Talk:Union Pearson Express

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stub[edit]

This article looks to be beyond the stub stage. Thoughts? David Henderson 02:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I'll remove it. Mindmatrix 18:05, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

$22[edit]

The Express bus, from the Royal York hotel, used to (still?) costs about $20. I wonder if the 22 in its title could be a clue as to what a trip on this new route will cost? Lol. -- Geo Swan 17:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

17%[edit]

Has anyone done any research on this 17% stat (the alleged percentage of people who use Pearson who travel downtown)? It might be completely accurate, but I have always been a little suspicious of the way it is used -- no one ever seems to look behind the stat, or consider its relevance. For example:

  • How is "downtown" defined?
  • I assume that the % is based on people whose trips start and end at Pearson, and is not based on all those who happen to pass through the facility (i.e does not include those switching planes). I wouldn't mind having that assumption confirmed, however, because otherwise the # is meaningless.
  • What are comparable statistics for existing airport rail links? What % of people using Heathrow or Gatwick, for example, head to central London? Given that people all over England drive to those airports, I'd be curious to know those figures. Any North American stats (off the top of my head, I am having trouble thinking of a NA airport with a direct-to-downtown rail link)? The 17% is really only relevant in context. Skeezix1000 18:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of NA examples. BART in San Francisco, California, SEPTA in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, The T in Boston, Massachusetts, MARTA in Atlanta, Georgia, The L in Chicago, Illinois, and the Washington Metro in Washington, DC come to mind. This link [1] places airport rail ride share for these systems in the range of around 4-15%. (Ride share is defined by the % of passengers who get to the airport by rail.) Washington has the highest ride share (at 15%). One caveat: these numbers are fairly old (dating back to 1992). Darkcore 06:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a rail link from the NY city subway to one of the New York airports -- JFK if I am not mistaken. I remember being struck by the difference in cost between that link and the Blue22 proposal. IIRC it cost $9 billion USD. FWIW it was a separate fee. FWIW it uses Bombardier rolling stock. IIRC there is a rail link to the Newark airport, which, although it is in NJ is also used by NYC air passengers. Geo Swan (talk) 19:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't it travel every 7 minutes, not 15? --64.231.54.184 16:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Four Budd cars? Or just three?[edit]

The article currently says the system will use four old Budd cars. I am sure I read it was going to use just three.

Ottawa Transit's experiment with light rail is initially using new German diesel cars on an existing rail line. My understanding is that if the experiment is seen to be a success then it will be replaced with a wider net of electrified rail vehicles on a separate right of way. That might make the German vehicles available. They are much newer than the 50 year old Budds, and would make the service more attractive.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 03:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stops at Bloor and Lawrence? Or stops at Bloor and Eglinton?[edit]

It would make more sense to have an intermediate stop at the new Weston Road LRT station. I visited the site of the new station, in April, the day the first Tunnel Boring Machine was slated to start. I took a couple of dozen pictures. There is no GO station there now, but the plan is that the LRT station will include 15 bus bays and a GO station.

Mind you the LRT isn't scheduled to be finished until 2020. Geo Swan (talk) 20:38, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a planned GO station at Eglinton, but nothing concrete. This article is only reflecting the facts in front of us. --Natural RX 03:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Load at the Skywalk?[edit]

The article currently says the loading platform at Union will be near the Skywalk. Jeez louise, that doesn't make sense. Passengers transferring from the TTC or from a GO train or GO bus will have a long walk to the platform -- about a third of a kilometer.

Why isn't platform 1 of the existing GO terminal turned over to the Pearson Express? Geo Swan (talk) 20:38, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that Wikipedia talk pages are not general discussion pages about the subject of the article. I would suggest checking out the Canadian Public Transit Discussion Board or something similar instead. Thank you. --Natural RX 03:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Woah there!
The claim that the express will load at the Skywalk is completely unreferenced. I suggest this makes it relevant to discuss here. I've added a {{cn}}. If no one adds a reference I sugges this claim be removed altogether. Geo Swan (talk) 03:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know that you know that the first platform is numbered 3. You've taken photographs there. The "departure lounge" in the Skywalk, or whatever they think they are creating, will be at the west end of that platform, and will segretate the high-flyers from the plebeian GO Train commuters. Look at the construction hoarding for the location. The trains will still use Union Station. Secondarywaltz (talk) 03:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll check, next time I am here, if I remember. If asked, I would have said that platform is the one that bridge Bay Street, and connects the GO trains with the GO Bus station. Geo Swan (talk) 06:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's it. Same one. You can enter at the bus station, cross Bay Steet, walk west along the platform, cross York Street, and exit at the Skywalk. Secondarywaltz (talk) 14:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now we know it's correct. The UP platforms are west of York St., off the Skywalk, and they are an awfully long walk from the subway platforms if you're in a hurry or have luggage. --70.49.171.136 (talk) 03:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Route map[edit]

