appendix a — technical report - niagara go

APPENDIX A — TECHNICAL REPORT

Niagara GO Rail ServiceExpansion Study

Track and Station Site Consideration

April 8, 2015

Regional Municipality of Niagara Track and Station Site Considerations Niagara GO Rail Service Expansion Study Report

MMM Group Limited 2015-04-08 Page i

Table of Contents: Page

Table of Contents: .......................................................................................................... i

List of Figures: .............................................................................................................. ii

Appendices: ................................................................................................................... ii

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... 1

1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 3

2 Niagara Region’s Inter-Municipal Transit Service Plan ................................... 3

3 Scope of Current Study ..................................................................................... 4

4 Current Study Assumptions .............................................................................. 5

4.1 Hamilton Junction ...................................................................................... 5 4.2 James Street North GO Station ................................................................. 5 4.3 Confederation GO Station .......................................................................... 6 4.4 Centennial Parkway Grade Separation ...................................................... 6 4.5 Lewis Road Layover .................................................................................. 6

5 Train Operations and Track Improvements ...................................................... 7 5.1 Existing Line Schedule............................................................................... 7 5.2 Proposed GO Train Service to Niagara ..................................................... 8

6 Updated Ridership ............................................................................................ 11

7 Station Requirements ...................................................................................... 12 7.1 Proposed Grimsby (Casablanca) Station ................................................. 13

7.1.1 Proposed Station Development Concept Option 1: Southwest Corner of Casablanca Boulevard and South Service Road ..................... 15 7.1.2 Proposed Station Development Concept Option 2: On South Service Road East of Casablanca Boulevard .......................................... 16

7.2 Proposed St. Catharines Station .............................................................. 17 7.3 Proposed Niagara Falls Station ............................................................... 19

8 Review of Project Costs and Schedule to Opening Day ............................... 20

9 Implementation Strategy .................................................................................. 22


MMM Group Limited 2015-04-08 Page ii

List of Figures:

Figure 1: Niagara Region’s Ten Year Inter-Municipal Transit Service Concept .............. 4 Figure 2: Existing Freight and Passenger Train Schedules ............................................. 7 Figure 3: Time-Distance Diagram for Existing Line Usage .............................................. 8 Figure 4: Time-Distance Chart for Proposed All-Day GO Train Service to Niagara Region ........................................................................................................................... 10 Figure 5: Grimsby (Casablanca) GO Station Site Alternatives ...................................... 14 Figure 6: Proposed Grimsby Station Option 1: Near Casablanca Boulevard ................ 15 Figure 7: Proposed Grimsby Station Option 2: East of Casablanca Boulevard ............. 17 Figure 8: Proposed St. Catharines Station .................................................................... 18 Figure 9: Proposed Niagara Falls Station ...................................................................... 20 Figure 10: Implementation Schedule ............................................................................. 22

Appendices: A1: Niagara Region Report to Public Works Committee PW 92-2014, dated

September 2. 2014: Inter-Municipal Transit: Guiding Principles and Future Service Delivery

A2: October 20, 2014 Letter from St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation A3: Station Site Development Cost Estimates A4: Niagara Region GO Rail Expansion Study – Ridership Forecasts. File: 1515004-Report-Track and Station Site Considerations-KR-2015-04-08


MMM Group Limited 2015-04-08 Page 1

Executive Summary

The Region of Niagara is pursuing a plan to bring weekday, two-way GO train service from the new James North GO station in Hamilton to Niagara Region, with stops in Grimsby, St. Catharines and Niagara Falls. In 2011, GO Transit completed an environmental assessment for the extension of the Lakeshore West GO train service into Niagara Region. The approved EA involved preliminary consultations with CN and the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority and identified several significant constraints to extending GO train service to Niagara Region.

This study revisits the prior recommendations and presents an alternative opening day scenario that would not only require smaller capital expenditure, but would also respond to the most significant constraints brought forward in the EA study. The current opening day scenario would include the following elements:

A GO Train service for travel between Hamilton and Niagara Region, separate from the Lakeshore West GO service, but which would interface with it at James North Station;

Reduced track improvements in comparison to the EA plan, but include sufficient track work that responds to prior concerns and to provide the necessary operational flexibility for opening day service; and

A new station at Grimsby (Casablanca) and upgrades at the existing St. Catharines and Niagara Falls VIA Rail/GO Stations to support the all-day service.

The opening-day service would be comprised of two five-car trains operating between Niagara Falls and James North Station in Hamilton during morning and afternoon peaks to provide direct transfers with the two Lakeshore West trains stopping at James North Station. One train would reverse to provide the continuous all-day service, while the other would layover at James North Station or at Lewis Road during the day, depending on track availability. A total of seven two-way trips would occur each day (14 train movements in total), and both trains would layover on new sidings built as part of the Niagara Falls Station at night.

The past EA study identified the following major operational issues:

GO Train delays at the rail bridge crossing of the Welland Canal as a result of train/ship schedule conflicts;

Potential delays that could occur to freight train movements between Hamilton and New York State, in particular those occurring due to conflicts on the 10 mile section of single track in the Grimsby area; and

Potential interference to the GO Lakeshore West service schedule.

This study recommends an opening-day strategy that will largely mitigate these primary barriers to initiating GO train service to Niagara Region by separating the service from the Lakeshore West service to provide operational and scheduling flexibility, and to avoid having delays on one service impacting the other.

The Region has been working closely with the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation (SLSMC) to resolve conflicts between trains and shipping movements through the Canal, and constructive progress is being made toward minimizing the potential for delays. In the meantime, a train scheduling solution is proposed in this study



to provide service tolerance for delays at the Canal: the train schedule has 20 minutes built into each run to and from Niagara Falls, representing the typical delay that would result from a conflict with shipping. The result is that a one-way trip would be scheduled for approximately 75 minutes.

A review of existing freight and passenger train schedules indicates that train conflicts in the single track territory in Grimsby could be avoided by developing schedules for the GO service around the existing freight train movements. This would avoid the need to build 10 miles of second track in the single track section in the Grimsby area. Instead, construction of a 3-mile siding is proposed in this area to allow operating flexibility recognizing that some trains will occasionally be off-schedule.

The schedule options and the resultant infrastructure expansion requirements need to be reviewed and confirmed by CN Rail.

The existing St. Catharines and Niagara Falls VIA Stations were previously modified to support GO’s seasonal train service from Toronto Union Station (that is planned to continue). This study recommends further enhancement of these sites, and construction of the new Grimsby (Casablanca) Station as part of implementation of all-day service. The stations would be built or up-graded in accordance with GO Transit standards for new train stations, and would only include fully accessible facilities; new platforms, parking, bus terminals, grade-separated pedestrian accesses and bicycle lockers are proposed at the stations.

Other station sites and features recommended in the Environmental Study Report would be developed in the future when warranted.

Order-of-magnitude cost estimates for the work proposed under the current study indicate approximately $40 million for station developments and an additional $80 million for track modifications. On an aggressive timeline, it is estimated that approximately 2 years will be required to implement the service, including procurement, design, permitting/ approvals and construction.

Options exist for either the use of existing GO rolling stock (locomotives and bi-level coaches) or the procurement of used or new equipment by GO.

Including provisions for rolling stock, the project cost estimate is between $130 and $150 million.



1 Introduction

The Regional Municipality of Niagara and its constituent municipalities are unified in their desire to bring all-day GO Rail service to Niagara Region in the near term. All-day service would be distinct from the seasonal weekend service between Toronto Union Station and Niagara Falls that is planned to continue.

This study builds upon Niagara Region’s prior Business Case study (October 23, 2014, HMM) and GO Transit’s Approved ESR (Niagara Rail Service Extension Environmental Study Report, April 2011, R. J. Burnside & Associates, Ltd.) to update and align the recommendations to current thinking regarding train operations within the corridor. This report serves to update and define the minimum opening day technical requirements as the basis for estimating the cost of implementing the service at the earliest opportunity.

The initial scope of work outlined in this report is not necessarily definitive as more complete studies of the technical issues will be required by Metrolinx, in consultation with all stakeholder agencies, in order to fully and accurately define the minimum opening day needs. Most notably, the railway modifications identified herein have not been developed in consultation with CN beyond consultation carried out as part of the prior studies. The scope of work for opening day shown here is intended to be representative based on understanding of other work being carried out by Metrolinx and an assessment of the known conditions and operations.

