You mentioning jobs near or at pearson gave me relief because that was why I think it should cost less, like Pearson is literally a regional industrial hub to the east and many people work at or near the airport in the resturants, for the airport, or for the industrial factories or malls, who wouldn't want to pay a expensive fare every day.
@@suddenlysolo2170In the GTA? good luck having to be able to move and find a place with the time and money needed. Every Transportation option is subsidized for the infrastructure needed; transit, bikes, cars, pedestrian, etc. Unless you have a private company using a private right of way, it would be a bit more unfair if gets subsidized than a public service by a government entity is subsidized
Transit riders working at major industrial hubs are often forgotten about... for example, many of these workers work overnight shifts but overnight bus service (let alone overnight train service) is quite limited. Though it has been getting somewhat better (MiWay introduced night bus service on its 7 Airport route in 2019). Today, the UP Express's fare structure means that everyone needs to pay the full fare every time, except for employees specifically at Pearson Airport, who get single-ride discounts and weekly passes. However, many other people work in that area (not directly in the airport) or commute through this area and could use the UP Express if it cost less. At the same time, the UP Express relies on these high fares paid by people occasionally flying into or out of Pearson. My solution (briefly mentioned at 7:52): 1. Everyone pays GO Transit fares on all UP Express trips (no more separate systems) that are cheaper than the current UP Express fares. This also enables continuing itineraries (e.g. Pearson to Scarborough) with one ticket. 2. Add an airport surcharge on all trips starting or ending at Pearson (transferring through Person is free, e.g. for a Brampton to Toronto journey) if a train is used (or for all trains/buses). Use the extra funding to substantially improve, promote, and maintain public transit to, from, and through Pearson Airport. 3. Add a 2-trip/4-trip per week cap on the surcharge only or the entire fare to/from Pearson Airport, so that regular commuters and workers are not overcharged/burdened by this surcharge.
@@TransitTalksClub maybe for #3 if you go less then 2 times a week you can also get a pass but need to show proof that you should get one such as education or work
7:38 I wholeheartedly agree with your proposal to simplify fares! When I first moved to Toronto for study, I remember how confused I was when I was trying to get from the Bloor station to Pearson. There were no ticket agents at the office (I can only recall seeing someone behind the desk once), and, not understanding the difference between UP and GO, I accidentally bought a GO ticket. Fortunately I figured out pretty quickly that I just wasted $8, and bought a UP ticket in time to catch the train to Pearson. Thank goodness that the UP readers at least accept Presto cards!
2:40 I would also like to add that running GO trains to the airport would require upgrading the elevated guideway to handle the heavier trains used by GO
legit if they just coughed up the a huge investment money for a underground Terminal like they have in certain significant European airports, from Zaventem to Schipol. GO, Via, and maybe even another company would be running trains to Pearson 😊
@@TheRandCrews The way I see it... as long as trains can get into or out of Pearson quickly and efficiently then I wouldn't care if it's underground, elevated, etc. However, because airports (including Pearson) have tons of infrastructure (taxiways, roads, buildings, etc.) in the way, it is highly likely that elevated tracks will have slow speeds and tight curves... and that's exactly the case with the UP Express guideway. So yes, airport rail stations like at Pearson should probably be underground (and besides the terminals: no "bus connections" like between the Dorval station and Montreal Trudeau Airport should be required).
I can see great value with the UP Express serving WoodbineJct (Must), Bloor (Important), MtDennis (Great), while eliminating Weston as a UP stop, as each of those stops serve key connections with other routes.
9:03 Every stop along the way should definitely be serviced by high-capacity, high-frequency rail service as they're all important. The UP Express service every 15 minutes at these stations is currently as good as it gets (too few trainsets), but GO Transit could be better. Unfortunately, (due to poor planning) the tiny UP Express trains aren't meant to handle increased ridership at these stations in the long-term, so there is reluctance to boost UP Express ridership right now (hence the higher fares, ineligibility for One Fare Program, and efforts to push riders to GO Transit). The overcrowding may get even worse if the fares become unified and "reasonable". So without major overhauls between Woodbine and Pearson, GO Transit taking over local service between Union and Woodbine (with frequent additional shuttles between Woodbine and Pearson and maybe free fares exclusively between those two stations) will be the inevitable fate (best case scenario without overhauls). Hopefully Line 5 and/or Line 6 will be extended to Pearson (as they should be) as well.
The ridership from Weston is crazy though. I live in the area and it's basically like a subway. There is no way they can take that away without replacing the service. GO doesn't even come close.
@@lucasapacker It's the best way to get downtown from this area. Yeah if you need to use the TTC afterwards, it gets expensive but going from Weston to downtown toronto in 10 minutes can't be beat
@@lucasapackerwell I think the idea there is to increase GO in it's place. Post electricification of the GO is supposed to have 15 service from bramalea to union.