The map in the infobox was created with lighter shades on the then-proposed parts of the route. Now that the line is up and running, these should be fully coloured, but I don't know enough about the templates to figure this out. Could someone who knows their way around these things please make an update? Radagast (talk) 18:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK - Done. Secondarywaltz (talk) 19:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The map showing GO and TTC connections is missing the Yonge-University subway line! Also it should say TTC "rapid transit" or "subway" connections, as buses and streetcars are not shown (and in my opinion should not be). --70.49.171.136 (talk) 03:12, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Qualification[edit]

"It is the first dedicated airport rail link service in North America (compared to urban rail transit or commuter rail connections used elsewhere)."

Can someone explain to me the qualification in this sentence? It seems awfully specific. I guess I can see how the service may not be the former, since it's not part of the TTC or GO, though, I'm not sure why that would much matter as I'd think the capacity, speed, etc...of such a service would be very similar regardless of the operator. But, it's also not a part of some national system like Via, either, and would almost seem closer to the concept of a commuter service, in which case the only difference is that it's not operate by GO. I guess what I'm saying is that it seems like an awfully specific - maybe overly so - qualification. Can someone explain to me why this service is unique to North American in a way that justifies the kind of superlative used to describe it? --Criticalthinker (talk) 09:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Operating Speed[edit]

Someone has changed the operating speed item in the info box to "90 km/h". This is blatantly false since trains routinely operate at upwards of 125 km/h. I have reverted the value to the previous 145 km/h (which may not be correct either, but is at least documented and theoretically possible).

When I recorded the train speed on-board with GPS, I found it to be cruising at around 128 km/h (80 mph) for much of the line, and my trackside measurements yielded similar results. Of course, primary research is not a valid source on Wikipedia so I can't cite that. I seem to recall that during the opening speech the top speed was cited as 130 km/h, but I can't find a source for that. If anyone could find a more recent source for the maximum operating speed, it would be greatly appreciated.Reaperexpress (talk) 03:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most subs (and probably Weston) have speed limits of 90 mph = 145 km/h. Someone must be mistaken. I wouldn't know where a reliable source is, it's just common knowledge for me. --Natural RX 19:39, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fare information section[edit]

Why is there such a large table of fares in this article? Some editors would argue, and I would tend to agree, that such a detailed fare table should not be included in the article because Wikipedia is not a travel guide.WP:NOTTRAVEL I also wonder whether the inclusion of so much fare detail furthers the opinion of some that the fares are to high. I would suggest that the table be removed and instead only basic fare information be provided in the article - which seems to be the norm for similar North American transit articles.FFM784 (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. See also Wikipedia:Too much detail. Be bold and get rid of it! Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also agreed. I made the original table, which was simplified still from the convoluted thing UP originally released. Seems @DiligentDavidG: felt it was necessary to add to it. If you can simplify further, I join Secondarywaltz's call for you to be bold! --Natural RX 18:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well that is the problem. The information will keep changing so it is not encyclopedic except for a comparison of the fare from the airport to downtown Toronto with other air-rail links. A link to the Fares section of the Website will always give the current fare. Chop the table out completely! Secondarywaltz (talk) 19:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy for it to be removed - I only updated it because the information was out of date (wasn't setting out to expand it, but they added elements to the fare structure)DiligentDavidG (talk) 21:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done.FFM784 (talk) 22:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Underground sections?[edit]

How many km of this is underground?