2 Niagara Region’s Inter-Municipal Transit Service Plan

In September 2014, Niagara Region obtained endorsement from its Public Works Committee for Inter-Municipal Transit plans. The accepted report identified the guiding principles and proposed future service plan for transit service expansion throughout the Region. One of the main guiding principles of that report was enhanced service to existing and future GO service connection points.

The following is an excerpt from the council report relevant to the current study1:

From meetings with municipal officials and input from the public, it became clear that GO Transit, and the call for GO rail service by summer 2015, is a unifying goal across communities. To support this goal, staff are proposing short-term improvements to the current inter-municipal transit routes that will support GO advocacy efforts and improve access to GO for as many residents as possible. These changes are identified under Appendix 2 and recommended for implementation in September 2015 (when current funding agreements expire). The public would have an to provide feedback and suggestions on these routes during public information centres this fall, and final approval would be contingent on approval of the 2015 budget by the incoming Council.

Figure 1 is adapted from the committee report showing the planned inter-municipal transit routes. In Niagara Falls, the plan currently has the main transfer point between inter-municipal routes and local Niagara Falls Transit occurring at the Morrison Street Transit Terminal (Target Plaza). Once All-day GO Train Service to Niagara Region is

1 Niagara Region: Report to Public Works Committee PW92-2014, September 2, 2014, included as Appendix 1 in it its entirety.



operating, inter-municipal and local routes will be modified as required to provide complementary service to all the GO Stations along the corridor.

Figure 1: Niagara Region’s Ten Year Inter-Municipal Transit Service Concept

3 Scope of Current Study

The scope of the current study includes the following main activities:

A review of operating plans and schedules based on current and proposed rail operations in the corridor for both peak period and off peak services;

Development of ridership forecasts; and

Identification of rail corridor improvement and station development plans, based on the proposed operating strategy and ridership forecasts.

o Corridor improvements include upgrade to existing track / signals to support the operating plan or additional infrastructure to enable trains to pass at new locations along the corridor.

o Station plans are based on staged development to support the initial operations and protect for future expansion as ridership grows, including storage of trains. Station area plans also reflect



integration with existing and proposed local transit routes to and from the station.

Generation of updated budgetary cost estimates based on the recommended plan and reflecting both the capital expenditure to initiate service as well as the operating costs to provide the proposed level of service.

4 Current Study Assumptions

The following are the key strategic assumptions that guide the development of the opening-day plan for all-day GO Rail service to Niagara Region:

1. To the extent possible, the service will utilize the existing CN rail infrastructure, modified as needed to implement the GO service with minimal interference with other existing freight and passenger train service.

2. The following are assumed as projects to be completed by Metrolinx independently of GO rail service to Niagara Region:

Hamilton James Street North Station;

Lewis Road Layover;

Future stations identified in the ESR;

Centennial Road Grade Separation reconstruction; and

Any required track improvements between James Street North Station and Lewis Road Layover in support of current plans for Lakeshore West GO service to James Street North Station.

3. The proposed service would not be an extension of the existing Lakeshore West GO rail service. Instead, a “shuttle” service would be employed between Hamilton James Street North Station and the shared VIA Rail/GO Station in the City of Niagara Falls. The proposed fleet would include five car trainsets.

The following sections outline the status of related work being carried out by Metrolinx independently of expansion of GO rail service to Niagara Region. These projects are part of the base assumptions for this study.

4.1 Hamilton Junction

Work was previously included in the extension of service to James North Station.

GO rail service to Niagara Region will increase ridership on the Lakeshore West service, but service expansion would not be required.

This remains independent of service to Niagara Region.

4.2 James Street North GO Station

Under construction; anticipated complete for opening of Pan Am Games.

This station work remains independent of service to Niagara Region.

Track connections at James Street North Station joining to the CN mainline to the east are not currently under construction and will be complete in



approximately two years by GO. This work is required for service to Niagara Region. The costs associated with this work are approximately $5 million and is assumed to be included in the current budget for this station.

The completion of the north platform to provide access to the CN mainline is assumed to be completed by Metrolinx after the Pan Am Games and has been previously budgeted.

The Province is committing a significant investment into the James North Station which, the current GO service scenario is two trains in the morning and evening. The station design includes a substantial bus loop for HSR and GO bus bays.

The provision of more transit trips from Niagara into this station will mean higher station usage and the local area will see increases in commercial activity. The inclusion of Niagara to Hamilton trips means that passengers will transfer from the Niagara-based trains onto buses that have just discharged passengers onto the Toronto-bound GO train during peak periods or to local buses throughout the day that are scheduled to operate into the station. With minor modifications to GO bus routings, Niagara passengers will be able to transfer onto an extended QEW Express service (extended from the Hunter Street station), if they are destined for downtown Toronto. In addition, either GO or the HSR could run bus services to Aldershot or Burlington for those passengers destined to other locations.

4.3 Confederation GO Station

No improvements proposed at this time.

This remains independent of service to Niagara Region.

4.4 Centennial Parkway Grade Separation

Under construction; anticipated complete for opening of Pan Am Games

This remains independent of service to Niagara Region

4.5 Lewis Road Layover

Layover is currently under construction and is anticipated to be completed in 2016; however it is not required for Niagara GO train services

Consists of storage for four 12-car GO trains, crew building and fueling facilities.



5 Train Operations and Track Improvements

5.1 Existing Line Schedule

The train schedule information in Figure 2 has been extracted from the October 2014 Business Case Overview for use in the current study.2 The passenger train schedule was confirmed as current for this study. However, CN Rail will be required to confirm the current and future freight train schedules within this corridor.

Figure 2: Existing Freight and Passenger Train Schedules

2 Niagara Region: Niagara GO Service Extension Business Case, Appendix 3: Hatch Mott MacDonald Engineering Review, October 21, 2014



The train schedules above have been converted into a time-distance diagram that identifies the potential conflicts of trains in the corridor and where these train meets occur. The diagram below presents the existing track usage in the corridor. The corridor has a section of single track between Mile 16.6 and 26.8 where no train meets can occur. Beyond this one section the corridor has two tracks which can support bi-directional travel.

Figure 3: Time-Distance Diagram for Existing Line Usage

Single Track

Welland Canal

Niagara Falls

St. Catharines

Casablanca

James St. North

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

450:00 2:00 4:00 6:00 8:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00 22:00 0:00

Tra

ck M

ile

ag

e

Time of Day

CN 421

CN 331

CN 422

CN 330

VIA 97/63

VIA 98/64

5.2 Proposed GO Train Service to Niagara

The prior service concepts for GO service to Niagara envisaged a peak-period, peak direction only expansions of the Lakeshore West GO Train Service to Niagara Falls. However, for this study the proposed GO service between Niagara and Hamilton is based on an independent train service that would originate in Niagara Falls in the morning with scheduled stops at Niagara Falls, St. Catharines, Grimsby and James Street North.

The decision to recommend a “shuttle” service between Hamilton and Niagara Falls, instead of an extension to the existing Lakeshore West service, was made for a number of reasons:



The passenger volumes do not warrant the use of a 12 car train presently in use on the Lakeshore West corridor;

Extending 14 trips to/from Lakeshore West would have significant issues related to crewing and equipment in order to maintain the existing peak/off-peak headways along the Lakeshore West line;

Isolating the two services ensured that potential delays on the Niagara GO corridor as a result of the Welland Canal would not have an impact on the heavily-used Lakeshore West train schedules;

Due to scheduling and freight train movements, only 2 Toronto-bound trains in the morning and 2 Hamilton-bound evening trains in the evening are planned to serve James North station. The Niagara GO service will allow more frequent service between Hamilton and Niagara Falls as most freight train activities are remote from the “shuttle” service area (west of James North GO); and

There is a strong link between Hamilton and Niagara Region – 55% of all outbound trips from Niagara Region are destined to Hamilton

The proposed train service concept is two trains would start in Niagara Falls in the morning with one train operating continuously throughout the day. A second peak period trip would be provided between Hamilton and Niagara Falls in the afternoon. The second train could layover during the day in the area of the James North Station or Lewis Road, depending on track availability. The estimated round-trip time would be 150 minutes. With turnback layover times removed, a trip from Niagara Falls to Hamilton will take approximately 75 minutes, compared with a 2 hour bus transit trip today.

