[just east of the creek]

If we are to sum up the 'Last Mile' issues for GO passengers to Niagara Falls, we could perhaps agree that:

- There is a mismatch between both mean and peak demands for a last mile option and what is currently in place.

-Clearly many are currently finding options other than WEGO/Niagara Transit when taking GO, though that is likely an unhappy matter for some facing an unexpected walk, or cab/uber etc.

- Redistributing that peak load, even cutting it by 1/2 is likely necessary under just about any option, be it short, medium or long term.

- Even at 50% of current peak load, any bus based system will struggle to meet demand.

- The longer term option likely means rail in some form to Clifton Hill or thereabouts.

- The options are really confined to either a dedicated LRT on Victoria Avenue (which I see as the most likely option); or the relaying of heavy rail. The latter is problematic for a few reasons, which have been discussed before, but
it certainly isn't impossible.

- Neither of those options exist in the near term and even the former would be a challenge to deliver in under a decade.

- Therefore the redistribution of peak-load, along with better bus service, and other mitigation should be undertaken.

- One option I think might be helpful is a Niagara version of Bikeshare Toronto. Preferably, one integrated with Presto.

- Even an initial service looking primarily at closing the above gap, a couple of key destinations near the Falls themselves, and then spread along the Niagara Parkway would be likely be a hit with tourists, and if it helped a few dozen riders on each train, so much the better.

Both GO and the local Niagara Transit Service have a positive ‘problem’ on their hands - demand for a popular service to bolster an expanding tourism sector. Nice problem to have. Now you need to round up some tourism dollars to help support the infrastructure needed locally.

 

[SkylineHorizons]

We at CN have 1 person use their handheld on one channel and main radio on another if we need to be on 2 channels. I'm not sure why the conductor couldn't have the handheld on GO13 and the other radio on CN1 until the wayside inspection system finished broadcasting.

I can see how that makes sense on a freight considering how long they can be and how slow they usually transverse over an HBD, but not really for a GO or VIA which will take 20 seconds or less to go over a box. The engineer is preparing to or making his brake application for the station that's his main focus at that moment(while still being cognizant of the HBD reading and looking out for other potential dangers), for the conductor his primary focus is getting that reading(while still looking out for other potential dangers and watching the engineer make his stop properly). He could turn on a portable but that just adds another layer of complexity in the moment and they have limited ability to pick up transmissions to begin with, but say he does... Now the crew is listening to three seperate radio channels simultaneously, 2VHF 1UHF over a subdivision in which there are a lot of simultaneous movements and transmissions happening, in a loud MP40 engine, while trying to differentiate between very simular 4-digit train numbers; "did they just call 4133, 4233 or 4135?" All this while also having to focus on the external environment for trespassers and track obstructions while operating at about 70mph, being cognizant of the signal ahead and possibly keeping other nearby restrictions i.e. temporary speeds/foreman in mind. One top of that he is additionally expected to make sure the engineer is approaching the station properly because they now get in trouble for a blown stop as well. Sure some people can manage multitasking without missing a thing continuously over an 8 to 10 hr shift day in day out but I think its entirely reasonable for a person to narrow their focus a little during the relatively short but vital moment a train is passing over an HBD.

 

[reaperexpress]

It's also worth noting that the astronomical demand on the GO train can be attributed to the $10 weekend pass, which allows people to travel to Niagara falls for $5 each way ($0.04 per km).

Here are the prices I'm seeing for a round trip next on the weekend after next:

The next cheapest options are 4 times more expensive than GO Transit. GO could double their price and still be way cheaper than any other option.

 

[ShonTron]

I think you are underestimating the percentage of people who would use alternate modes at the station, and how many passengers on the train get off before Niagara Falls. I’d be surprised if more than 50% of passengers looked to WeGo after getting off the train. Many simply choose to walk as it’s about a 20 minute walk down to the main tourist strip, along a nice separated walking path.

The old Canada Southern rail path is really nice, until you get to the Rainbow Bridge Approach. It’s a shame that the railway bridge over the 420 is gone and it isn’t a direct route to the continuation towards Clifton Hill. The Palmer Avenue Bridge doesn’t cut it – there’s not even a sidewalk on the side the trail ends at, and it’s an awkward, unfriendly pedestrian crossing to get across Bender Street.