I like your proposed plan very much, allowing both of the services to do what they do best without trying to serve other purposes is the best way forward. A junction station at Woodbine would ensure no one has to back track to catch the train they need while also serving the massive job centers and future residential at Woodbine. The electrification and construction of Infill GO stations on the Weston Sub is one of the most underdiscussed transit projects in Canada and I don't think enough people (even in government) realize how fundamentally it will enhance mobility in western Toronto. In terms of further infill stations, Reece Martin has mentioned one at Dundas/College which I like the idea of but wonder if its too close to Bloor. A station in the Junction to connect with a future Midtown GO line would also be useful, but without a rebuilding of the Old Weston Bridge walk in/local transit connections would be difficult.
There are so many underutilized railway lines within the City of Toronto that need more frequent service and infill stations. My next video is actually going to touch on this subject... stay tuned.
this was super informative!!! the fares are definately a mess, i love how im encouraged to take the slow and uncomfortable route to pearson through line 2 and the bus(which i always end up doing) instead of the actual express airport service
For some areas of downtown Toronto (especially near Line 2), it may take the same amount of time (or very slightly slower) to take the subway to Kipling (and the 900 bus to the airport) instead of going down to Union and taking the UP Express.
It’s wild how they actually wanted to CUT service because the UP trains were carrying TOO MANY PEOPLE. The UP passenger numbers just proved that GO Expansion project should have happened a decade ago. Better late than never I suppose….I guess it also means that GO numbers will explode once GO Expansion is finally done.
Trains from Kitchener already have such a long commute, they should be able to take an express route. While UP trains are currently DMU so they can accelerate and decelerate faster.
I'm told that when the electric lines from bramalea to union are complete, all nonelectric trains from bramalea towards union will be express... No idea if that's true.
I agree that GO trains from Kitchener/west of Bramalea should run express (perhaps even "super express" services, though there is limited capacity on the CN mainline section between Georgetown and Bramalea) because of the already long trip times. When that section is electrified, there will likely be plenty of local service to the point where having the trains from Kitchener making those stops is pointless, aside from the need to transfer if you're heading to one of the local-only stations (the faster electric trains would make up for the need to transfer).
I got screwed by the two tapping systems. I tapped on a GO tap and tapped off the UP tap at Pearson Airport. I was promptly charged about $25. Ridiculous!
In situations like that, customer service can make adjustments and refund/credit you the difference, especially if it's your first time or you ride infrequently.
One of the flaws in urban planning back in the 50s and 60s was that major developments, such as Malton airport, York University, and Square One ignored the existing rail transportation corridors and were placed just far enough away from the rail corridors that it would cost billions of dollars to connect them and the only easy way to access them was by automobile. Furthermore one of the limitations of the engineering of the UPX was that it must conform to the preexisting maze of roadways. I live in London, Ontario, and there is no public transportation connection to Pearson. If the terminals at Pearson had been built on top of the existing rail corridor, rather than a pointless km away, then the two transportation modes would have combined to benefit both, and major investments to apply bandaids would have been avoided. I agree that when something is marketed as Express it should not make intermediate stops and should operate on a dedicated right of way which permits it to travel at the pull engineered speed of the right of way.
I will say that I appreciate the video but don’t agree on the proposed solution. It has been acknowledged that the 2 current stops do not add a substantial amount of time, but without a doubt adding go more to UP will start to make that difference. It is fair to assume the existing UP trains are infrastructure limited due to weight and tracks so your GO train retrofit proposal is a no go. 1st) Bloor/Line 2 connectivity to 15 minute Pearson access is an essential connector and trip generator for those not in the core but on the south west quadrant of the city. I believe much of the uproar and reconsideration was from here, as 30 minute headways would make that usage impractical. It is an important route for airport employees and travelers served by line 2. 2) maintaining 2 stop maximum for UP express, with one stop being for line 2 subway interconnection (so, bloor) and one more - which should be treated as a western UP-GO train transfer hub (to Milton, line 5, Kitchener service) in order to connect commuters, employees and other travelers TO Pearson directly to maximize coverage. 3) for direct Pearson-Union service, the actual obvious solution here is to double the number of trains so that 15 minute connector service can be maintain (but that should probably be 10 minutes) and new trains provides express to union service for that trunk. 4) while probably less popular, the pricing should be set such to disuade regular non Pearson users (I.e. anyone without Pearson as a starting or end stop) where such low pricing affects over capacity where go trains provide should provide similar service. YYZ employees or frequent Pearson users could have their own passes or fare structures to ensure employees are not penalized for transit use. You use Narita and Heathrow’s express services as examples… have you seen how much they charge? The premium service should be priced accordingly(and more fares with full utilization means more and better service …)
I think GO's plan is to actually raise the platforms for the rest of the network. All new station renovations have a 'potential high floor' platform upgrade in mind. I'm assuming it might go hand in hand with their electrification plan.