Cooperative dialogue with the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation (SLSMC) continues in order to identify a proactive scheduling strategy that would reduce the potential for delay to GO Train service at the Welland Canal. However, 20 minutes of dwell time has been added in the proposed schedule at St. Catharines Station for Hamilton-bound trains, and for the scheduled arrival time at Niagara Falls for Niagara-bound trains. This would ensure that the scheduled departure times would allow for potential delays at the Welland Canal. This would work as follows:

A Niagara-bound train departs St. Catharines Station on schedule:

o If the bridge at Welland Canal is up, the train would wait approximately 20 minutes and arrive at Niagara Falls on schedule.

o If the bridge at Welland Canal is down, the train would proceed without waiting and arrive at Niagara Falls 20 minutes ahead of schedule (but few would complain if the train arrives early at the end-of-the-line station).

A Hamilton-bound train departs Niagara Falls Station on schedule:

o If the bridge at Welland Canal is up, the train would wait approximately 20 minutes and arrive at St. Catharines on schedule.

o If the bridge at Welland Canal is down, the train would arrive at St. Catharines 20 minutes ahead of schedule and would dwell for 20 minutes, departing at the scheduled departure time.



A small number of passengers have been inconvenienced but it avoids the need for a tunnel under the Welland Canal which was estimated at $750 million during the EA and makes the infrastructure for the service affordable.

The time-distance chart for the proposed service is presented in Figure 4 based on the assumptions above.

Figure 4: Time-Distance Chart for Proposed All-Day GO Train Service to Niagara Region

Single Track

Welland Canal

Niagara Falls

St. Catharines

Casablanca

James St. North

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

450:00 2:00 4:00 6:00 8:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00 22:00 0:00

Tra

ck M

ile

ag

e

Time of Day

CN 421

CN 331

CN 422

CN 330

VIA 97/63

VIA 98/64

GO (Hourly)

GO EB2

GO WB2

A sample schedule would be as follows:

Depart Niagara Falls 6:25 am

Arrive St. Catharines 6:43 am

Depart St. Catharines 7:03 am

Arrive Casablanca 7:20 am

Arrive James Street North 7:41 am

The existing line has a 10-mile single track segment between Jordan and Nelles Road. Any potential train meets in this segment from the introduction of additional GO Train service would result in delays. This is a condition that would not likely be acceptable from the standpoint of service reliability.



In the above service scenario, all train meets would occur outside of the existing 10 mile single track segment. But, in order to increase flexibility and accommodate potential delays in schedule, it is proposed to add a 3 mile passing track within the 10 mile single track segment.

The proposed project scope would also include localized track and signal improvements along the CN corridor to support slightly higher operating speeds and increased passenger comfort.

Finally, twinning of the CN mainline between the James Street North Station and the Confederation Station is also proposed to be included in the project scope to increase travel time reliability along this section of the mainline.

6 Updated Ridership

As a result of the change in service concept for rail service to Niagara, Paradigm Transportation Solutions were retained to update the ridership work that was completed as part of the ESR.

The full report can be found in the Appendix of this report however the key findings are summarized here, they include:

Based on the future corridor trip demand in the study area and the observed GO Rail mode share in other similar corridors, under the low estimate conditions, the potential GO Rail passenger volumes in the study corridor are forecast to be approximately 680 peak period, peak direction passenger trips by year 2021. By year 2031 it is estimated that the peak period, peak direction passenger trips would increase to about 1,190 trips and the daily both direction passenger trips would be about 1,800 trips on GO Rail. The low ridership estimates are based on the existing, business as usual conditions related to transit services. However, it is also noted that the estimated ridership levels do not include other trip purposes such as tourism travel and these activities would contribute additional ridership to a Niagara GO Rail extension.



By 2031 under high estimate conditions:

o 140 daily boardings in Niagara Falls, with a peak parking demand of about 65 vehicles for peak only service and 85 vehicles for all day service;

o 440 daily boardings in St. Catharines, with a peak parking demand of about 130 vehicles for peak only service and 240 vehicles for all day service; and

o 570 daily boardings in Grimsby, with a peak parking demand of about 350 vehicles for peak only service and 440 vehicles for all day service

The tourism travel market is significant and some tourism trips currently take place on the GO Transit bus services. It is likely that this tourism travel market will generate substantial additional ridership during weekday mid-day and weekend time periods, over and above the ridership estimates identified above.

As noted in the previous section, a 20 minute layover has been added into the schedule to address potential delays associated with crossing the Welland Canal, as the current travel time between Niagara Falls and Hamilton is approximately 120 minutes by transit today, this additional layover time still results in a faster overall transit trip time than current conditions and the layover does not have an impact on ridership within the corridor. This reduced travel time should enable a much greater share of the travel demand between Niagara Region and Hamilton to be captured by the planned Niagara Region GO Rail Expansion.

GO currently experiences approximately 150 a.m. peak period bus passengers to Burlington GO Station, the projected 2021 a.m. peak period train ridership is approximately 340 passengers. Recognizing that the existing GO bus and proposed GO rail serve two distinct destinations, it is assumed that approximately 50% of the rail passengers are new and that the remainder are existing GO bus passengers.

7 Station Requirements

The following sections of the report summarize the review of the planned station developments, building upon Metrolinx’s approved ESR concepts in relation to the opening-day scenario currently envisaged, specifically all-day, five-car “shuttle” service operating between Hamilton James North Station and Niagara Falls Station with stops at Grimsby (Casablanca Boulevard) and St. Catharines, and laying over in Niagara Falls. It is assumed that Confederation (Centennial), Fifty Road and Beamsville Stations would be developed by Metrolinx at some time in the future when the addition of the stations is warranted. This is similar to the approach taken for station development on the Barrie and Kitchener lines.

The concepts presented here are preliminary, and are for business case development and costing purposes only. The discussions here are intended to consider the viability of updated options, and would serve as input to Metrolinx’s next stage of review. They are not intended to preclude the planning and design processes required by Metrolinx as the authority that would ultimately be responsible for delivery of the service.



7.1 Proposed Grimsby (Casablanca) Station

It is envisaged that a full-featured Grimsby (Casablanca) GO station would be constructed for opening day of rail service to Niagara Region. In accordance with GO Transit’s Design Requirements Manual (December 2014, Version 20.0), “a typical GO Rail Station Site comprises the following key components:

Site access;

Rail platform(s) including mini-platform(s);

Platform maintenance access;

Platform access including at-grade rail crossings, pedestrian tunnels or bridges and associated stairs, ramps, elevators and service rooms;

Bus loops and platforms where applicable;

Station building(s);

Platform shelters or integrated shelters;

Passenger Drop-off and Pick-up area;

Parking facilities;

Landscaped components (berms, swales, retaining walls, planter beds, trees, lawns, rockeries, etc.);

Fences; and

Signage.”

The need for formal bike shelters in accordance with Metrolinx’s current practices is also anticipated. It is expected that all of these elements would be included in the requirements for the Grimsby Station.

Two options have been identified for Grimsby Station, both on undeveloped properties, currently owned by Metrolinx. These sites are shown on Figure 5.

It is understood that the site east of Casablanca Boulevard has been identified in consideration of development of a GO station on a larger scale than the ESR approved site, and with simplified access. Use of the second site would require Metrolinx to amend its approved ESR.



Figure 5: Grimsby (Casablanca) GO Station Site Alternatives

It is beyond the scope of this study to develop recommendations for one site over another for Grimsby Station; Metrolinx’s continued study of the benefits and impacts of the site options will resolve the preferred location. However, both sites are considered viable and compatible with the opening day plans for GO Train Service Expansion into Niagara Region as presented herein. The budgetary pricing for both have been developed here as input to the current business case.

Both Grimsby Station options have to address the existing Hydro One Networks Inc. (HONI) tower line as a constraint; both properties include easements in favour of HONI. During the station design development, the full rights of the easements will need to be reviewed and agreed upon in the context of any constraints that might be imposed upon the development of the sites. Minimally, it is expected that HONI will not permit any structures underneath the tower lines within some reasonable access boundary of the easement and/or tower line.

The following are excerpts from HONI’s website in regard to secondary land use for its rights-of-way3:

The Ontario government has put in place a Provincial Secondary Land Use Program (PSLUP) that allows for the use of ROWS, while taking into account the primary purpose of these lands is for electricity transmission and distribution.

3 http://www.hydroone.com/SecondaryLandUse/Pages/default.aspx



Hydro One strives to work with proponents to review secondary land use proposals on the ROWs so that they are compatible with the safety and maintenance requirements of our high-voltage equipment.

