Talk:Line 5 Eglinton

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)

I too agree that the article lead should focus only on Phase 1 of the line rather than all phases under construction. I have also clarified the infobox regarding the western terminus. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 04:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Joeyconnick also made further clarifications. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Split Timeline to new article

The size of Line 5 Eglinton is becoming too large. It is time the Timeline section be split into a new article. Perhaps call this article Timeline of Line 5 Eglinton, Line 5 Eglinton timeline, or similar. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 13:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

A far simpler approach would be to trim this article, as it's quite bloated. For example, the section on 2015 currently reads as:

On the weekend of April 18 and 19, 2015, the boring machines, Dennis and Lea, were lifted out of a shaft west of Allen Road and moved about 100 metres (330 ft) to a shaft just east of Allen Road.[78]

In April 2015, merchants along Eglinton Avenue West were complaining of lost revenue (up to a 35 percent dip in sales), because construction was discouraging customers with snarled traffic, limited parking options, reduced foot traffic and dusty sidewalks.[79]

By September 2015, the TBMs Don and Humber arrived for assembly in the shaft at Brentcliffe Road before starting to drill the 3.25-kilometre (2.02 mi) section west to Yonge Street.[69][64]

On September 24, 2015, Transportation Minister Steven Del Duca issued a statement saying the Crosstown would not operate until September 2021, in order "to mitigate disruption to the local community and infrastructure as much as possible." The earlier plan had been to open in 2020 with tunnelling and station construction to start in 2012.[80] Infrastructure Ontario has awarded the Crosstown construction contract to Crosslinx, a consortium led by SNC Lavalin. It will take about four years to build the stations, 15 of which will be underground.[69]

On September 29, 2015, TBM Don started to bore the north tunnel from the Brentcliffe Road launching site westwards towards Yonge Street. TBM Humber will start boring the south tunnel approximately one month later.[81]

On November 3, 2015, Del Duca announced that the contract awarded to Crosslinx Transit Solutions to complete the Crosstown and maintain it for 30 years will cost $2 billion less than originally estimated.[9]

There's a ton of minutiae and dated "this will happen" stuff that isn't wholly necessary. It could be easily trimmed down to the essentials, such as:

Over April 18 and 19, 2015, TBMs Dennis and Lea were moved to a shaft just east of Allen Road.[78] During the same month, merchants along Eglinton Avenue West were complaining of lost revenue (up to a 35 percent dip in sales) they blamed on construction impact.[79]

On September 24, 2015, Transportation Minister Steven Del Duca issued a statement saying the Crosstown would not operate until September 2021, following an earlier plan to open in 2020.[80] Infrastructure Ontario awarded the Crosstown construction contract to Crosslinx, a consortium led by SNC Lavalin.[69]

On September 29, 2015, TBM Don started to bore the north tunnel from the Brentcliffe Road launching site westwards towards Yonge Street. TBM Humber was to start boring the south tunnel approximately one month later.[81]

On November 3, 2015, Del Duca announced that the contract awarded to Crosslinx Transit Solutions to complete the Crosstown and maintain it for 30 years would cost $2 billion less than originally estimated.[9]

Quotes from the minister and examples of why merchants believe they have lost revenue can be left in the cited sources. Mentioning when the TBMs get delivered to Brentcliffe isn't noteworthy if within the same month they start boring - the latter is the more useful detail. Etc. This passage could probably be trimmed even further. These sections need some copy editing for updating the tense of things as well. I don't see the value in an entire article about the construction timeline, and I'd bet some proper trimming would bring the article down to a more reasonable level. Echoedmyron (talk) 16:31, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Echoedmyron... this can be resolved with some editing out of the minutiae. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll second this. I advocated for its removal in 2020 but it could probably be trimmed (a lot) and added to the history section. ~UN6892 ^t_c 01:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Cutting the bloat and integrating the timeline to the history section would be a much better option. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 05:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I strongly agree with cutting the bloat here. I began drafting revised article sections that revised the whole Construction and implementation section. You can see a preview at my sandbox. I'd invite any comments. --Natural R_X 17:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Surface stops