Could that info be put in the article. And hopefully update the map to show the tunnel portals like the High Speed 2 in England. 116.240.138.221 (talk) 09:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a significant revision to the route diagram template to show multiple features and connections that were missing. --Natural RX 17:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Natural RX: Fair enough, but stop adding details of lines that have no hard planning. You only became aware of a proposed extension of the Eglinton Crosstown a couple of days ago. Nothing to say that it will not change again before it's final implementation decades from now. Secondarywaltz (talk)

"Alternatives" section[edit]

Would anyone be opposed if I cut down the "Alternatives" section greatly and put in a link to Toronto Pearson International Airport#Ground Transportation instead? I get what it's trying to do, but that belongs on wikitravel or some other tourism or city guide site, not in an encyclopedia, and Pearson's Ground Transportation section should be doing the comparisons if any.

I'd normally be bold but my anon edit to change Uber from "Ride-sharing" to "Ride-hailing" (matching the first sentence of Uber (company) got reverted so I presume this might be controversial. --user:Qviri 20:40, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree. Most of these details have nothing directly related to UPE. You correctly categorize the information as being about Pearson Airport ground transportation. I say that you should go ahead. Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Qviri: C'mon man! You can't just eradicated the background history that includes the Airport Express bus, which was the only direct transit service from downtown Toronto for many years. Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:09, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The section was named "Alternatives", not "Background history of transit service from downtown Toronto" nor "Comparison between then and now". I also merged the most important bit of it into Toronto Pearson International Airport#Bus. I would still say that paragraph does not belong in this article at all. Maybe we should add "Past transit service to the airport" section, but then the question is going to be why is it in the UPX article and not the Pearson article? I would say this article should be about a specific train to the airport, not all of service history. --user:Qviri 16:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It should be mentioned somewhere that an Express Bus preceded the current Express Train service. That is relevant. Where do we stick it? I don't know. 16:50, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Family Day Weekend 2016[edit]

The article should mention Family Day Weekend 2016, when it became free. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 13:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a reference to start things off: http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/transportation/2016/02/15/more-than-28000-take-advantage-of-free-upx-rides-this-weekend.html Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:41, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UPX Fares[edit]

Here https://news.ontario.ca/mto/en/2016/02/ontario-lowering-fares-for-union-pearson-express-riders.html is the Ministry of Transportation announcement. Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That has already been added. It would be good to mention the Family Day weekend, when it was free. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 03:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnny Au: No! The fares have not been fully updated and referenced, due to a teeny tiny edit war. Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 17:25, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GO Merger[edit]

@Reaperexpress: @Secondarywaltz: I see you were bold in your changes, but we have two news stories reporting on plans for a merger, but nothing official to confirm it has actually occurred or is occuring. I'm kind of concerned you guys moved too fast on this one, and that as written, fails WP:CITE. Could you consider revisions to reflect what the cited sources actually say? --Natural RX 18:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth. I had initially integrated s-rail supporting templates for color, lines and stations with the GO Transit system, since I did not think it was worth creating single use templates for UPE. All the stations are the same except at the airport. I brought them back. The redundant Navbox was not used in any of the trivial articles mentions - only the stations. What's your problem with that? Secondarywaltz (talk) 19:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I guess my issue isn't with that, just the writing in the article. I thought you had a bigger part in it, my bad. --Natural RX 19:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Natural RX: I happen to know that the merger is occurring, so I suppose I was a bit liberal with the sources. But you are entirely correct, the sources do not announce the change with certainty, so I should not have made the change yet. I will modify the text based on the uncertainty until we can find a source that confirms that the merger has occurred. Reaperexpress (talk) 23:18, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Me, I would wait until UPX's merger with GO Transit is confirmed. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:06, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Union Pearson Express. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EPA[edit]

"UP Express uses diesel multiple unit (DMU) trains that meet United States Environmental Protection Agency Tier 4 emission standards."

Is there a reason that this is listed as a fact for a rail service in Canada? What does the EPA have to do with a project in Toronto? --Criticalthinker (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Canada aligns with EPA emission standards for all off-road diesel engines or machines; there are no Canadian standalone equivalents to date. --Natural RX 19:49, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, didn't know that. Thanks for this information. --Criticalthinker (talk) 08:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Union Pearson Express. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Union_Pearson_Express&oldid=1203451030"