Buildings and permanent structures are not permitted on corridor lands.

The above requirements are applicable when HONI is operating in its own dedicated corridor (as opposed to easements on private property). However, it does serve to illustrate the need to coordinate the site development plans closely with applicable policies/guidelines/standards and easement rights as a key early design activity.

7.1.1 Proposed Station Development Concept Option 1: Southwest Corner of Casablanca Boulevard and South Service Road

This station site is consistent with the approved ESR alternative however the scope of the station development is proposed to be reduced as shown on Figure 6.

Figure 6: Proposed Grimsby Station Option 1: Near Casablanca Boulevard

For this option, Grimsby Station would be accessed off of the South Service Road west of Casablanca Boulevard on the north side of the CN Railway. There are currently two GO bus platforms associated with the commuter parking lot on the north side of the South Service Road adjacent to the QEW interchange. Otherwise the GO facilities for Casablanca Station would be developed anew.

Access considerations in relation to traffic operations on South Service Road are a challenge requiring further study for this site. Coordination of the access with



developments on the adjacent property would likely be required to optimize the ultimate configuration.

In 2012, Metrolinx and MTO developed the existing “Park and Ride” site on the north side of South Service Road. This site is proposed to be maintained and would provide additional parking capacity over that proposed to be constructed in support of the ESR-approved GO train station.

Although five car trainsets would be utilized for opening day operation, it is expected that a full 12 car platform would be constructed on the south side of the south track, consistent with the ESR recommended plan. This would be desirable, in order to facilitate the ongoing summer weekend GO train service from Union Station. The hard surface area shown on the north side of the north track could be expanded and developed as a 12 car platform providing additional flexibility of train operations by service both tracks.

Although there are two existing bus bays at the existing park and ride lot on the north side of South Service Road, additional bus bays are proposed on the south side to provide convenient connections between the GO train service and GO Transit and Niagara Region Inter-Municipal bus services.

7.1.2 Proposed Station Development Concept Option 2: On South Service Road East of Casablanca Boulevard

For this option, Grimsby Station would be accessed off of the South Service Road approximately 500 m east of Casablanca Boulevard on the north side of the CN Railway. In comparison to Option 1, this is a substantially larger site with significantly greater potential for parking facilities. However, at 500 m from Casablanca Boulevard, the site would be somewhat remote in relation to the existing Park and Ride lot southwest of the QEW interchange. Therefore, the existing park and ride site could be sold, as it sits on a viable commercial site in close proximity to other commercial uses.

The conceptual layout considered is shown on Figure 7.

This site is considerably larger than the site of the ESR approved plan which provides major opportunities for park and ride facilities. The plan shown here would provide nearly 500 parking spaces while utilizing only 50% of the area of the property. The site would allow for an additional 500 parking spaces, or potential for street-facing commercial uses.

Although five car trainsets would be utilized for opening day operation, it is expected that a full 12 car platform would be constructed on the south side of the south track, as discussed in Option 1. The hard surface area shown on the north side of the north track could be expanded and developed as a 12 car platform providing additional flexibility of train operations.

Bus bays are proposed on the south side to provide convenient connections among the train service and GO Transit and Niagara Region Inter-Municipal bus services.



Figure 7: Proposed Grimsby Station Option 2: East of Casablanca Boulevard

7.2 Proposed St. Catharines Station

In 2012, Metrolinx upgraded the existing VIA Rail station in St. Catharines to support seasonal GO train service from Toronto on weekends and holidays in the summer. The scope of improvements made at the St. Catharines site included:

Platform extension

Bike shelter

Mini-platform

Fare equipment

Platform furniture and illumination

Information screens

The existing St. Catharines site would continue to be shared with VIA Rail, with additional improvements to support all-day GO Rail Service. Figure 8 presents the proposed plan for St. Catharines Station that would be required for opening day of service to Niagara Region.

The proposed St. Catharines Station plan is generally consistent with the opening day plans for the site recommended in the approved ESR. It includes parking, bus bays and kiss and ride facilities on the south side of the tracks. A new pedestrian tunnel with elevators would connect the new facilities to the existing infrastructure on the north side.



The proposed bus platforms will integrate all-day GO Train service with GO Bus service and Niagara Region’s Inter-Municipal Transit services.

A new five-car platform would also be constructed on the south side, allowing the train to utilize either the north or south track. A second bicycle locker is shown on the south side to accommodate cyclists approaching the station from the south.

The property being shown for the site development is presently private property and is part of the adjacent industrial operations on the south side. It is under-utilized property at the moment.

Alternatively, there might be opportunities to utilize the vacant property on the north side of the existing station in coordinated or joint development with the landowner, Ridley College.

The ESR did not identify any rail track modifications at this site and none are contemplated in this study.

Figure 8: Proposed St. Catharines Station



7.3 Proposed Niagara Falls Station

In 2012, Metrolinx upgraded the existing VIA Rail station at Niagara Falls to support seasonal GO train service from Toronto on weekends and holidays in the summer. The scope of the improvements at the Niagara Falls site included:

Platform extension

Bike shelter

Mini-platform

Fare equipment

Platform furniture and illumination

Information screens

The existing Niagara Falls site would continue to be shared with VIA Rail, with additional improvements to support all-day GO Rail Service. Figure 9 presents the proposed plan for Niagara Falls Station that would be required for opening day of service to Niagara Region.

As previously presented, the initial operation for GO Train service to Niagara Falls would include two five-car trainsets operating between James Street North Station and Niagara Falls Station. These trains would layover in Niagara Falls. The suggested modifications at Niagara Falls to support the new service would include addition of a new island platform and two adjacent sidings allowing for the trains to layover at the platform. A pedestrian tunnel with elevators would be required to provide access to the island platform.

Layover infrastructure required would include: a new wayside power cabinet and fuel above-ground storage tank. Train maintenance facilities would not be required as it is expected trains will be brought to GO Rail’s Willowbrook facility when maintenance is required. However, on-site, interior cleaning of the trains would be accommodated here. This layover operation is consistent with how GO lays over trains on most of its rail corridors.

Additional parking for use by GO customers and adequate bus facilities are assumed requirements for implementation of GO Train service to Niagara Falls. The City of Niagara Falls has indicated it is presently working to relocate the existing Bridge Street bus maintenance garage in the next year and this site could be available for GO parking facilities. The existing bus terminal will remain in operation and will continue to be available for GO Transit’s use.

The continued use of the existing bus terminal by regional and interregional buses provide excellent opportunities to integrate all-day GO train service with GO bus service, Niagara Region’s Inter-Municipal services, as well as existing and future municipal and private bus services.

The position of the new layover/station tracks would be constrained by the curve on the existing mainline track. The available CN property is sufficient for the five-car platform. There would be space for future expansion of the platform to approximately the length required for 10 cars. However, construction of a 12-car platform would require additional modifications.



Figure 9: Proposed Niagara Falls Station

8 Review of Project Costs and Schedule to Opening Day

Capital Costs

The capital cost for initial implementation of All-Day GO Train Service to Niagara Region will be dependent on confirmation of the design concepts presented in this study. In particular, the railway modifications presented herein will be subject to confirmation of the scope by CN. In the meantime, the following capital costs have been estimated for budgetary purposes:

Item Cost

Additional Mainline Track ‐ James North to Confederation $30,000,000

3 Mile Passing Siding in Single Track Section $15,000,000

Rail and Signal Upgrades (speed and comfort) $35,000,000

Station Site Development $50,000,000

Total $130,000,000

Appendix A3 includes the itemized cost estimates for the station site developments.



Operating Costs

For an estimate of the operating costs for the service, an estimated operating cost of $16.75 per km was used and approximately 1,000 km of train travel per day results in daily operating costs of $16,750. Assuming train operations of 240 days per year, results in a yearly operating cost of $4,000,000. These costs are not currently reduced based on an assumed fare revenue for the service.

If the current bus weekday service was completely discontinued, the reduced operating costs could be applied against the rail operating costs. There are currently 35 weekday trips between Niagara and Burlington, if this service was modified to provide service between James Street North and Burlington, approximately 60km of travel distance would be saved. An estimated cost of $5.00 per km was used and a similar 240 operating days per year, results in a potential cost savings of $2,500,000 per year.

