[rbt]

Niagara Falls seems really expensive.

For that money couldn't we send the GO line down through Thorold, Welland and Port Colborne? Rapid transit may just spur the Niagara region into a regional growth and economic centre.

Frequent GO service through Niagara will help real-estate values as it becomes a bedroom community, but that's about it. GO doesn't bring high-salary jobs to areas. It brings mid-salary employees who are rarely home and if you're unlucky high-salary family oriented executives who have a stay-at-home spouse and several kids. Unlucky because while it is plenty of local spending, it isn't at stores that currently exist and real-estate will become unaffordable to current residents.

The only upside for Niagara residents is that the unemployed have access to a much larger job market, but it comes with a 90 hour work-week (include the commute as work time).

IMO, Hamilton would be the real winner of a Niagara GO service as it suddenly becomes very attractive for 2nd offices and startups (large number of low-wage employees available, and relatively easy access to Toronto for meetings/sales/services).

 

[DarnDirtyApe]

Anyone know how problematic it would be to serve Niagara Falls without the grade separation? Obviously trains do run over the existing bridges, but I wonder how hard it would be to schedule relative frequent service (say hourly).

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

Anyone know how problematic it would be to serve Niagara Falls without the grade separation? Obviously trains do run over the existing bridges, but I wonder how hard it would be to schedule relative frequent service (say hourly).

Well it's going to be at the mercy of the ships, which don't always run on time. They have right-of-way; a ship arrives, they aren't waiting around. Bridge 6 is going up and trains will be interrupted. I think GO is under the principle here that they need to ensure reliable service, and having this situation is too much of a risk factor.

I don't think a Welland GS is going to happen anytime soon with that cost. If there's going to be any catalyst, it will have to be in conjunction with a high(er) speed rail connection. So we're talking improved VIA service Canuck-side, AND improved Amtrak service through upstate New York. The biggest barrier to me is that Niagara Falls, NY is too small a market. There has to be a way to tie Buffalo into it state-side.

A transit fantasy of mine would be to not only GS the Welland Canal, but establish a new ROW into Niagara Falls ON that will take you to a new station close to the actual Falls. From there, a new ROW serving Fort Erie and Buffalo, which would require a new crossing of the Niagara River.

But again, we're calling the GS of the Welland Canal costly? Doing all of that would be a monstrous megaproject. But I'm convinced it's the only way to make things fast and efficient, and therefore generate enough ridership.

 

[mdrejhon]

Metrolinx can give a subsidy and/or usage fees to the Welland Canal in exchange for improved canal transit priority. This could cost far less than $750M. Establish new rules where the bridge is raised for only a maximum of 15 minutes (so trains now get priority the moment the bridge has been up for 15 minutes continuously)? Or even a maximum of 10 minutes instead of 15 minutes, beginning the moment the GOTrain arrives at the canal, if the bridge was up when the train arrived.

If bridge open/close speed is also an issue -- what about Welland canal bridge upgrades? Give it a tune-up, strengthen it a little, add faster motors? To accomodate hourly service?

Faster for the ships, faster for the trains. Should in theory, enable hourly service to Niagara (even if not always accurately on the hour). Enough schedule padding would be added to Niagara, to allow delayed trains to eventually catch up to the timetable by Hamilton, and Metrolinx can exclude the Welland canal from the service guarantee.

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

Metrolinx can give a subsidy and/or usage fees to the Welland Canal in exchange for improved canal transit priority. This could cost far less than $750M. Establish new rules where the bridge is raised for only a maximum of 15 minutes (so trains now get priority the moment the bridge has been up for 15 minutes continuously)? Or even a maximum of 10 minutes instead of 15 minutes, beginning the moment the GOTrain arrives at the canal, if the bridge was up when the train arrived.

If bridge open/close speed is also an issue -- what about Welland canal bridge upgrades? Give it a tune-up, strengthen it a little, add faster motors? To accomodate hourly service?