 

[Willybru21]

While it would have basically been worse in every way, the alternative CP route GO looked into back in 2010 would have been better at actually getting people to the falls, and not some dead downtown area, as the station would have been very close to where the current incline railway is in Niagara. The report this basically dropped this route immediately though because of track capacity and trip time: https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...382084606/GO_Transit_NiagaraRailExpansion.pdf

 

[Richard White]

It's also worth noting that the astronomical demand on the GO train can be attributed to the $10 weekend pass, which allows people to travel to Niagara falls for $5 each way ($0.04 per km).

Here are the prices I'm seeing for a round trip next on the weekend after next:
View attachment 498270

The next cheapest options are 4 times more expensive than GO Transit. GO could double their price and still be way cheaper than any other option.

When this service was first created, it was fare by distance which was almost 22 dollars each way. The demand was super low and there were no crowding issues like we see today.

The only way to resolve this issue is to eliminate discounted fares for the Niagara Falls service including free child fares.

 

[Willybru21]

I think that’s a horrible idea, the service may be suffering from its own success but that doesn’t mean GO should intentionally try and kill that ridership.

 

[crs1026]

I wonder what flexibility there is to add more buses - can WEGO (or any other agency) supply the equipment and drivers at a negotiated price ?

Raise the fare even modestly and the additional buses are more affordable from the train revenue.

There is a finite limit to train capacity, but the service is an overall success.

- Paul

 

[reaperexpress]

I think that’s a horrible idea, the service may be suffering from its own success but that doesn’t mean GO should intentionally try and kill that ridership.

Providing absurdly cheap day trips to Niagara is a horrible use of GO's very limited operating funds. They could double the ticket price to Niagara with minimal impact on ridership (note that a lot of ridership is currently lost due to the overcrowding, and the ticket price would still be half the price of the next cheapest alternative), and use those funds to provide additional service or cut prices on other routes.

Keep in mind that a flat $10 pass regardless of distance is not the only way of providing discounts to GO Transit customers. If they instead gave 40% off on weekends, it would solve the Niagara overcrowding (bringing in lots of additional revenue there), and boost ridership on shorter trips, primarily in areas where GO actually owns the tracks and can increase service frequency.

 

[ARG1]

WEGO is great in the falls area, the trick is getting people from the GO station to the Falls.

A fully loaded GO train carries around 2000 people crush loaded.

Doing the math thats around 10-15 articulated buses required to get those passengers to Table Rock Point.

Not sure there is an easy solution to this issue.

Bring back the Monorail plans from the 60s?

/s

 

[littlewill1166]

The overcrowding problem with Niagara seems to only happen in the summer. If you go in the winter (January/February), the place can almost seem like a ghost town (this is when the $10 pass is great at boosting tourism).

I'm honestly surprised by how popular WEGO has gotten. When the $10 Sunday-only pass launched, most people I saw just walked along Niagara Parkway.

Providing absurdly cheap day trips to Niagara is a horrible use of GO's very limited operating funds. They could double the ticket price to Niagara with minimal impact on ridership (note that a lot of ridership is currently lost due to the overcrowding, and the ticket price would still be half the price of the next cheapest alternative), and use those funds to provide additional service or cut prices on other routes.

Keep in mind that a flat $10 pass regardless of distance is not the only way of providing discounts to GO Transit customers. If they instead gave 40% off on weekends, it would solve the Niagara overcrowding (bringing in lots of additional revenue there), and boost ridership on shorter trips, primarily in areas where GO actually owns the tracks and can increase service frequency.

View attachment 498287

This reminds me of when VIA killed the Unlimited Semester Pass. Yes, it's less expensive for certain trips. But, if you were commuting on it, your travel costs went up 300%. In this case, if you're visiting multiple places in one day (Peterborough and Unionville), you're paying around $30 instead of $10 (despite the fact that most of the busses I traveled on were at least 70% empty and the 52 only had 5 riders total throughout my entire trip). The current system works well 90% of the time and only tends to break when there are holidays and major events going on (people weren't talking about this last weekend). To me, this seems like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

 

[ShonTron]

Providing absurdly cheap day trips to Niagara is a horrible use of GO's very limited operating funds. They could double the ticket price to Niagara with minimal impact on ridership (note that a lot of ridership is currently lost due to the overcrowding, and the ticket price would still be half the price of the next cheapest alternative), and use those funds to provide additional service or cut prices on other routes.