Using the 2021 low daily ridership numbers of 990 identified in the Appendix Report and assuming an average fare of $8.00 per passenger, results in a daily revenue of $7,920 or approximately $1,900,000 per year. Using the 2031 low daily projections of 1,780 and an assumed 3% growth in fares, results in daily revenue of $19,135 or approximately $4,600,000 per year in 2031.

Rolling Stock Costs

From a branding and market assessment, it would be desirable for GO to operate equipment similar to its current fleet. It is understood that the current fleet of bilevel coaches is fully utilized through refurbishment and service requirements. Options exist to provide the train service with new equipment (highest cost and longest duration), used equipment (based upon availability) or leased equipment (depending upon availability).

For locomotives, it is assumed that GO could utilize 2 of its 6 refurbished F59 locomotives. Although this equipment is used on a somewhat frequent basis as a backup for failed or being commissioned MP40 locomotives, their availability for the Niagara service should be possible if the government committed to the service. As well, GO will be receiving new locomotives over the next few years and, as the pooled fleet of new locomotives increases, the use of 2 of the old F59 locomotives for the Niagara service is considered reasonable. If not, it would be possible to lease or acquire a used locomotive from the market place and a cost estimate of $1 million has been assumed for acquiring 2 used locomotives.

For coaches, it is assumed that it will be possible to lease or acquire used coaches from one of the US properties, Metrolink in California has a surplus of Bombardier bilevels that they have yet to release, and Maryland has non-Bombardier equipment. A lease arrangement could occur if GO equipment was assumed to become available over the next 5 years. With electrification of GO rail service anticipated to occur over the next decade a changeover of the current fleet could occur. Likewise, the eventual electrification of UP Express may mean that its DMU fleet could be used on the Niagara service.

Many of these decisions are reserved for the future and are beyond the realm of this report as it is ultimately a Metrolinx decision, supported by the Province. However, we have assumed a $5 million budget to acquire/capital lease 10 coaches for a 5 year period, these costs are currently carried in the contingency section of the report.



Project Schedule

The schedule for opening day of GO Train Service to Niagara Region will be subject to many factors yet to be resolved. However, the required modifications track and signals on CN’s lines will likely be the critical path tasks as these require significant lead time for design and procurement before construction activities can take place. Additionally, the scope of track and signal modifications will be subject to dialogue with CN that has not yet been initiated.

The schedule below in Figure 10 presents a preliminary implementation schedule for GO Train Service to Niagara Region.

Figure 10: Implementation Schedule

M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J

Announcement

Procurement of Design Consultants

Initiate Discussions with CN

Station Design

Tendering

Procure Track / Signals Material

Grimsby Station

St. Catharines Station

Niagara Falls Station

Track Improvements

In Service

Task Name

Niagara GO Extension

Construction

2016 20172015

9 Implementation Strategy

Traditionally corridor expansion projects are implemented by Metrolinx in conjunction with the applicable railway authority. As a result of the increasing project demands within the Toronto Region, Metrolinx could undertake the overall infrastructure work, or Niagara Region could act as an agent for Metrolinx in the delivery of the infrastructure for the service. This would be similar to the VIVA project in York Region, which is being managed by York Region and delivered using a P3 approach.

CN, being the owner of the rail corridor, would provide all of the track/signal engineering and construction and would participate in the installation of the under-track tunnel work. Discussions regarding whether CN would allow this work to be completed by others has not occurred but based on previous experience all track and signals work within the CN corridor will be completed by CN. This work would therefore not be considered for an AFP / P3 delivery. Niagara Region could manage contract payments for CN and Metrolinx would ultimately approve contracts and payments.

The station work beyond the rail corridor could be designed and constructed by Niagara Region in accordance with Metrolinx design and procurement standards. It could also be



delivered using Design Build but would be considered too small for an AFP / P3 approach.

The contract packaging would include:

Grimsby station contract, including parking lot, station building and platform;

St. Catharines parking lot/bus loop/elevators, pedestrian tunnel and new side platform;

Niagara Falls parking lot, pedestrian tunnel, centre platform, layover, fueling and wayside power area; and

CN track and signals.

It is assumed that Metrolinx would continue to manage any work associated with the James North station.


MMM Group Limited 2015-04-08

APPENDICES



APPENDIX A1 Niagara Region Report to Public Works Committee PW 92-2014, dated September 2. 2014 Inter-Municipal Transit: Guiding Principles and Future Service Delivery

PW 92-2014 September 2, 2014

Niagaraw Region

REPORT TO: Public Works Committee

SUBJECT: Inter-municipal Transit: Guiding Principles and Future Service Delivery

RECOMMENDATION

That this Committee recommends to Regional Council:

1. That proposed guiding principles for inter-municipal transit in Niagara (developed in consultation with local area municipal representatives and attached as Appendix 1) BE ENDORSED.

2. That improved connections to GO Transit (outlined in Appendix 2) BE APPROVED for implementation in September 2015 pending community input through public information centres in Grimsby, West Lincoln, Lincoln and Niagara—on-the—Lake and subject to approval of the 2015 budget.

3. That the recommended additional funding for the 2015 Inter—Municipa| Transit Net Operating Budget of $500,000 ($592,472 Gross) and 2015 Capital Budget of $1,340,000 BE DIRECTED to the Budget Review Committee as part of the 2015 budget process.

4. That the long-term concept plan for implementation of inter-municipal transit connections, attached as Appendix 3, BE APPROVED IN PRINCIPLE and form the basis for developing a basic level of service across Niagara.

5. That staff BE DIRECTED to engage with local area municipalities on formalizing a structure to facilitate future inter-municipal transit planning and continuous customer service improvements and seek authority for Niagara Region’s

participation.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to:

• Follow through on Regional Council directions related to inter—municipa| transit • Recommend short—term improvements to the inter-municipal transit system that

support current and future GO transit connections

1

` PW 92-2014 September 2, 2014

• Identify potential connections that would form the basis for a basic inter-

municipal transit service across Niagara that would evolve over time

• Outline a process to clarify roles and responsibilities and ensure that inter-

municipal transit connections evolve in a manner that is coordinated and

implemented from the perspective of the user

BUSINESS IMPLICATIONS

The short-term enhancements that are recommended to improve connection to GO service in 2015 will result in increases to the budget for inter-municipal transit (IMT) as

estimated in the table below.

O|eratin| Bud|et Summa —lMT Short Term $000s Difference in

fmss Estimated ;'8"Sf€' Net wir Net uvir rom

Budget Revenue

Reserve Budget Budget vs.

2014

2014 A|proved Bud|et $2,799 $538 ($100) $2,161Q 2015 Forecast* $3,391 ($580 ($150 $2,661 $500

2016 Forecast $4,083 $613) ($309) $3,161 $1,000

2017 Forecast $4,327 ($666) $3,661 $1,500

2018 Forecast $4,975 $725) ($89) $4,161 $2,000 * Based on September start date for improved Go Transit connections.

The net operating budget increases of $500,000 in 2015 and $2,000,000 by 2018

represent 0.16% and 0.64% increases on the Region’s approved 2014 total levy,

respectively. Funding of the necessary $1,340,000 capital cost in 2015 will require a

combination of provincial gas tax and the capital levy resewe, and will therefore need to

be prioritized as part of the capital budget process. The Operating Budget Summary developed above includes capital reserve funding requirements to sustain the long term

capital needs of the service. It is recommended that these costs and revenues be

considered as part of the 2015 Budget process.

While there are no immediate business implications associated with approving a long-

term concept plan in principle, Council should be aware that costs associated with

implementing the identified routes would require an estimated annual net operating

budget of $5,284,000 to $6,080,000 by 2024. This translates to an estimated cost per

household of $21.14 to $24.32, relative the 2014 amount of $9.75 per household. A detailed explanation of these estimates and the related assumptions is included as

Appendix 4.

The above figures reflect numerous assumptions related to service levels, program

delivery, ridership, cost, and phasing. Further, criteria would need to be developed that

ensures fair and equitable funding allocations across communities and to determine the

amount contributed by Niagara Region. As such, the estimates will continue to require

2

PW 92-2014 September 2, 2014 -

the public. Any resulting impact on the budget requirement will be updated as part of the budget process if identified in advance of budget approval, or presented to Council

with a proposed funding/service plan adjustment if identified during the year.