Faster for the ships, faster for the trains. Should in theory, enable hourly service to Niagara (even if not always accurately on the hour). Enough schedule padding would be added to Niagara, to allow delayed trains to eventually catch up to the timetable by Hamilton, and Metrolinx can exclude the Welland canal from the service guarantee.

Interesting idea, but I don't have much hope for a scenario like that. I'm willing to bet that the St. Lawrence Seaway will balk at anything that puts restrictions on them and user ships.

 

[BurlOak]

Well it's going to be at the mercy of the ships, which don't always run on time. They have right-of-way; a ship arrives, they aren't waiting around. Bridge 6 is going up and trains will be interrupted. I think GO is under the principle here that they need to ensure reliable service, and having this situation is too much of a risk factor.

No sure its been considered to go south to Welland and use the Townline tunnel, and come back to Niagara Falls. It is some extra distance to travel, and I don't know how much space there is on that corridor.

 

[Jonny5]

And while it may take a long time to get to Toronto from Grimsby, it will take a very short time to get to Hamilton where I'm guessing a fair number of Grimsby residents work.

Id be stunned if even 10% work in Hamilton, and of that I'd be stunned again if taking the train increased their commute time by less than 300%, or maybe even 1000%. It's farcical to think anyone would use this service as a commute from Grimsby to Hamilton. The new Hamilton station is not close to anything relevant in Hamilton at all.

 

[crs1026]

A FREE bus shuttle from St Catherines GO to downtown Niagara Falls would cost less in both capital and operating expense compared to messing with the Seaway. The cars per hour removed from the QEW relative to a bus shuttle would be minimal, and the QEW in this stretch is not at capacity. Travel time would be comparable.
I'm not advocating for the free bus, I'm just using it as a comparator to show that enhancements to rail are just not going to fly here.
I will say, though, that a "Union Depew Express" service linking Hamilton or St Catherines GO with the Buffalo Airport by bus might be a gamechanger. Considering the difference in taxes and fares if one flies out of Buffalo versus YYZ/YTZ, and how little time is needed to check in/out at the Buffalo terminal, a speedy GO trip to get to the bus is attractive.

- Paul

 

[TOareaFan]

A FREE bus shuttle from St Catherines GO to downtown Niagara Falls would cost less in both capital and operating expense compared to messing with the Seaway. The cars per hour removed from the QEW relative to a bus shuttle would be minimal, and the QEW in this stretch is not at capacity. Travel time would be comparable.
I'm not advocating for the free bus, I'm just using it as a comparator to show that enhancements to rail are just not going to fly here.
I will say, though, that a "Union Depew Express" service linking Hamilton or St Catherines GO with the Buffalo Airport by bus might be a gamechanger. Considering the difference in taxes and fares if one flies out of Buffalo versus YYZ/YTZ, and how little time is needed to check in/out at the Buffalo terminal, a speedy GO trip to get to the bus is attractive.

- Paul

Are you suggesting that our tax dollars should be used to get people from Hamilton (which has an underused international airport) to Buffalo faster/easier so that more people can take advantage of that airport, drawing business/jobs/taxes away from our already underused airport in Hamilton?

Just want to make sure I am not misunderstanding you.

 

[crs1026]

I'm all for letting the customer pursue the best deal. If Hamilton isn't the best deal, and the customers go elsewhere, the economic impacts (on the airport funding) will follow. The Buffalo idea would create jobs too, just not at Hamilton airport. That's market forces for you.

I don't drive the extra distance to Buffalo (going right by Hamilton on the way) on principle. Buffalo has much better flight connections if you are travelling to the US. It's a very well run airport. There is greater choice, ie more airlines. I do consider Hamilton when I make my choices, but so far it hasn't been the more attractive option. I talk to enough people who do the same thing that I don't think I'm alone in this.

For domestic flights, I don't consider Buffalo. I haven't compared the tax specifically between Pearson and Hamilton. My exact home location seems to lead to my ending up going through Pearson, but I'm never happy about that.

- Paul

 

[TOareaFan]

I'm all for letting the customer pursue the best deal. If Hamilton isn't the best deal, and the customers go elsewhere, the economic impacts (on the airport funding) will follow. The Buffalo idea would create jobs too, just not at Hamilton airport. That's market forces for you.