Another thing, the UP should be extended to replace the Terminal Link and to meet back with the rail corridor, that wouold mean not having to turn trains around and the ability to more easily run a more frequent multidimensional service.
does Pearson require a portion of fares collected as compensation for lost parking revenues as many airports do (Vancouver and Sydney for instance)? If so it makes fare integration harder. Montréal was spared this ecause ADM (airport administrator) ran out ofunds again and gave its share of project to federal government (hence years of delay becayse while promising hundreds of milions to complete REM to airport, it only gives a few dollars per year). But the end result is that the airport won't be able to charge for use of a station hit has no share in. Apart from airport fees, one reason to apply a premium is to ensure airport people ave a seat and that the trains are seen as empty/comfortable istead of jam ]acked like the subway. But in te end, providing rapid transit to airport is perhaps more important than provising luxury transit to airport and as you mentioned, there are thousands who work at airport. (In Montréal, the 747 bus is available to anyone with a monthly/pass so those who work at airport get to use the bus which runs 24 hours a day to serve not only passengers but also workers, Using Pearson as a hub would depend on how ackward it is to transfer from UP express upstairs to the bus stops way down into the bowels of the airport (ground level 🙂 remember that UP express ends up west of Union station and away from subway etc So not exactly a perfect "connection" to downtown. Level boarding is very important for airport serice due to everyone having rollaboard luggage who refuse to lift it to go up stairs. With electrification project, and the demise of Bombardier, taking with it Hawker Siddleley (Go trains) and UTDC ( Vancouver skytrain), and Alstom having provided no hint whatsoever it would adopt these products (the steel-heavy multi-levels used by NJ Transit and EXO have formally been adopted by Alstom and given a forgettable Alstom product name, but not the Hawker Siddeley bi-levels which are lighter and stll orphaned within Alstom. Caltrain has gone with some Staddler bi levels for its electrification programme and I wouldnt be surprised if Metrolinx ends up with those service-proven trains by the time it flicks the wall switch to power up all the electrificed lines. So where Metrolinx goes with its Go train electrification will likely also impact UP Express's old 1950s diesel RDCs made in Japan. Note: the NJ Transit multipevels have vestibule doors that can open either for low level or high levels platforms, on top of the mid level doors that open only to high level. (EXO didnt take the hybrid solution for vestibule doors so their doors open only to low level with narrow and steep stairs.). In NJ Transit's case, with high level platforms, they have 4 doors per side per car that open at stations, allowing much faster egress and ingress. Alstom is about to deliver an EMU version of those cars that are self propelled for shorter trains where it is more efficient to have a few EMUs than cars pulled by locos.
Possibly... I believe such a payment arrangement between the Greater Toronto Airports Authority (GTAA) and Metrolinx would be confidential in the first place. As much as I understand the need to avoid overcrowding, ridership must be maximized and operations need to scale up along with the ridership. If ridership is not maximized, this is a waste of resources and existing infrastructure. Any policy that jeopardizes maximum ridership must be reconsidered. After electrification is done, despite the worse acceleration, I think GO Transit should continue to use the existing railcars with some/all of the existing diesel locomotives swapped for electric or dual-mode locomotives. At the same time, they should start introducing a new fleet of EMUs and massively ramp up local service with frequent stops in Toronto with those trains. The local services is where acceleration really matters, so that's why EMUs should go there first.
@@TransitTalksClub The Nippon-Sharya should be retired as soon as there is electrification. And for short trains, self-propelled cars (EMU/DMU) are better than loco hauled from cost point of view, and when you have limited physical station size, the size of loco can cause problems ( at airport, loco would have to face south, but not sure how much spare spare that is at Union station east the platform for a loco to be there. It provides bad image for a city to have old diesel trains at airport (same with Ottawa's new diesel service to airport, especually since passengers will have to switch trains twice to get downtown, so will take cabs instead).
@@jfmezei The airport branch should be electrified... In general, diesel trains on short-distance lines with frequent stops are highly inefficient (fuel and slow acceleration); they should be replaced with more suitable EMUs and transferred to longer distance and/or express routes.
Super well argued. I can’t find any flaws. 😂 If they go with your proposal it would be optimal to have an easy transfer between UP and GO, either a cross platform (tho not sure how that could be done with GO trans coming both ways) or stacked, with lots of access stairs and elevators.
Why's it called the "UP", well because it goes from Union Station the "U" to Pearson International Airport, the "P". So I guess when it is going the opposite direction its called the "P" "U" Express.
Agreed, the current wayfinding is terrible which is especially a problem because some bus routes don't even go directly to Terminal 1 (long transfer times), where the UP Express terminates. Thankfully easy fixes may be made at Pearson Airport to better use the existing infrastructure, like having every bus stop in the same designated place, and adding better transit-related signage/maps.
