Talk:Union Station Bus Terminal

Note platform numbers are from 21 to 27, not 41 to 47. 99.230.131.122 (talk) 01:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Untitled

 * That was last year. New train platforms are now in the twenties. -Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 one external links on Union Station Bus Terminal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110720184617/http://www.lea.ca/services/pdf/2035-fst.pdf to http://www.lea.ca/services/pdf/2035-fst.pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090124083506/http://gotransit.com:80/publicroot/en/PDF/Timetables/CurrentBoard/Table16.pdf to http://www.gotransit.com/publicroot/en/PDF/Timetables/CurrentBoard/Table16.pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080916005708/http://www.gotransit.com:80/publicroot/en/PDF/Timetables/CurrentBoard/Table21.pdf to http://www.gotransit.com/publicroot/en/PDF/Timetables/CurrentBoard/Table21.pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081203041548/http://www.gotransit.com:80/publicroot/en/PDF/Timetables/CurrentBoard/Table61.pdf to http://www.gotransit.com/publicroot/en/PDF/Timetables/CurrentBoard/Table61.pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081203041605/http://www.gotransit.com:80/publicroot/en/PDF/Timetables/CurrentBoard/Table65.pdf to http://www.gotransit.com/publicroot/en/PDF/Timetables/CurrentBoard/Table65.pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090126232027/http://gotransit.com:80/publicroot/en/PDF/Timetables/CurrentBoard/Table71.pdf to http://www.gotransit.com/publicroot/en/PDF/Timetables/CurrentBoard/Table71.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Split proposal
new Union Station Bus Terminal. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 19:39, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

The new Union Station Bus Terminal opens December 5, 2020, but the existing article has very little about it. Since the new terminal is in a new location and has considerably different characteristics, I suggest that both be described in separate articles. Thus, I suggest renaming the existing article to "Union Station Bus Terminal (2003–2020)" which will create a redirect called "Union Station Bus Terminal". I propose replacing the redirect with the new article on the new terminal. This would allow both terminals to be concurrently described without making a cumbersome article describing both. This is similar to separate articles on the three versions of Union Station (for trains). I could create a new bus terminal article largely based on facts from a Metrolinx article. Much of the "Future" section in the old terminal article would be moved to a "History" section in the new terminal article. Please advise if you agree. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 19:39, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Draft
A first draft for the new terminal is available: User:TheTrolleyPole/Union Station Bus Terminal. I still need to copy useful text and REFs from the old article. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 22:55, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments

 * Agree - the new bus terminal is a completely different facility and location. Tom pw (talk) 15:11, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree, completely separate structures on opposite sides of the rail corridor. Radagast (talk) 19:40, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose split. I don't think there's enough content or notability for a separate article about the soon-to-be former bus station, at least for now. Yes it's a separate facility but it's a one-for-one replacement and is located less than 200 metres away. I'd prefer if we tried to make it work as a single article and then revisit this discussion after December 5. BLAIXX 23:05, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That would be effectively two articles on one page, each with an infobox for the new and old terminal. To me, that seems cumbersome compared to leaving the old terminal in its own article. The new terminal is substantially different from the old in features other than location. (See draft.) It's more than moving a bus loop to the other side of the tracks. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 15:23, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Each with an infobox? I don't think that needs to be the case. Looking at the current article there are four sections: Top, Bus routes, Connections, and Future relocation. Only about two-thirds of the Top section applies exclusively to the old terminal. With that level of overlap, it just makes sense to have everything in one article rather than duplicating over two. BLAIXX 16:17, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The bus routes section has description that pertains only to the old terminal, such as fixed platform assignments and restrictions on double-decker buses. In the Connections section, there could be variations between the old and new articles; the new terminal is not near the streetcar and bus connections mentioned. I suppose we could drop these details for the old terminal on December 5 although it would be nice to retain the mention about double-decker buses and fixed platform assignment. With your suggestion, I assume the old terminal's text (i.e. any facts to be retained) would be simplified and all be consolidated into one section ("Previous terminal"). But it seems, there will be a major modification to do on December 5, which my split suggestion simplifies by allowing advance setup. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 19:38, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose split It's still the Union Station bus terminal, with the same bus services as before. Rejigging the article around so that there's a "history" section with info about the old terminal and the new one seems the best idea to me, given the limited info on the terminal at present. With regards to connections - the bus terminal is still part of Union Station. e.g. The South entrance to Union Station is still "connected" to the TTC or UP Express, regardless of the long walk through the station complex. Turini2 (talk) 21:11, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Alternative shuffle proposal
new alternative proposal. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 01:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I suspect my request to split the article is unlikely to get a consensus (2 opposed, 3 in favour). Thus, I will make an alternate proposal that involves rearranging/shuffling sections on December 5. (I recently added a few section names to support this proposal. They can be backed out if the proposal is rejected.) With this proposal, the article is oriented to the old terminal until December 5. On December 5, we shuffle the sections, change the intro and replace the infobox so that the article is oriented to the new terminal.

The section shuffle on December 5 would be:
 * Replace or update intro and infobox for the new terminal.
 * Create section "History".
 * Move section "Description" (for the old terminal) to "History" renaming it as sub-section "Previous terminal".
 * Move sub-section "Facilities" from section "Future relocation" to follow intro renaming it as section "Description".
 * Move sub-section "Timeline" (i.e. development timeline for the new terminal) from section "Future relocation" to section "History" renaming it as sub-section "Current terminal". TheTrolleyPole (talk) 16:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete the now empty section "Future relocation".
 * Delete platform assignments from section "Bus routes" as there no fixed assignments at the new terminal.
 * Change the verb tense as needed throughout the article.
 * Change to.