Apart from Sunnybrook Park, I don't see how any of the surface stops on the line have demonstrated their own notability. I think info on them can be summarized in this article like for Line 6 given the independent sources on each page seem to be about the full line rather than individual stations. I am considering doing a bulk AfD for these articles though I have not conducted a BEFORE search on any of them so I will not start one yet. I will probably do so if there is not much input in this discussion (or if disagreements remain unresolved). ~UN6892 ^t_c 01:40, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree that they are probably AfD candidates as they don't have much notability of their own. Perhaps in the future can they have their own articles, but not now. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Would strongly support a bulk AfD for the surface stops. Their existence has puzzled me for a long time as they do not seem notable in and of themselves. —Joeyconnick (talk) 02:19, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

After all, there are no Wikipedia articles for the individual stops on 512 St. Clair for example, while there is an article for Queens Quay station. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:07, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm a still on the fence, is something like Fairbank station really that more notable than something like Golden Mile stop? It is to some degree, with the former being a proper building with two sub-levels. Also, not that this is a good enough reason on its own, but there are plenty of at-grade rail station with their own articles so it's not as straight forward for me. BLAIXX 02:43, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Note that Queens Quay station has its own article. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure. Some underground stations are certainly notable (like Laird) but the Fairbank article is a lot shorter than that and there seems to be only one source supporting its notability there (unless BlogTO counts). If we want to get rid of station articles, what should they be replaced with? A section here about the design of surface stops is probably good enough for them, though it might be a bit harder to merge for the underground stations. I am open to suggestions here, though I doubt I will be able to do much right now as I am rather busy IRL. ~UN6892 ^t_c 03:04, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps there can be an article that has a table that summarizes the stations and the more notable stations have their own article linked from that table. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 16:06, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I was thinking we could have an article or section that summarizes the design of the surface stations (their design is very similar) then lists them in a table. The section itself would probably have to describe the underground stations as well to ensure the article is not unbalanced. ~UN6892 ^t_c 22:15, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

That would be good. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

The existence of station articles would ensure "balance". There's no need to repeat a tonne of material that is present in other articles. —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

The bigger issue to me is that the (surface stop) articles often have duplicated or very similar material to each other. ~UN6892 ^t_c 03:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

With the lack of opposition as of late, I think I will start working on this either this weekend or next week depending on when I have enough time. ~UN6892 ^t_c 16:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Please let us know when you begin editing. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I've started the edits. I'm not sure if adding bus connections to the table is relevant. I will not add them for now, but feel free to add all but 34 Eglinton if you disagree (34 Eglinton connects to all stations & stops). Ref used is [1] ~UN6892 ^t_c 15:34, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I've finished the edits I intended. You may review them if you'd like. ~UN6892 ^t_c 18:43, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Looking good so far. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry... (and paging Blaixx)... how does Sunnybrook have notability while the others don't? —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Joeyconnick: I am less sure about Sunnybrook Park than the others due to the change of plans (then reversion) in that area of the Line while Rob Ford was mayor. The Toronto Star certainly contributes to notability. I remember Steve Munro being described as a subject-matter expert before. I do not remember whether there is consensus for that but if so, his source, used extensively in that article, would count toward GNG as well. If it does, I would certainly support keeping the article. If not, a merge would likely take longer as the redesigns would need to go somewhere, probably a more detailed summary under Rob Ford-era redesigns. ~UN6892 ^t_c 14:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Well... yes, we use Munro's self-published stuff as a SME as a fairly big exception to the way we normally source at Wikipedia. I see no issue there with him being a valid source for this kind of info. The question is more whether the redesigns provide the stop sufficient notability. For instance, just because various transit news items are covered by the Toronto Star or other news sources doesn't mean we automatically include them, because of WP:SUSTAINED. So the fact some changes to the design/location of a single stop on a transit line got some coverage doesn't mean that info is worthy of inclusion period, let alone sufficient to support the stop having its own article. Just because there's a source for some info doesn't mean we include that info, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE.