I agree with every thing that you say except about GO trains going into Pearson Airport. GO trains are like awkward dinosaurs, and not suitable for slow winding curves as are on the overpass to the airport. The nimble UPX crawls on the overhead as it is with severe speed limits of (I believe) 30mph. The UPX doesn't even serve Terminal 3; you have to switch from Terminal 1 to the cable car overhead to get to Terminal 3. The Greater Toronto Airports Authority seems to not be building the megaterminal to replace Terminals 1 and 3; it's still a dog's breakfast. I live 2 km from the Airport in Malton, and I just walked out of Terminal 3 through the snow to Airport Rd., and waited half an hour for a number 7 bus to take me home; the wait was cold. Also, from the new Carlingview/Woodbine station, have a goodly bus bay, with many cheap buses to the YYZ airport (both terminals); Carlingview and Airport Rd are seldomly jammed up here, even in rush hour, so that buses could move well. Perhaps new underground trains will arrive at the airport in our next lifetimes. There should also be good car and bus ramps to this station from Highway 427 for fast access. Aarre Peltomaa of Mississauga, Ontario
UP Express only has a fleet of 18 cars to play around with, so they're unlikely to convert the any of the cars (let alone part of a car) to bike cars. GO Transit is more accommodating to bikes, but even their efforts of converting parts of cars/entire cars isn't keeping up with the demand. It's a shame, as bikes are a really efficient/important way of getting around when transit alone is either absent or too slow to use. I think it would also help if every station, especially Union Station, had an abundance of bicycle lockers or bicycle parking garages. Right now there is very little capacity and an application process. (Imagine having to submit an application every time you drive to a new parking garage) That way, someone wouldn't have to transport their bike as often, if they don't have to bike both before and after the train ride.
I actually would have proposed the opposite service pattern as you. Make the GO train express to Woodbine and abandon all intermediate stops. Turn the UP Express into a TTC service, increase frequencies, and add it to the subway map with many new intermediate stations.
@@Islington_Express_Bus Maybe true, but that isn't what UP Express is UP Express is entirely unsuitable for what you want. The rail corridor doesn't have the capacity for what you want. And it is in part those tourists and convention goers that UP Express helps attract to Toronto that contribute to the taxes that pay for things like the TTC. If you want frequent local service then ask the TTC to provide a bus route.
UP Express trains save time by stopping at a platform west of Union Station, and due to the shortage of trains, are badly needed between Union and Pearson. Consistently through running GO trains would drastically increase the capacity of Union Station. When the Ontario line opens, through running of almost all lines must happen before then, as there will be lots of demand to/from the Exhibition and East Harbour stations.
Tbh I was expecting more like 5 minutes of reduction in travel time, for 2 minutes not worth it, better to just keep what capacity it has. Such a waste they way they built it, all proprietary to itself
The viaduct to Pearson Airport was definitely rushed due to budget and time constraints... if it had been futureproofed just a little more, there wouldn't have been a problem in the first place. Did you know that the Prince Edward Viaduct/bridge between downtown and East Toronto was built with a lower deck for a "future underground rail line" about 50 years before Line 2 was actually completed? That's the kind of planning that we need.
@@TransitTalksClub there's also a second lower deck around Parliment that's not used and the bridge that is used by Line 2 used to have open skylights, I remember when they were still open. If they had built the guideway and station to handle at least a 4-6 car train they could use the bi levels and a loco, although maybe when GO finally goes electrification it'll become EMUs. Imo they should remove the high floor platforms at the intermediate stations and have 2 services, an express to Union from Pearson with 30 minute service and a shuttle to the new Woodbine station every 10 minutes. This would allow them to use these not great highfloor trains while not having to purchases more and would allow a further increase of service on the GO line
One of the problems of GO transit is that any expansion of services just induces more demand. But it is chaotic and unplanned. The current government cannot justify publicly owned rail transit within its ideology. The premier, while often dismissive of rail transit as “choo choos”, isn’t actively blocking service that his supporters benefit from. This government is expanding and improving service. The cognitive dissonance makes for ad hoc development which is an inefficient use of public resources. What is lacking is an overall vision for Ontario transit. Even the Toronto Regional Board of Trade has a vision, even if that vision is not beyond criticism. When will one of the parties make it part of their agenda?
Induced demand is an inevitable consequence of improving a means of transportation. The issue is that it is worsened by the lack of adequate infrastructure (e.g. not enough buses to meet the demand between Kitchener and Brampton) and the inefficient use of existing infrastructure (e.g. using 10 buses when 1 train in storage could've been used). I do agree with you that there needs to be an overall, long-term vision; the best transit systems tend to come as a result of clear visions.
You mentioning jobs near or at pearson gave me relief because that was why I think it should cost less, like Pearson is literally a regional industrial hub to the east and many people work at or near the airport in the resturants, for the airport, or for the industrial factories or malls, who wouldn't want to pay a expensive fare every day.
And who do you think should subsidize your commute to work? You could move or get a job closer to where you live if the commute is too expensive.
@@suddenlysolo2170In the GTA? good luck having to be able to move and find a place with the time and money needed. Every Transportation option is subsidized for the infrastructure needed; transit, bikes, cars, pedestrian, etc. Unless you have a private company using a private right of way, it would be a bit more unfair if gets subsidized than a public service by a government entity is subsidized
Transit riders working at major industrial hubs are often forgotten about... for example, many of these workers work overnight shifts but overnight bus service (let alone overnight train service) is quite limited. Though it has been getting somewhat better (MiWay introduced night bus service on its 7 Airport route in 2019).