BACKGROUND

Since October 2013 Regional Council has provided the following directions to staff

related to inter—municipaI transit:

°

Identify alternatives to a referendum Complete- results of statistically significant

question in order to obtain public input and online survey were reported at the June 19 Committee of the Whole meeting

Work with local area municipalities to Complete- proposed guiding principles are

establish a set of guiding principles with a attached as Appendix 1 to this report

focus on ridership and interconnectivity

across the region

Establish a process to proceed with a call Complete- proposed process to clarify

for Expressions of Interest to provide inter- roles and responsibilities is outlined in this

municipal transit service for Niagara report

Negotiate with the three transit providers Complete- transitional service approved to

regarding the extension of the pilot project, September 2015 (PW 63-2014) should this be necessary

3

PW 92-2014 September 2, 2014

On June 19, 2014 staff presented a progress report with preliminary themes for guiding principles and short and long—term opportunities to establish integrated transit

connections across Niagara. Key points from this presentation included:

• There is support for inter-municipal transit, particularly as it relates to the "greater g0od" and building a strong future in Niagara

• There is recognition that inter-municipal transit supports requests for improved

GO service in Niagara and should be developed to connect more Niagara residents to GO

• The majority of residents support maintaining or increasing the amount they pay on their property tax for inter—municipaI transit services

• Findings are validated through discussions with all 12 municipalities, a

statistically significant telephone sun/ey involving residents across Niagara and

an online survey with over 3,600 responses

Subsequent to the June 19 meeting staff also spoke with local economic development

officials to better understand perspectives from current and prospective businesses and

investors. We heard the following points during these discussions:

• It would be easier to market a Niagara catchment area of over 400,000 if

communities were connected with permanent inter—municipa| transit connections

where prospective employees and customers could move more easily from one community to the next.

• There are skills shortages that individuals in our community can fill if they are

provided opportunities for training. A key part of providing this training is to

improve access to post—secondary and other educational institutions through

public transit.

• We need to recognize that there are industries where current and potential employees do not have access to an automobile (for example, call centres and tourism—based services). By providing transportation we are getting people to jobs and potentially reducing reliance on Ontario Works and other social

services.

• Niagara has a mobile labour market. For example, in Fort Erie 5,600 people

leave and return at the end of each day. ln Port Colborne, over 3,700 people

commute from the community and nearly 2,000 people commute to the

community for work each day. • Businesses need to recruit from outside their local municipality to find the skills

they require.

• In order to be effective, transit needs to be reliable in terms of route and time

frequencies.

• Allow the system to evolve over time to mitigate any sudden tax rate increases,

and demonstrate that improvements will benefit the business community. • lnter—municipal transit should be an essential service, as benefits for region

building are comparable to those of railways, subways and bridges.

4

PW 92-2014 September 2, 2014

REPORT

Since the June 19 Committee of the Whole session staff have been working to finalize proposed guiding principles and further define the potential inter-municipal transit

connections that were outlined in the presentation.

Guiding Principles and a "Road Map" for Future Connections

Based on feedback received from local area municipalities, proposed guiding principles

have been attached for Regional Council’s approval under Appendix 1. These principles establish GO service, economic development, quality of life and

environmental responsibility as why inter-municipal connections in Niagara are

important and state that connections should be implemented in a manner that is

customer-driven, integrated with broader community objectives and other forms of

transportation, economically responsible, and fair across communities and income

groups.

During these discussions several municipalities indicated that a road map with short, medium and Iong—term discussions is necessary in order to establish common goals and objectives and ensure that planning for inter-municipal transit connections align with

other transportation, planning and economic development objectives.

From meetings with municipal officials and input from the public, it became clear that GO transit, and the call for GO rail service by summer 2015, is a unifying goal across communities. To support this goal, staff are proposing short-term improvements to the current inter-municipal transit routes that will support GO advocacy efforts and improve access to GO for as many residents as possible. These changes are identified under Appendix 2 and recommended for implementation in September 2015 (when current funding agreements expire). The public would have an opportunity to provide feedback and suggestions on these routes during public information centres this fall, and final

approval would be contingent on approval ofthe 2015 budget by the incoming Council.

While improved GO connections present an immediate opportunity to strengthen transit service for Niagara residents, there is also recognition that better connections between

municipalities are necessary to facilitate the movement of people across Niagara. A basic level of service was proposed by several municipalities as a means to ensure fairness from one community to the next, with enhanced services available on a fee-for-

service basis.

Based on the initial concept presented at Committee of the Whole on June 19, staff have added further detail to a Iong—term concept plan as a first step toward building a

basic level of service that would eventually connect communities across Niagara

(included under Appendix 3). The concept plan has been developed for discussion purposes only in collaboration with transit operators and municipal transportation staff to

provide a framework for future senrice and to provide Council with an indication of the

potential costs associated with proceeding. While staff have exercised best efforts to

5

PW 92-2014 September 2, 2014

base proposed routes on the most strategic regional hubs and transfer points, exact

routing, implementation timelines and community hubs used as stops and transfer

points would be further developed based on discussions with local area municipalities,

public consultation and funding availability.

Beyond introducing new routes, other changes are necessary to improve customer service for inter—municipa| transit:

• Rationalizing post-secondary student funded inter-municipal routes to avoid

overlap and duplication and making the system more intuitive for those accessing post-secondary institutions

• Providing a consistent fare payment system, potentially through fare box

integration

• Improving trip planning functions for customers travelling within and outside of

Niagara • Developing consensus on uniform customer service standards • Incorporating legislated Accessibility for Ontarians with a Disability (AODA)

requirements

These improvements are an important first step to ensure the system continues to evolve to meet the needs of riders.

Process for Developing an Expression of Interest

Regional Council has also directed to staff is to establish a process to proceed with a

call for Expressions of Interest (EOI) for inter-municipal transit.

Many participants staff spoke with in the spring of 2014 were strongly supportive of a

permanent, integrated inter-municipal transit system, regardless of who operates the system, and pointed to the need to take the "pi|ot" out of the pilot project and build a

system that is developed and implemented from the perspective of the user.

In order to take the "pilot” out of the inter—municipaI transit pilot project municipalities

have told us that the Region needs to play a role, not necessarily in operating the

service, but in facilitating, providing funding, coordinating customer service, ensuring

access to social services, and providing consistency with planning and economic . development objectives.

However it should be noted that, before Niagara Region and/or its municipal partners could proceed with a call for EO|s, the following steps would need to occur:

• Work with Local Area Municipalities to determine a role for Niagara Region: Niagara Region’s role in transit is currently considered as taking preparatory

steps through due diligence studies and funding placeholders. Any advances to this role, even if the Region’s only involvement is facilitation and grant funding on

a more permanent basis, requires a redefinition of the regions’ role and (given

A

6

PW 92-2014 September 2, 2014

that public transit is within the jurisdiction of local area municipalities) triple

majority support for our involvement. Potential roles for the Region that have been suggested by local area municipalities include:

o Facilitating connections and driving improvements fonrvard o Facilitating consistent customer service standards across Niagara

o Helping to fill service delivery gaps and secure access to social services o Providing overarching funding for a basic level of service o Ensuring strong connections to regional economic development and

planning objectives in Niagara

o Helping to build technological capacity

• Determine who would issue the EOI: Given that public transit is within the jurisdiction of local area municipalities, Niagara Region could not issue EO|s

directly unless municipalities wish to provide the Region with this authority

through triple majority support. Othenivise EOIs would need to be issued by local area municipalities served by new connections and/or transit operators on their behalf.

• Assess business implications: Any role that municipalities agree to prescribe the Region would need to be assessed against internal business implications. For example, there could be business implications associated with Regional provision of Niagara Specialized Transit under the Accessibility for Ontarians with

a Disability Act (AODA). These implications would be monitored over time and reported to Council.

Next Steps

ln order to commence the process outlined above, it is recommended that local areaC

municipalities be engaged to determine how we might formalize a way to coordinate inter—municipal transit planning and request Niagara Region’s involvement. For

example, inter-municipal transit services in other regions began through the creation of a joint service delivery group or other types of structures to ensure that services are

coordinated and efficient. lt is recommended that local area municipalities be engaged to determine if there is interest in creating this kind of structure, and, once created, to

request that the Region be permitted to take part.

Should Council approve this direction, staff will follow-up with local area municipalities

and transit operators to begin these discussions. Staff would prepare progress reports

to this Committee and Council on a quarterly basis.