I don't drive the extra distance to Buffalo (going right by Hamilton on the way) on principle. Buffalo has much better flight connections if you are travelling to the US. It's a very well run airport. There is greater choice, ie more airlines. I do consider Hamilton when I make my choices, but so far it hasn't been the more attractive option. I talk to enough people who do the same thing that I don't think I'm alone in this.

For domestic flights, I don't consider Buffalo. I haven't compared the tax specifically between Pearson and Hamilton. My exact home location seems to lead to my ending up going through Pearson, but I'm never happy about that.

- Paul

I fully support your right to the freedom to choose Buffalo airport if it suits your needs...no problem with that.

I do have a problem with investing Canadian/Ontarian tax dollars to increase the competitive advantage that Buffalo airport has over our domestic airports.

 

[crs1026]

i don't know much about why our airport taxes are so high, but they sure are. OTOH the rental car I am picking up in Phoenix, AZ in a couple weeks comes with outrageous taxes, including a Stadium fee. Go figure.

You make a good point about whether Buffalo ought to be a priority for a public operator such as GO. I certainly wouldn't expect GO to take me to the outlet malls in Grove City PA, although I know a ton of people who take busses there. I would certainly expect GO to cooperate if a private operator wanted to pick up at a GO station for a non-competing service, even if it had this kind of cross-border 'controversy' to it.

- Paul

 

[TOareaFan]

i don't know much about why our airport taxes are so high, but they sure are. OTOH the rental car I am picking up in Phoenix, AZ in a couple weeks comes with outrageous taxes, including a Stadium fee. Go figure.

You make a good point about whether Buffalo ought to be a priority for a public operator such as GO. I certainly wouldn't expect GO to take me to the outlet malls in Grove City PA, although I know a ton of people who take busses there. I would certainly expect GO to cooperate if a private operator wanted to pick up at a GO station for a non-competing service, even if it had this kind of cross-border 'controversy' to it.

- Paul

sure...if a private operator wanted to pay a fee to utilize our a platform at a GO station and was willing to pay for the privilege I am sure something can be worked out.

 

[MisterF]

I think the best way to think about a Welland canal bridge/tunnel is to think of it as an alternative to the mid-peninsula highway. It would bring up the speeds and frequencies of the trains and increase the modal share of rail from near zero today to a meaningful number. It could take a decent chunk of the commuter and tourist traffic off the QEW. When you compare the cost to the $1.5 billion+ mid-pen highway, it doesn't seem like such a bad deal. Of course, rail upgrades to St. Catharines could be done for a fraction of the cost without crossing the canal, but that would mean giving up on the tourist crowd, fewer riders diverted off the roads, and no potential connection to Buffalo.

To me, bringing fast and frequent passenger service to St. Catharines is the least that should be done. To those who think it would be a waste of money, you have to remember that St. Catharines is the centre of a metro area of 400,000. Even if most of the passengers drive to the station from outlying towns and even without any cross-border traffic, that's a significant population base to support beefed up rail service. If spending $1.5 billion on a second freeway can be justified, surely spending less than a quarter of that for rail is a no brainer.

(edit - to be clear, the St. Catharines option is a quarter of the mid-pen cost, the full Niagara option is aroudn 2/3)

 

[dunkalunk]

The location of the Niagara Falls VIA station had me thinking. It's probably one of the few locales in North America that would actually be able to support a monorail. The tourist dollars and novelty factor are already there. I wouldn't even be mentioning it if the right-of-way between the VIA rail station and Marineland (not that Marineland is an all-that-important destination in itself, but it would be a very important park-and-ride lot) weren't already largely still in existence, and the ROW didn't pass through multiple hotels and casinos on the way there.

Anyways...

Short-term, expansion of regular hourly/bi-hourly GO service to St Catharines definitely makes sense regardless of electrification status. Once regular electrified rail service on the Empire Corridor to Buffalo and it's airport are actually under construction, sinking money into tunnelling the rail line under the Seaway would become a more realistic expectation.