Today, the UP Express's fare structure means that everyone needs to pay the full fare every time, except for employees specifically at Pearson Airport, who get single-ride discounts and weekly passes. However, many other people work in that area (not directly in the airport) or commute through this area and could use the UP Express if it cost less. At the same time, the UP Express relies on these high fares paid by people occasionally flying into or out of Pearson.
My solution (briefly mentioned at 7:52):
1. Everyone pays GO Transit fares on all UP Express trips (no more separate systems) that are cheaper than the current UP Express fares. This also enables continuing itineraries (e.g. Pearson to Scarborough) with one ticket.
2. Add an airport surcharge on all trips starting or ending at Pearson (transferring through Person is free, e.g. for a Brampton to Toronto journey) if a train is used (or for all trains/buses). Use the extra funding to substantially improve, promote, and maintain public transit to, from, and through Pearson Airport.
3. Add a 2-trip/4-trip per week cap on the surcharge only or the entire fare to/from Pearson Airport, so that regular commuters and workers are not overcharged/burdened by this surcharge.
@@suddenlysolo2170 try finding a good home for yourself near your walk and find out how hard it is to
@@TransitTalksClub maybe for #3 if you go less then 2 times a week you can also get a pass but need to show proof that you should get one such as education or work
7:38 I wholeheartedly agree with your proposal to simplify fares! When I first moved to Toronto for study, I remember how confused I was when I was trying to get from the Bloor station to Pearson. There were no ticket agents at the office (I can only recall seeing someone behind the desk once), and, not understanding the difference between UP and GO, I accidentally bought a GO ticket. Fortunately I figured out pretty quickly that I just wasted $8, and bought a UP ticket in time to catch the train to Pearson. Thank goodness that the UP readers at least accept Presto cards!
I agree that employees should never be charged the surcharge.
2:40
I would also like to add that running GO trains to the airport would require upgrading the elevated guideway to handle the heavier trains used by GO
legit if they just coughed up the a huge investment money for a underground Terminal like they have in certain significant European airports, from Zaventem to Schipol. GO, Via, and maybe even another company would be running trains to Pearson 😊
@@TheRandCrews The way I see it... as long as trains can get into or out of Pearson quickly and efficiently then I wouldn't care if it's underground, elevated, etc.
However, because airports (including Pearson) have tons of infrastructure (taxiways, roads, buildings, etc.) in the way, it is highly likely that elevated tracks will have slow speeds and tight curves... and that's exactly the case with the UP Express guideway. So yes, airport rail stations like at Pearson should probably be underground (and besides the terminals: no "bus connections" like between the Dorval station and Montreal Trudeau Airport should be required).
@@TheRandCrews UP Express was initially supposed to be a private operator but the Ontario Government stepped in when they abandoned the idea.
I can see great value with the UP Express serving WoodbineJct (Must), Bloor (Important), MtDennis (Great), while eliminating Weston as a UP stop, as each of those stops serve key connections with other routes.
Weston serves the town of Weston. It's got lots of high density apartment complexes within a kilometer of the station. No, Weston needs to stay
9:03 Every stop along the way should definitely be serviced by high-capacity, high-frequency rail service as they're all important. The UP Express service every 15 minutes at these stations is currently as good as it gets (too few trainsets), but GO Transit could be better.
Unfortunately, (due to poor planning) the tiny UP Express trains aren't meant to handle increased ridership at these stations in the long-term, so there is reluctance to boost UP Express ridership right now (hence the higher fares, ineligibility for One Fare Program, and efforts to push riders to GO Transit). The overcrowding may get even worse if the fares become unified and "reasonable".
So without major overhauls between Woodbine and Pearson, GO Transit taking over local service between Union and Woodbine (with frequent additional shuttles between Woodbine and Pearson and maybe free fares exclusively between those two stations) will be the inevitable fate (best case scenario without overhauls). Hopefully Line 5 and/or Line 6 will be extended to Pearson (as they should be) as well.
The ridership from Weston is crazy though. I live in the area and it's basically like a subway. There is no way they can take that away without replacing the service. GO doesn't even come close.
@@lucasapacker It's the best way to get downtown from this area. Yeah if you need to use the TTC afterwards, it gets expensive but going from Weston to downtown toronto in 10 minutes can't be beat
@@lucasapackerwell I think the idea there is to increase GO in it's place. Post electricification of the GO is supposed to have 15 service from bramalea to union.
