[Monarch Butterfly]

From the 2010 "Environmental Project Report". Which means that the crossover locations may or may not have been built, because they would not tell the non-executive "folks" like us if they did it or not.

Proposed locations for operational crossover tracks are: between Commerce Boulevard and Renforth Drive; east of Martin Grove Stop; west of Wincott/Bemersyde Stop; between CNR/CPR rail line and TTC Maintenance and Storage yard; between TTC Maintenance and Storage yard and Black Creek Stop; east of Keele Station; east of Eglinton West Station; east of Eglinton Station; west of Laird Station; and east of Pharmacy Stop.

Proposed locations for tail tracks or storage (pocket) tracks are: north of Silver Dart Stop, north of Commerce Boulevard, west of Islington Stop; east of Jane Stop; west of Keele Station; west of Eglinton West Station; west of Eglinton Station; east of Laird Station; and west of Don Mills Station.

That report is very old as seen by the station names. There must be some recent report with the real, current locations, which us "folks" could see.

 

[Dan416]

From the 2010 "Environmental Project Report". Which means that the crossover locations may or may not have been built, because they would not tell the non-executive "folks" like us if they did it or not.



That report is very old as seen by the station names. There must be some recent report with the real, current locations, which us "folks" could see.

I still think the dumbest thing was using the name Eglinton at Yonge street. I get if you don't want to rename the whole station, then just name the Eglinton line portion as Yonge. The signs at Bloor-Yonge show Yonge on the Bloor line and Bloor on the Yonge line, so they could have done that. To have an Eglinton station on the Eglinton line is the height of stupidity, which clearly I'll never get over.

 

[Allandale25]

From the Capital Projects Group (Rapid Transit) report here on the September 12th board agenda.

 

[toaster29]

What bothers me is how people keep trotting this idea out as though it in any way makes sense. Do you really think that opening a line without its central transfer point, forcing people to backtrack or transfer onto a different service, and have service bypass an active construction site while they figure out what is going on underneath the station, is really better than waiting until the project is safe to open? We're not talking about deferring the opening of the Scarborough segment here, you are suggesting that the central part of the line be left incomplete.

It strikes me as profoundly unsafe to run trains through an active construction site, and it would also be a fantastic failure in PR. "Gee, all this money pumped into the project and its centerpiece station isn't even done?" No one who is even remotely politically savvy would go for this. And you don't need a FOI request to figure that out, either.

This reads "unless us rich folk at Yonge and Eg get to ride, you low brow people of Mount Dennis sure as hell won't either." to me. There are ways to segment without touching or even going through Yonge/Eg

 

[asey20]

This reads "unless us rich folk at Yonge and Eg get to ride, you low brow people of Mount Dennis sure as hell won't either." to me. There are ways to segment without touching or even going through Yonge/Eg

There are many reasons that Metrolinx would refuse to open or bypass part of the line. Here are some that I could think of right off the bat:
1)As @T3G mentioned, safety concerns bypassing an active construction site and PR concerns
2)operational efficiency (e.g. causes bottlenecks, confusing service patterns, connectivity etc)
3)affects testing and integration of the line, ultimately leading the full line to open later
4) maintenance. If you only open up a section of the line then the maintenance of the open section can be out of sync with the maintenance of the section not yet operational
5) Metrolinx could be contractually obligated to take over the full line all at once if it wants to run service. It is a p3 after all and the idea is that the construction and all issues will be fully worked out and resolved before taken over by the operator.

I highly doubt the reason the line hasn't been open is because they are descriminating against riders on different segments of the line and are favouring yonge & Eglinton riders. This is simply the easiest and most efficient way for them to deal with the issues. Not to mention, I'm sure the TTC is saving a lot of money not operating an incomplete line that would not reach its full potential without the major Yonge and Eglinton interchange in working order and are in no hurry to take over the line without it being completed.

 

[T3G]

This reads "unless us rich folk at Yonge and Eg get to ride, you low brow people of Mount Dennis sure as hell won't either." to me. There are ways to segment without touching or even going through Yonge/Eg

You're right, everything is a class issue, especially when class is not mentioned at any point.

I recommend you read my post. And then again, and again, until this is no longer your takeaway.

 

[crs1026]

"Oh.... let's stop and rewrite our testing commissioning plan so that we open the line in phases, and throw out all the work we did so far to structure a unified integrated system test and commissioning plan. And rewrite the commercial contract so the contractor gets paid as we open pieces, instead of the original payment schedule which assumed a single turnkey date...." is what people say when they have no idea how big projects work. (Maybe someone at Ml did suggest that, but happily they were ignored).

"Oh.... let's open only part of the project that should have been completely finished ago, so the voters are reminded that the rest is incomplete, just before we announce an election" is what no competent political advisor of any political stripe would suggest to Cabinet.