We know transit plans change based on community input and political decisions all the time. So the plan changes for Sunnybrook are nothing extraordinary. They probably make sense to mention in the Line 5 article (although truly, a general audience reader would not really be missing any understanding of Line 5 if they didn't end up knowing about these details about the changes to Sunnybrook)... actually, re-reading things, the info in the Sunnybrook article really does pertain more to the approach to Line 5 overall. The only Sunnybrook-specific stuff is that it was removed, restored, and there were questions about the track alignment, questions that really have more to do with the line overall than Sunnybrook specifically.

So... yeah... I'm not seeing how the info the article currently contains justifies this surface stop having its own article. The existing info could be incorporated into Line 5 Eglinton § Route and the stop article redirected like the others have been. —Joeyconnick (talk) 17:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

That would be good regarding the Sunnybrook Park stop. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:23, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@Joeyconnick: That's a good approach given besides the route issue it's probably a run-of-the-mill surface stop with little unique about it. I am not sure when I will have time to do this so I encourage you to complete the merger yourself if possible. I'll try to do it when I have more time. ~UN6892 ^t_c 00:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks all... I've done the merge and redirected Sunnybrook Park stop. —Joeyconnick (talk) 04:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you too! It looks much better. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 15:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Looking good. I added a bit to the table similar to what I did with the rest of the surface stops. I am concerned about the length of this page now because the prose size is nearing 8,000 words (nearly 8,500 if you include the bulleted lists). My first target would be the Construction and implementation section (see later parts of #Split Timeline to new article). I think Natural RX's sandbox short but a good start for that. ~UN6892 ^t_c 19:25, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

As stated in one of my previous discussions, Line 5 Eglinton needs to split off its history section. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Line opening date

In a series of mods, Special:Contributions/209.195.250.158 changed the infobox planned opening date from 2024 to 2025 leaving the old caption "previous target" in place. (Arguably, 2025 is the presumed date rather than a target date.) A CP24 article from October 5 says: "Earlier this week, Metrolinx confirmed that while it has made “significant progress” on the LRT it will not be operational by the end of 2024. The transit agency said that once it has an opening date that information will be shared with the public three months in advance." So should we using the "previous target" date of 2024 or the presumed date of 2025 in the infobox?

Another mod by Special:Contributions/209.195.250.158 states "For budget purposes, Metrolinx confirmed it will not open for this year, and will be ready for early 2025." The CP24 video source cited does not support the details of that statement.

@Joeyconnick and Johnny Au: Please comment. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 16:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

In the prose we could say it was targeted previously for 2024 but now confirmed it won't be open this year. In the infobox, I would leave the start date empty at this point until there's a new confirmed target.

A new confirmed target being Metrolinx or the province or the TTC (or equivalent) saying it for sure will open in 2025. Or 2026. Or 2040. 😅

Good grief this never-ending saga... 🙄 —Joeyconnick (talk) 01:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

There are two opening dates in the infobox: one for the central line and the other for the western extension. So, when you say to leave the "start date" (planned opening date) blank, do you mean both dates or just the central date? Instead of blank, we could say TBA. User:Neko-chan reverted the contentious Special:Contributions/209.195.250.158 mods but User:Loudmice reinstated the contentious 2025 date. The wording of the comment next to the date needs to be improved. @Johnny Au and Turini2: TheTrolleyPole (talk) 19:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I personally was just doing a normal vandalism sweep and a "it's the most delayed, source: everyone says so" is very trollish, whether or not it's accurate. I don't actually know anything about the topic. ~ฅ(ↀωↀ=)neko-chan^nyan 20:34, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I think your mod was desirable for other reasons. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 21:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

That is good. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Looks good at the moment... thanks all! Maybe we'll all live to see it open? LOL —Joeyconnick (talk) 21:04, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Here's hoping. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Sigh. I will not comment for now. I will wait and see first. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Agree - I would leave the infobox blank at this time, and detail it in the lead only. Turini2 (talk) 10:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 15:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)