I like your proposed plan very much, allowing both of the services to do what they do best without trying to serve other purposes is the best way forward. A junction station at Woodbine would ensure no one has to back track to catch the train they need while also serving the massive job centers and future residential at Woodbine. The electrification and construction of Infill GO stations on the Weston Sub is one of the most underdiscussed transit projects in Canada and I don't think enough people (even in government) realize how fundamentally it will enhance mobility in western Toronto. In terms of further infill stations, Reece Martin has mentioned one at Dundas/College which I like the idea of but wonder if its too close to Bloor. A station in the Junction to connect with a future Midtown GO line would also be useful, but without a rebuilding of the Old Weston Bridge walk in/local transit connections would be difficult.
There are so many underutilized railway lines within the City of Toronto that need more frequent service and infill stations. My next video is actually going to touch on this subject... stay tuned.
this was super informative!!! the fares are definately a mess, i love how im encouraged to take the slow and uncomfortable route to pearson through line 2 and the bus(which i always end up doing) instead of the actual express airport service
For some areas of downtown Toronto (especially near Line 2), it may take the same amount of time (or very slightly slower) to take the subway to Kipling (and the 900 bus to the airport) instead of going down to Union and taking the UP Express.
You’re here? hi ig
It’s wild how they actually wanted to CUT service because the UP trains were carrying TOO MANY PEOPLE. The UP passenger numbers just proved that GO Expansion project should have happened a decade ago. Better late than never I suppose….I guess it also means that GO numbers will explode once GO Expansion is finally done.
Trains from Kitchener already have such a long commute, they should be able to take an express route. While UP trains are currently DMU so they can accelerate and decelerate faster.
I'm told that when the electric lines from bramalea to union are complete, all nonelectric trains from bramalea towards union will be express... No idea if that's true.
I agree that GO trains from Kitchener/west of Bramalea should run express (perhaps even "super express" services, though there is limited capacity on the CN mainline section between Georgetown and Bramalea) because of the already long trip times.
When that section is electrified, there will likely be plenty of local service to the point where having the trains from Kitchener making those stops is pointless, aside from the need to transfer if you're heading to one of the local-only stations (the faster electric trains would make up for the need to transfer).
I got screwed by the two tapping systems. I tapped on a GO tap and tapped off the UP tap at Pearson Airport. I was promptly charged about $25. Ridiculous!
In situations like that, customer service can make adjustments and refund/credit you the difference, especially if it's your first time or you ride infrequently.
One of the flaws in urban planning back in the 50s and 60s was that major developments, such as Malton airport, York University, and Square One ignored the existing rail transportation corridors and were placed just far enough away from the rail corridors that it would cost billions of dollars to connect them and the only easy way to access them was by automobile. Furthermore one of the limitations of the engineering of the UPX was that it must conform to the preexisting maze of roadways.
I live in London, Ontario, and there is no public transportation connection to Pearson. If the terminals at Pearson had been built on top of the existing rail corridor, rather than a pointless km away, then the two transportation modes would have combined to benefit both, and major investments to apply bandaids would have been avoided.
I agree that when something is marketed as Express it should not make intermediate stops and should operate on a dedicated right of way which permits it to travel at the pull engineered speed of the right of way.
I will say that I appreciate the video but don’t agree on the proposed solution. It has been acknowledged that the 2 current stops do not add a substantial amount of time, but without a doubt adding go more to UP will start to make that difference. It is fair to assume the existing UP trains are infrastructure limited due to weight and tracks so your GO train retrofit proposal is a no go.
1st) Bloor/Line 2 connectivity to 15 minute Pearson access is an essential connector and trip generator for those not in the core but on the south west quadrant of the city. I believe much of the uproar and reconsideration was from here, as 30 minute headways would make that usage impractical. It is an important route for airport employees and travelers served by line 2.
2) maintaining 2 stop maximum for UP express, with one stop being for line 2 subway interconnection (so, bloor) and one more - which should be treated as a western UP-GO train transfer hub (to Milton, line 5, Kitchener service) in order to connect commuters, employees and other travelers TO Pearson directly to maximize coverage.
3) for direct Pearson-Union service, the actual obvious solution here is to double the number of trains so that 15 minute connector service can be maintain (but that should probably be 10 minutes) and new trains provides express to union service for that trunk.
4) while probably less popular, the pricing should be set such to disuade regular non Pearson users (I.e. anyone without Pearson as a starting or end stop) where such low pricing affects over capacity where go trains provide should provide similar service. YYZ employees or frequent Pearson users could have their own passes or fare structures to ensure employees are not penalized for transit use. You use Narita and Heathrow’s express services as examples… have you seen how much they charge? The premium service should be priced accordingly(and more fares with full utilization means more and better service …)
I think GO's plan is to actually raise the platforms for the rest of the network. All new station renovations have a 'potential high floor' platform upgrade in mind. I'm assuming it might go hand in hand with their electrification plan.
Seems crazy we have to spend 75.00 for a lemo when there is already a track between Union and
Pearson.