The sections "Description" (for the old terminal) and "Facilities" (for the new terminal) would be expanded before December 5.

Is there a consensus for this proposal? TheTrolleyPole (talk) 01:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Agree that sounds good to me - happy to have a look at it when it's drafted Turini2 (talk) 14:37, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree this is more or less how I pictured it. And like I said, this still leaves the door open for a split in the future. BL<b style="color: #0096FF">A</b>IXX 14:54, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Have to Agree given the poor consensus on the first proposal and the well-laid-out plan for this one. Radagast (talk) 14:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Any chance you could do a first pass example in a sandbox page? Would be easier to see how things flow. Tom pw (talk) 16:59, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Mockup draft for the shuffle
Mockup of Union Station Bus Terminal article with shuffle TheTrolleyPole (talk) 00:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

As requested by user:Tompw, I created a mockup of the article after the shuffle. I suggest that no modifications be done to the draft as, if someone else makes major mods to the base article, I may have to scrap the mockup and start over again. For this reason, I did not make any verb tense changes to the mackup. There are a few minor, unresolved concerns:
 * Can-ar Coach Service (mentioned in the article's infobox) operates today as TOK Coachlines. See Talk:Can-ar Coach Service about renaming that article. May I do it?
 * I don't know whether the fare zone of 02 in the infobox is still correct.
 * After deleting the platform assignments, Union Station Bus Terminal will have only unsourced, and potentially out-dated, statements. Other GO bus terminal articles have a list of GO bus routes, but the old article never did.
 * The old article had the unsource statement "There is also direct stairway access from the bus terminal to railway platforms 4 through 13 via the Bay East Teamway under the railway tracks." This is essentially true (unsure about platform numbers however) for the old terminal. I am unsure whether it is true for the new terminal, so I left it out of the new terminal description pending confirmation. I found no outside article mentioning it.

The shuffle mockup is here: User:TheTrolleyPole/Union Station Bus Terminal.

I would like to start the shuffle on Friday evening, December 4, and perhaps leave verb tense changes for the following day. I will insert a temporary message ("Please refrain from making changes to this article until 12:01am Eastern Time December 5, 2020.") in the article so I can complete the shuffle in peace.

Alternatively, I could do the shuffle in mid-week without verb tense changes. I would then add tophats to indicate which terminal certain sections may pertain to. (e.g. "This section pertains to the new bus terminal opening on December 5, 2020.") This may facilitate others to do edits in the new context.

The shuffle, for whenever approved, would be done offline and applied in one grand update. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 00:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)


 * support Thanks for taking the time to the mock-up - it's a big help. I'm liking what I'm seeing. Any minor niggles can be fixed in the normal editing process after the change. Tom pw (talk) 17:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I will do the shuffle at 7PM Wednesday, if no objection, otherwise, at 7PM Friday. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 21:21, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Shuffle completed. Tophats included for clarity: old vs. new terminal. Happy editing! TheTrolleyPole (talk) 22:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Edit summaries
User:EelamStyleZ Please remember to use edit summaries when editing, especially when making a sequence of non minor edits and changes to the article. WP:ES As you can probably see, the recent bus terminal opening has spurred a large number of edits to the article, and it's good practice to explain what you have done so other editors can understand the changes you've made as you go. Turini2 (talk) 10:40, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You've reverted all the clean up I made to the article without any explanation? Ive used edit summaries where I could as the rest were minor edits. Can you explain why you've moved everything back? Also, a lot of the language used is redundant (i.e. GO Transit's facilities? its like calling Pearson Airport is part of Air Canada's facilities). EelamStyleZ (talk) 21:47, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've restored the edits I last made with better descriptions for each section change. Please refer to other GA's on transit hubs like Pennsylvania Station (New York City) and WP:MOS for better understanding of article formatting. EelamStyleZ (talk) 22:03, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * User:EelamStyleZ Hello - fundamental ordering of the article's layout should get consensus, especially given the discussion above regarding the new terminal above. Reverting my edits undid the substantive edits I made to the article, fixed citations as well as reintroducing a variety of spelling and grammar errors throughout the article - "Union Sation Bus Terminal" or "had 7 platforms.[7] with fixed platform assignments." for example.
 * With regard to this section "it is also expected to be the new Downtown Toronto terminal for intercity coach bus services, replacing the Toronto Coach Terminal, which opened in 1931 as the city's first ever bus station." - this is uncited, so I have removed it. With regard to the intro, I've rewritten it based on the Victoria Coach Station and Port Authority Bus Terminal articles - as well as clarifying its position in relation to the wider Union Station complex.
 * I will restore content to the previous edit by User:Danlaycock but reorder in the order as present, as well as including any substantive edits you and any others made. Meeting in the middle! Turini2 (talk) 14:28, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , while I appreciate your good faith edits, you are introducing fundamental errors into the article. You can't have an ampersand ("&") in the body of the article unless it is part of a name. The articles you mentioned above are well written, but I do not see any similarity between those articles and your version of Union Station Bus Terminal. EelamStyleZ (talk) 17:00, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Rider Express
As of July 12, 2021, the Rider Express website still says that the Toronto pickup location is at 55 Front Street West. It appears that the date that Rider moves to USBT is unknown as of July 12. The Rider entry also appears to be unsourced. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 20:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You are correct, I've removed the Rider Express entry. 162 etc. (talk) 19:04, 13 July 2021 (UTC)