't opened yet. You could argue "the Crosstown" is equally valid, and same with most of the other lines: is it Yonge, Yonge–University, Yonge–University–Spadina, etc etc.? Hence the use of the official names. The use of the official names also nicely achieves WP:NATURALDIS, whereas many of the candidates for common names would require parenthetical disambiguation. —Joeyconnick (talk) 00:19, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

please don't unnecessarily rewrite references for purely esthetic reason
Someone unnecessarily rewrote the article's references, apparently for purely esthetic reason. It is a highly disruptive thing to do because it erodes the utility of the difference engine.

Don't do it. Geo Swan (talk) 02:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Construction and implementation
The construction and implementation section contains a large amount of trivial information (especially the road closures). We should remove it if we want this article to have a good chance of becoming a GA. Username6892 23:27, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Eglinton West LRT (contract signed)
Contract signed to build Eglinton West LRT. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 00:05, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

According to a Metrolinx article, the contract for the Eglinton West LRT has been awarded, and construction of the extension is expected to start in spring 2022. Thus, should we break up and move the contents of the Line 5 Eglinton section among Line 5 Eglinton, Line 5 Eglinton and Line 5 Eglinton? If so, should we have a common or separate timeline sections for the routes east and west of Mt. Dennis? TheTrolleyPole (talk) 21:58, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Separate as they are separate projects that happen to be part of the same route. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 00:42, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree on separate for now but I'm open to revisiting this in the future. B<b style="color: #FD8F42">L</b><b style="color: #0096FF">A</b>IXX 00:47, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding the first question, I think we should split up the content for better integration. But if we do, then we should maintain a common timeline because we're saying the Eglinton West history, construction and route is part of the entire line's "story", as it were. Separate timelines only make sense if we keep the Eglinton West material all in its own section.
 * Or let's move 20 years into the future: both the main line and the westward extension are built and running. What organization of the material makes the most sense from that point in time? Integrated or separate? —Joeyconnick (talk) 16:38, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with user:Joeyconnick's suggestions. If we integrate now, I would create sub-sections under Line 5 Eglinton and Line 5 Eglinton labelled for the extension (as the extension is in a separate phase) but share the Line 5 Eglinton and Line 5 Eglinton sections. Currently, the extension has its own history and right-of-way sections but under different names. (On the other hand, if we keep things separate until sometime in future, then should I move Line 5 Eglinton out of "Construction and implementation" into the separate extension section?) So, which way should we go? Since there is a difference of opinion, is the default to leave the article layout unaltered? Regardless of which way we go, I suggest using "Eglinton West extension" instead of "Eglinton West LRT" as it is not a separate line. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 20:55, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Since there is a 2-to-2 split on whether merge the Eglinton West extension into other sections, I decided to preserve the status quo rather than risk someone undoing a major mod. Thus, there will be two construction sections in the article, one for construction east of Mt. Dennis, and a second for west of Mt. Dennis. I believe, there will be a merge in future, but not today. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 21:04, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I strongly agree with this. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 01:19, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

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. 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. <b style="color: #329604">B</b><b style="color: #FD8F42">L</b><b style="color: #0096FF">A</b>IXX 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)

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. 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 into Scarborough Malvern LRT, and then rename the latter as Eglinton East LRT? Request to split Eglinton East LRT. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 01:10, 6 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I think would be more accurate, then  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 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 <sub style="color: #000000">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. Article needs more work, and I've not (yet?) tried to merge in the information from Line 5 Eglinton - 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 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)