Another thing, the UP should be extended to replace the Terminal Link and to meet back with the rail corridor, that wouold mean not having to turn trains around and the ability to more easily run a more frequent multidimensional service.
does Pearson require a portion of fares collected as compensation for lost parking revenues as many airports do (Vancouver and Sydney for instance)? If so it makes fare integration harder. Montréal was spared this ecause ADM (airport administrator) ran out ofunds again and gave its share of project to federal government (hence years of delay becayse while promising hundreds of milions to complete REM to airport, it only gives a few dollars per year). But the end result is that the airport won't be able to charge for use of a station hit has no share in.
Apart from airport fees, one reason to apply a premium is to ensure airport people ave a seat and that the trains are seen as empty/comfortable istead of jam ]acked like the subway. But in te end, providing rapid transit to airport is perhaps more important than provising luxury transit to airport and as you mentioned, there are thousands who work at airport. (In Montréal, the 747 bus is available to anyone with a monthly/pass so those who work at airport get to use the bus which runs 24 hours a day to serve not only passengers but also workers,
Using Pearson as a hub would depend on how ackward it is to transfer from UP express upstairs to the bus stops way down into the bowels of the airport (ground level 🙂 remember that UP express ends up west of Union station and away from subway etc So not exactly a perfect "connection" to downtown.
Level boarding is very important for airport serice due to everyone having rollaboard luggage who refuse to lift it to go up stairs.
With electrification project, and the demise of Bombardier, taking with it Hawker Siddleley (Go trains) and UTDC ( Vancouver skytrain), and Alstom having provided no hint whatsoever it would adopt these products (the steel-heavy multi-levels used by NJ Transit and EXO have formally been adopted by Alstom and given a forgettable Alstom product name, but not the Hawker Siddeley bi-levels which are lighter and stll orphaned within Alstom. Caltrain has gone with some Staddler bi levels for its electrification programme and I wouldnt be surprised if Metrolinx ends up with those service-proven trains by the time it flicks the wall switch to power up all the electrificed lines. So where Metrolinx goes with its Go train electrification will likely also impact UP Express's old 1950s diesel RDCs made in Japan.
Note: the NJ Transit multipevels have vestibule doors that can open either for low level or high levels platforms, on top of the mid level doors that open only to high level. (EXO didnt take the hybrid solution for vestibule doors so their doors open only to low level with narrow and steep stairs.). In NJ Transit's case, with high level platforms, they have 4 doors per side per car that open at stations, allowing much faster egress and ingress. Alstom is about to deliver an EMU version of those cars that are self propelled for shorter trains where it is more efficient to have a few EMUs than cars pulled by locos.
Possibly... I believe such a payment arrangement between the Greater Toronto Airports Authority (GTAA) and Metrolinx would be confidential in the first place.
As much as I understand the need to avoid overcrowding, ridership must be maximized and operations need to scale up along with the ridership. If ridership is not maximized, this is a waste of resources and existing infrastructure. Any policy that jeopardizes maximum ridership must be reconsidered.
After electrification is done, despite the worse acceleration, I think GO Transit should continue to use the existing railcars with some/all of the existing diesel locomotives swapped for electric or dual-mode locomotives. At the same time, they should start introducing a new fleet of EMUs and massively ramp up local service with frequent stops in Toronto with those trains. The local services is where acceleration really matters, so that's why EMUs should go there first.
@@TransitTalksClub The Nippon-Sharya should be retired as soon as there is electrification. And for short trains, self-propelled cars (EMU/DMU) are better than loco hauled from cost point of view, and when you have limited physical station size, the size of loco can cause problems ( at airport, loco would have to face south, but not sure how much spare spare that is at Union station east the platform for a loco to be there. It provides bad image for a city to have old diesel trains at airport (same with Ottawa's new diesel service to airport, especually since passengers will have to switch trains twice to get downtown, so will take cabs instead).
@@jfmezei The airport branch should be electrified... In general, diesel trains on short-distance lines with frequent stops are highly inefficient (fuel and slow acceleration); they should be replaced with more suitable EMUs and transferred to longer distance and/or express routes.
Super well argued. I can’t find any flaws. 😂 If they go with your proposal it would be optimal to have an easy transfer between UP and GO, either a cross platform (tho not sure how that could be done with GO trans coming both ways) or stacked, with lots of access stairs and elevators.
The 10 mph restriction at the high platforms is because they are within recommended AAR Plate H clearance.
Why's it called the "UP", well because it goes from Union Station the "U" to Pearson International Airport, the "P". So I guess when it is going the opposite direction its called the "P" "U" Express.
Have you ever been to Pearson and tried to transfer feom the UP to local transit from the airport? Its not practical at all.
Agreed, the current wayfinding is terrible which is especially a problem because some bus routes don't even go directly to Terminal 1 (long transfer times), where the UP Express terminates.
Thankfully easy fixes may be made at Pearson Airport to better use the existing infrastructure, like having every bus stop in the same designated place, and adding better transit-related signage/maps.