REPORTS PERTINENT TO THIS MATTER

TSSC 2-2014 Inter-municipal transit- Community Engagement and Guiding Principles

PW 63-2014 Inter-municipal Transit- Progress Update on Guiding Principles

7

PW 92-2014 September 2, 2014

PW 64-2014 Improved Inter-municipal Transit Connection at Glendale Avenue and the QEW

PW 80-2014 Inter-municipal Transit- Interim Status Update

Submitted by: Approved by:

EQ Z'’

o ripp Harry Sch nge

Commissioner of Public Works Chief Ad inistrative icer

This report was prepared by Kumar Ranjan, Associate Director of Transportation Planning, Erin O’Hoski, Manager of Partnership Development and Glen Cowan, Associate Directon Finance Consulting and Special Projects, and reviewed by Helen Chamberlain, Director of Financial Management and Planning, Sterling Wood, Legal Counsel, Maria Brigantino, Manager of Chronic Disease Prevention, Nadine Taft, Manager of Innovation and Partnership, Curt Benson, Director of Planning Senrices and Nick Palomba, Director of Transportation Services.

APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Proposed guiding principles for inter—municipal transit in Niagara

Appendix 2: Routes proposed for implementation in September 2015 Appendix 3: Ten year concept plan for inter—municipal transit connections Appendix 4: Cost estimates for implementation of ten year concept plan

8

PW 92-2014 September 2, 2014

Appendix 1

Proposed Guiding Principles for Inter-municipal Transit

The fo//owing guiding principles were developed in consultation with local area

municipal representatives in Spring 2014.

Inter—municipal transit is important to:

• Support GO service in Niagara • Facilitate economic development • Contribute to a high quality of life for Niagara Residents • Provide environmentally sustainable transportation between communities

An effective inter-municipal transit system will be:

• Customer driven o Continuously improve the rider experience

o Understand customers, particularly those who rely on transit most o Provide seamless connections and routes based on demand o Take people to work, school, shopping and recreation as efficiently as

possible

• Integrated

o Connect municipalities at hubs that are most appropriate for customers

and the community o Evolve according to long-term transportation planning, growth planning,

and economic development opportunities

• Economically responsible o Balance financial costs with potential ridership and benefits

o Build on past transit investments by enhancing, not duplicating, existing

services

o Explore alternative modes of delivery, particularly in small communities and rural areas

• Fair

o Respect existing investments made by communities with public transit. o Provide a basic level of services that can be accessed by as many

Niagara residents as possible

o Balance respect for taxpayers with the ability of transit riders to pay fares

I

I ~ 1.

`

1

A

1 .

1 E C) ·—

1

1 1~

_

1_

·· ‘·

._ N ,_ E

0 N N- __

U °° 5 &1 j

1

C |W1 1

GJ '1

II I|1 I 1 1 v1 2 0

*5. *3 11 s ' ·

, ,1 /’

1 V 1,.11

rg

C - ._ 1

O 1 my

'

QJ ‘—

1 "' ·‘ .1 1 1

.1 _1 rg 1

1-

1 l' 1T 1¤` P1 A

P

U 101 UI II\EI/7 1 9*

I • __ I' ·;[Jl p, r_ Q. ,1 . 1

A . of 1 b— y - _ 1 11 1

1

_

>< I1 1 Q1

1

unl 1 I1

O/65

Q

•` if 1J 1 1

I r’ F1- ‘~- I ci;1 19 1 9)| A.— 1

I `1 1 1 1 1

1 1 ..1 1¤ U U ¤I- 0 1 OI! 1*

1 I ‘I1 1°’ °

V •; .

I >- .

; QV Iirgjy

o _ `

.1 1

i 1 i ‘ '¤ / ¤ »$

1 1

Q) ·

1

·‘ =e *1;-..;-.1 IDMAAM 1

I J" K11

q)_ »1 35 U1 =~1 11

1

0 g •-

11 s- ¤ · ·1=

U} · mL A' 5 T9 1

C 1

1 .. 1

1·~ 1

1

~' *1

é'’ £ Z

U "1 1

`~

1 L C Z \\ {3| ,_

.1 f

I ri 1 |qd

1 T I\ x __I

r· *·

•¤ 'i V7

u ¤.. A

1 .

`61 •"

1 —_ `1

I

`1 `1 I-

;·

__| ,.-·—- _A

"S uy

|I.

11 --

. ~—

, — —

Z U 8 wg `E. ¤> A

.~| I I

.1 %c f Q_ O, Q_ JE

‘

, 1 i' - , 1

»` -..1 ·" L. U) T ¥- tb .-11 :0 @1 *1, 11 1,

J` ¤§ ¤ ¤> E ¤>I

#1; 1 x ¤ 1/ ,» 1Jl J, 1 A .. 1» 1

1 O . U I (_)

1111 0 "" ‘~| A F5 3 "' I

11

J H 1 ro O 1| ....-L2 I FJ |"L I 1

I I 1

C *"

1115 ck 1

»11 9 8* 1 1|. EE

,1 1

-A‘. 11-91 g }~

I Yj 2J?E |Q1"]| U 1

IE E O

1 \. 1

I I 1 E

tz D W ,,1 ., - .. O

QJ ,C cz g q ‘“ 1<` >·e .— —= —~ 0

g" cg CB

1

‘ ` 1 CZ ` —-

. 1. »*

.=

I1 I,

.1

1. F1 `.

T| ’ Ja' 1_1 J-

G) ~— M| 1111| -*1w. .*1 *9% A 1 *1%.. ’ I`1 /*1 11

OI

.1 M 81

;—1. _ . :.c |1 qp I1'?

`” ern I ¢’ O rm g| ,5 ¤>

1 1. ?"

1 1 I \

I

41. J C ‘” >`

gg| T Y .1.1 11 `1Q

i< _' i` L. V1 T |.»

SS LQ 5 1% z s

:· ___ O \-

1 I

. ww \.> 5: 1 1 0 < {. /1 / 1 c C5

1% ry M1 |‘ 1 ...

111 -— ¤ M E`

rllilf

1 1

=* ¤E

.. 1, .7 —-

· “¥ I

8I

J.|1

·` 1 / M z "1

9- ¤

2%

|~— -..

8 3

."5 ,. -

1~

c

EE 1

1 /

|Q

W

8 E

|,§ H

-E 1;

x __ 1

L

C *

K5} _h.|

··,

IE E

`

_g _

—;·- .| |{g|i

.1

é· .,.-8

D _

· cmucggeg FQY 1-

C- E

E ig m é-

‘

"‘

•_ ¤

c -

6

L1| A ··z¤211,.,,w

I

.1 E E 3 »§_

gm1

·•- ;

r·

.

__ : _§

:> ° 3

3*25

x

|8

.

··‘ p

E -=

U :1: .:1,

.

g

a

°°·v

U ·~ ¤-

8

wu 3

Lu 2

-1| _ sg

lq°~¤| g

IJ 5 3

Qg

3 =

-

E·|»

X ,_¤

‘··

- 1151 '

,2

i

E *

-2

= ·{

@12,;} *6 a

2

Q

5

'¤ ‘ 4

"-—· ,.,,..}. I

1

‘

ga-: =$ -§

3 .,

*

‘:

·»

2

mgéi EU E;

}_ C

O

I

28*gE ·9 — F S

E

.·•; 1

fj

=fgm,|

Li § § é ,: 3

ua ·

B

—|.1,** ~|

I ,

—· & ¤ C,

v|g

pho

»

U) O/

5 1

|·|?;.{%

' 0 I I 1

1* :

J-|

U

U¤_

` /•

-5

,

’*u

'; .

Y--_

-5 .E

é'

M

•_

11

g;

*·

·;

5

,,,

EK?

qa

J!. '·=

`

§

“‘#s·

"’ f `“—

V

D

p· l.|

|1

L

_. •1, L

qu

__|

'§

mf

za

·

u' .

S

Ly- $0

"*

L N

|0

0

q, _¤3‘

52 $7

.1%|

::

*~ "*·|

Y WW?

.,,. 3

—·

,1 .s

mn

1

·

E

.1*

E ¤g

12

‘|.

is

11

F/‘

/· Is-

;,L¤=1,`·

4|

1

1,

1

‘v| .

’““" "

.5

· »·°

\°,

»

,:

~;.

.9- SJ

IQ |&°

`

J2

_: _E` mu

~1

;\ \

1: ,,.