Keep in mind that a flat $10 pass regardless of distance is not the only way of providing discounts to GO Transit customers. If they instead gave 40% off on weekends, it would solve the Niagara overcrowding (bringing in lots of additional revenue there), and boost ridership on shorter trips, primarily in areas where GO actually owns the tracks and can increase service frequency.

There used to be a premium on trips to Niagara Falls on the train versus the bus. I understood the rationale: it’s an especially long ride with almost no turnover or bidirectional traffic.

This is almost definitely the last summer for the $10 weekend pass as we know it. It did its job, bringing new occasional passengers. But when weekend ridership levels are way beyond 2019 figures, and GO has trouble with stuffed trains and buses on several corridors, you can see the temptation to increase the pass fare or eliminate the promotion altogether

 

[Northern Light]

There used to be a premium on trips to Niagara Falls on the train versus the bus. I understood the rationale: it’s an especially long ride with almost no turnover or bidirectional traffic.

This is almost definitely the last summer for the $10 weekend pass as we know it. It did its job, bringing new occasional passengers. But when weekend ridership levels are way beyond 2019 figures, and GO has trouble with stuffed trains and buses on several corridors, you can see the temptation to increase the pass fare or eliminate the promotion altogether

The challenge: Is/was the $10 pass about GO/Mx or is/was it about tourism to NF and supporting all those attractions and hotels with a mix of day-use and overnight trips?

If the latter, GO's struggles only serve to indicate latent demand that can grow the tourism sector in the falls, and if there's a nominal loss of say $10 per ride, but it spurs $200 in spending for a day visitor, and $600 from an overnight visitor......best tourism investment I've heard of in ages on an ROI basis.

***

FWIW, I think 'The Falls' could be a vastly larger attraction than it is, if only by virtue of being adjacent of one of the larger urban centres on the planet, never mind having a singular natural attraction at its heart that really has no comparator globally and most people, given the chance, would want to see at least once).

I would argue, the area has 3-5 potential tourism markets on its own (as discrete from Toronto).

1) 'The Falls'
2) 'Wine Country/Gastro-tourism'
3) Cycling/hiking/scenery/nature/Bruce Trail.
4) Casinos/Kitsch
5) Family-friendly amusements.

*****

Only number 1 is broadly where it needs to be (though here is room to improve the adjacent promenade/park space.

Two requires, a few wineries and scenic town cores (ie. Jordan) to be upgraded both aesthetically and with more high-end restos; it also requires better transportation options for people who are drinking.

Three would benefit from Bikeshare, an expanded waterfront trail, and more cycle-friendly routes on road. I think a dramatically expanded Short Hills Provincial Park that could support camping would also work here. As would trail-head investments for the Bruce Trail improving visibility, transit access, availability of washrooms and drinking fountains at major road crossings.

Four is basically what it is, not my thing, but would probably improve some if the market-size were larger

Five to me reads as Marine-land replacement project.

****

The above is not to fully digress this into a tourism thread, but rather to suggest, that in-season, I think the market is probably there for hourly GO service or it will be with a few quality investments.

Off-season will never have that type of market size, but might be bigger than it is today with an enhanced student market as well in St. Kitts and NF.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Niagara has a bike share service now BTW.

Zoom Leisure Bikes

Explore the beauty of Niagara when renting a cruiser, e-bike, or hybrid bicycle paired with unique brewery or winery bike tours in Niagara-on-the-Lake.

zoomleisure.com

Marineland is trying to sell right now and capitalize on it's zoning by selling to a company willing to build a proper amusement park there as well, from my understanding.

The Niagara tourism industry has struggled for the last decade or so, but was starting to finally boom again prior to COVID putting a temporary kink in it. I think the next decade is going to see a lot of changes.

 

[rbt]

If the latter, GO's struggles only serve to indicate latent demand that can grow the tourism sector in the falls, and if there's a nominal loss of say $10 per ride, but it spurs $200 in spending for a day visitor, and $600 from an overnight visitor......best tourism investment I've heard of in ages on an ROI basis.

Anecdotally, when passive (where I can read or play games or sleep) transportation is much cheaper than an overnight stay, I'll tend to travel home the same day returning again on the next day (or week) if needed.