I agree with every thing that you say except about GO trains going into Pearson Airport. GO trains are like awkward dinosaurs, and not suitable for slow winding curves as are on the overpass to the airport. The nimble UPX crawls on the overhead as it is with severe speed limits of (I believe) 30mph. The UPX doesn't even serve Terminal 3; you have to switch from Terminal 1 to the cable car overhead to get to Terminal 3. The Greater Toronto Airports Authority seems to not be building the megaterminal to replace Terminals 1 and 3; it's still a dog's breakfast. I live 2 km from the Airport in Malton, and I just walked out of Terminal 3 through the snow to Airport Rd., and waited half an hour for a number 7 bus to take me home; the wait was cold.
Also, from the new Carlingview/Woodbine station, have a goodly bus bay, with many cheap buses to the YYZ airport (both terminals); Carlingview and Airport Rd are seldomly jammed up here, even in rush hour, so that buses could move well. Perhaps new underground trains will arrive at the airport in our next lifetimes. There should also be good car and bus ramps to this station from Highway 427 for fast access. Aarre Peltomaa of Mississauga, Ontario
They also don't allow bicycles on the train. I travel internationally with a bike.
UP Express only has a fleet of 18 cars to play around with, so they're unlikely to convert the any of the cars (let alone part of a car) to bike cars.
GO Transit is more accommodating to bikes, but even their efforts of converting parts of cars/entire cars isn't keeping up with the demand. It's a shame, as bikes are a really efficient/important way of getting around when transit alone is either absent or too slow to use.
I think it would also help if every station, especially Union Station, had an abundance of bicycle lockers or bicycle parking garages. Right now there is very little capacity and an application process. (Imagine having to submit an application every time you drive to a new parking garage) That way, someone wouldn't have to transport their bike as often, if they don't have to bike both before and after the train ride.
I actually would have proposed the opposite service pattern as you. Make the GO train express to Woodbine and abandon all intermediate stops. Turn the UP Express into a TTC service, increase frequencies, and add it to the subway map with many new intermediate stations.
Which defeats the purpose of the UP Express of giving visitors to Toronto a quick and easy way into Downtown Toronto.
@@mattjones366 Providing frequent, inexpensive local service is more important.
@@Islington_Express_Bus Maybe true, but that isn't what UP Express is
UP Express is entirely unsuitable for what you want. The rail corridor doesn't have the capacity for what you want.
And it is in part those tourists and convention goers that UP Express helps attract to Toronto that contribute to the taxes that pay for things like the TTC.
If you want frequent local service then ask the TTC to provide a bus route.
It’s just called the up express lol. Not U - P express
up expess trains should run thought union staion east yto giulwood.
UP Express trains save time by stopping at a platform west of Union Station, and due to the shortage of trains, are badly needed between Union and Pearson.
Consistently through running GO trains would drastically increase the capacity of Union Station. When the Ontario line opens, through running of almost all lines must happen before then, as there will be lots of demand to/from the Exhibition and East Harbour stations.
Tbh I was expecting more like 5 minutes of reduction in travel time, for 2 minutes not worth it, better to just keep what capacity it has. Such a waste they way they built it, all proprietary to itself
The viaduct to Pearson Airport was definitely rushed due to budget and time constraints... if it had been futureproofed just a little more, there wouldn't have been a problem in the first place.
Did you know that the Prince Edward Viaduct/bridge between downtown and East Toronto was built with a lower deck for a "future underground rail line" about 50 years before Line 2 was actually completed? That's the kind of planning that we need.
@@TransitTalksClub there's also a second lower deck around Parliment that's not used and the bridge that is used by Line 2 used to have open skylights, I remember when they were still open.
If they had built the guideway and station to handle at least a 4-6 car train they could use the bi levels and a loco, although maybe when GO finally goes electrification it'll become EMUs.
Imo they should remove the high floor platforms at the intermediate stations and have 2 services, an express to Union from Pearson with 30 minute service and a shuttle to the new Woodbine station every 10 minutes. This would allow them to use these not great highfloor trains while not having to purchases more and would allow a further increase of service on the GO line
One of the problems of GO transit is that any expansion of services just induces more demand. But it is chaotic and unplanned. The current government cannot justify publicly owned rail transit within its ideology. The premier, while often dismissive of rail transit as “choo choos”, isn’t actively blocking service that his supporters benefit from. This government is expanding and improving service. The cognitive dissonance makes for ad hoc development which is an inefficient use of public resources. What is lacking is an overall vision for Ontario transit. Even the Toronto Regional Board of Trade has a vision, even if that vision is not beyond criticism. When will one of the parties make it part of their agenda?
Induced demand is an inevitable consequence of improving a means of transportation. The issue is that it is worsened by the lack of adequate infrastructure (e.g. not enough buses to meet the demand between Kitchener and Brampton) and the inefficient use of existing infrastructure (e.g. using 10 buses when 1 train in storage could've been used). I do agree with you that there needs to be an overall, long-term vision; the best transit systems tend to come as a result of clear visions.
I really like UP Express and use it frequently. However - please buy some actual real trains instead of the silly hand-me-downs currently being used!
The trains used by the UP Express were bought new, and are not hand me downs.
UP nedds to be integrated into GO.