Ferpetessake, the info from ML does indicate that we are almost there..... they passed the stress test, whichnis a big step. Let's stop debating the plan and get ready for an opening date announcement that positions the government to announce an election with smiles on everyone's faces. Can't be much longer.

- Paul

 

[smallspy]

It depends. Can trains with passengers safely transit through Eglinton, or is it too dangerous even for that? Can we really consider Eglinton an “active” construction site? It can’t be all that active if they’re two years behind schedule.

It's not just whether they can safely transit that section. There are two even more important questions that would need to be answered.

In the event of an emergency, is enough of the work completed there to allow for the safe evacuation of a train or two?

Will the running of revenue service through that area adversely affect the quality or speed of the remaining work?

Dan

 

[toaster29]

"Oh.... let's stop and rewrite our testing commissioning plan so that we open the line in phases, and throw out all the work we did so far to structure a unified integrated system test and commissioning plan. And rewrite the commercial contract so the contractor gets paid as we open pieces, instead of the original payment schedule which assumed a single turnkey date...." is what people say when they have no idea how big projects work. (Maybe someone at Ml did suggest that, but happily they were ignored).

"Oh.... let's open only part of the project that should have been completely finished ago, so the voters are reminded that the rest is incomplete, just before we announce an election" is what no competent political advisor of any political stripe would suggest to Cabinet.

Ferpetessake, the info from ML does indicate that we are almost there..... they passed the stress test, whichnis a big step. Let's stop debating the plan and get ready for an opening date announcement that positions the government to announce an election with smiles on everyone's faces. Can't be much longer.

- Paul

I mean yes? Are you serious? When you're half a decade after the original scheduled opening, and there's still no date in sight, I surely would hope and expect that they would rewrite the plan and try something to get it working for at least some people. The "do nothing and wait" approach is not what I would expect most Torontonians would want.

 

[stevensontransit]

From the Capital Projects Group (Rapid Transit) report here on the September 12th board agenda.

View attachment 594740

Does that signal it could at least open at February 2025 at the latest?

 

[jordanmkasla2009]

There is a crossover on Line 5 between Cedarvale (Eglinton West) and Avenue Road. I forgot where the crossover is. (There is a track map of all the pocket tracks and crossovers.) They could use the section from Mt. Dennis to Cedarvale until Eglinton is up and running in the meantime.

Except that it would remind people of the cancelled Eglinton West Subway that former Premier Mike Harris filled in. That construction began in 1994 but was cancelled in 1995.

There are still 4 occupancy permits outstanding. We only know that Eglinton station is one of them that leaves 3 that could be anywhere on the line. Those missing permits could very much be in that short section for all we know

 

[smallspy]

I mean yes? Are you serious? When you're half a decade after the original scheduled opening, and there's still no date in sight, I surely would hope and expect that they would rewrite the plan and try something to get it working for at least some people. The "do nothing and wait" approach is not what I would expect most Torontonians would want.

No, he's not serious. Because actually considering it at this time would be a huge mistake.

When lines are opened in stages, it's because they were either planned to from the beginning (see the Bloor-Danforth line), or the decision was made early enough in the design and construction process that doing so was not detrimental to the rest of the project (see the Yonge North extensions).

In this case, the line has been designed and built from the outset as one integrated system, and the testing is proceeding as such. The decision to open the line in sections would have had to have occurred a long, long time ago so that the installation, implementation and testing of all of the various sub-systems that exist on the line could have also happened in a staged manner. To do it now would thus require new testing to ensure that the portions of the line could operate as such, and that the sub-systems installed on the other sections not opened wouldn't negatively affect the rest of it.

And that ship has long since sailed.

Dan

 

[nfitz]

And that ship has long since sailed.

I'd think, that the decision to start training all the operators, means they are back on a firm schedule, and have a planned opening date in mind.

Isn't there any indication in historic documents what the opening timeframe was? Presumably there's a box that says X days to train all operators, then Y days of trial running. I'm not sure if there's anything critical path in between those two items

 

[Admiral Beez]

There are still 4 occupancy permits outstanding. We only know that Eglinton station is one of them that leaves 3 that could be anywhere on the line. Those missing permits could very much be in that short section for all we know

There should be no public unknowns at this stage.

What the public needs is a transparent and clearly conveyed report on what the issues are, what is being done to address them, and most importantly a hard date for completion and open. No project ever gets to have an open ended, no restrictions completion date. Pick a date and build backwards what you need to get it done. We're digging a transit line, not a Mars mission.

 

[nfitz]

What the public needs is a transparent and clearly conveyed report on what the issues are, what is being done to address them, and most importantly a hard date for completion and open. No project ever gets to have an open ended, no restrictions completion date. Pick a date and build backwards what you need to get it done. We're digging a transit line, not a Mars mission.

There's huge transparency on NASA's Mars plans. And a fixed timeline (that yes, does change) on the upcoming Lunar missions and Lunar space station.

We are nowhere close to that kind of transparency on Eglinton and even Finch.