—

in

l

'E`

/ Q5, 1

i

% E

gi

I

sg

{

V,

1

·-g

g

:5

U 1

5E ~1

E

1111,}

IJ~#’

0 ~

3;

~1

‘;

W`,

‘

`

1"|_I\

3 { Z§~¤;:{"Z

*3

.g•

pa

|:

:

7

• b?"¤ri¤<|‘rE|\

KJ

gE

1

I A

' Kas?

| he| •C

Z` E

`B — m L;

|‘¤

1

_'

J U g_

rg .E

0 ~

|2

LLL »"°w

‘

E C

*9 — $1

&@ 5

·;·<

E

|°.i

.» pn

·•6

g ¤ 5 jg

gig

.2

¤

— * 0

en

*

Lu

E E

6

" i

Q,

1

|E 1

- ’

I •

f' . [

g G' 2 nn Q

,U Q

g ~;‘~

J 1, : E

E`

»

‘

1- mé @5

Q,

g

y`

0

0 ·

é

$#1,/ .1 l

.[

Y=

.

C

· I

_ _ -

‘_ u E g

C7 g ,•;

1

O

EE "’ fi 11

8

'•

1

Q- 1E _

F

"¤.y_("

y

| sv

I

0

E

. ,

° ' Y E U

1- 1

“

.¤| 1 i =@7

~

‘v¤ · Il

'5 Z`|

A|E |E |Ei

>.

’°=~,

2 / E

¤_ °

= |1- |"

.¤`

—‘”·¤-

’S / .é' ..»

, C

,

I 1.

gn

V

_: »

/**9

?§

~5E

E;F

.-. ‘

`~

;

J

·?

1,, 1

$3 / S.

*·

1

*11-1 "’

-1|

D 1

I a

`

¤`

L

U

\v»

Qglh`

>·,;,

Vw| ‘* I

~5

7*:

E D.

.¤- I

nl| [

.1.

1,,*

-$S:,~‘ —

*1-

§

~m7

1

'°

¤>¥ '•

P

.

1 I- =

E ¥ |<¤

¤·= |°

O °°,y

·;<¤°1

1..

·; E _,

w? 1~ ·.

°’¤1.,

»1\¤°Qyii%\(

;——

.9

wi S

.&| 5

C "=~w

»

U »?

-5 , —

B

_`.,¤|

if

1

.

0

,2 alqsulu

: 1/

\

·° ·

Q6 E EE

. i:

ga

,Q- u

··

~I1 &°

R c

_;C

|\*

¤

·-1

'U

i I

c 2

0»3

s

[ / ,--’

V <r oo \" T.

R .5

‘

.g

· E E 2 ¤

`Q

C\] "

: U ua

m ¤

O`) (D 6;

O 9. E SA

~ = E

L Q. _ E § M- 5 3 g EA Eg

5 g E ¤ x g

qi - = __

·•* U)

G-) ¤' N

I

g *- (D B > E = m `6 C c Q E 2

_Q< -9*.,-,.;*

*.0 ¤mE g\=:- W mm

_¤ 0 ·-m 4;.1 cn

¤—E

vgéiigu- GL: €=.2g·»%,;

“S 5'*E`§¤Z-*5T·a¤··*o¤$=¤¤·E

O2 ME z·¤§¤%¤%

.9 "¤

az w' wg';

un 9

Q- `: ¤>

og

·-—

1-•

__ _

I

SE Eu

q;

Z pg Q . qu .- E

_: q; _

D. D C/J

·- >·

U? ..E

wo ¤z

E

0·- ¤’ __

03 L') U, ¤ 0 o

¤ C, E : : qs m m cu Q us ·-

1: Q E N

1

LL U- ¤- -¤ ¤_ o ¤> 3 g* E 15 E m 3 J9 5 m ¤ r:

`»

I- Q LL. ; E ·- E Z- m G! ¤_

u > ¤· Q.

E

.

Z > O — ¤ 0

ru ‘· G un

=

.

·

G ¤ cz S 2 S, ¤ ¤

_

_

K

. ' Q

I I

w ;

=

`

-/·;».——.e

I

.

.;:1

/;:»~— .· »§

• y 9 @

' .¢’ \,

~ I

V

.

Q

_ 4;:-·¤..

‘*

°*

>_

*1.

§ 2. =·

eu g 2*

E

A

. .2 ,.

; ;N

`J

O

\T*·¤m•>s¤¤ F<¤a¤ }·l01m;;

S. M J;

·¤

>

.

.2 .

¤» g ¤ ·

QL g

‘¥

“ I 0

g

· j ___

m

M-· .

1: wl

- uc m m

* ·=

2

1

° * <

¢¤ .. m

mY an ;

u. ·¤

.-

-

‘ -¤

¤

"’ ¥

ml i

0 N * m

x, ... 3

G

y \ 2

a

,5; .:

E >» <

gg .E O m C

\_ Q-

· ‘ ——

Ir

D` _ 4

s. (1)

= M9 %-W-~ ·‘ ~{, . .

"··• ‘: °

°` r¤

n.

‘° •— ¤

2**6:

"‘ —¤ M E 2

· ¥ E5.

5 mf

°‘ M D 2

O E *27 $2

`

·

F" F ‘ S E

Ì

•»

-. =

0 \%

|i

gl

..

¤· "> —‘

E.; .· Z .

=6 _, ,

I>

QJ

`5|

ig

2- ._ ,

- |» _,__r_ __, »

5 2

V

. ·§__ §£

C ' s‘ Q 1

*2 g-

¤_ x ep"

2 . .-

.g gz

.

"2U

M a

•| ` ·¤ E — ’.-·

rg %

»

`T

Q `

Y. F *0*

’°-Q JE'? -5 _ $ .

5

:~~~

»~ `6\S &·:w..;R....

’~*~v·F¤¤s¤·»°%°§—'f¤’¤w€°.;._A

—~ §,

SE W —. ·`" """"

.. .

‘ 42,., cu

“&· “·°' @~% ~

*·°° “ ·"" 5* *==’!$“;.

` 5;. -

· I

”~·¤6¤¤"*·=·~—-E

~= 5 ¤

2

¤|— ki _; __

. szmaggeaven

. fw .5

v• E-

•§ nm 8

- ._

Q,

gg‘

__ ‘W5 ti

to

·

(7;

’··-

g·~·

···»~· ._·~—-——!·; Ji:¤ V,

».

A A I ga

Qlrlgsg

3

rg PNP

.v

"‘ e

— z }

-~-,.._.,.

•;;.. _ _

;, 3

x

N,

MhSuez:\Luu1h

*‘

’j

~ {5gv¤¤i•{; sL•£5§(;j

{ §

3 _;

`; g

` · :§

v.

.

.` 1

L ¤L 5_

Is

J E4

€"*·ai: i

3 E;

gi bz; Ei

\

E ;

£¤ ¤z_

x ¤: ‘;` uz

·.

.2 ga

gu

¤ "gfé .. § ii

E @,1

E. E-

E ‘ 4. •··

' ~- __ z,

2

v ;} zi ,;

.

¤_ 0 2 .

2 ·.

'-*· ¤

\éT· I

¢..;s.v>.!;¤,,m=¤¤¢· *"1 i

¢| é’ 1

’

’ ` ’

__ v ·

.:.;- ..,..__ _

.

I

,;

~A¤¤¤»a¤Aw,,,;, ·"

•’

. E m .·¤

* {

i

È

s a 5 ;¤. —· .. 1 .

2 1 .¢

·

E 2 E .E ig

" T" 3 ¤

sj

. ru _

'

,

::'

'

IT E ';

··

§*

i ¥| *‘

gx

.6 .¤ sx

id ‘§

¤ §¥,

:

q,

az:

___

g gr-

; . m zz

6.

¤. z` ;\

—·

a

<z<

g` ·

I

`%”°‘“

`

·

.2. ........

‘\q

I

—

J. )

g {

Wcl5andp¤r1 Road

ùnvhz

.,7

‘;

` B .

§ Q

1-=‘ ·\

I

Q) g lz

,* ¤..,H g g

-.

‘•—• és|,

< J

`“ •·»

` -

' ‘: A

}

-:’

“!

= Y| G

‘| ‘ —~ Q

Q!

FDQDH

ky

O g

gf

»*

*2

3

\.

gl| gf

! 12

J TK.

'

$5

q,

J z

~,

E L _

=

g '

.¢'

2.* 1

rl "‘·\

`

E;

z '

` 9 * J ;

‘°

=

_ |'

-_

S,} xm

<

. _, ·

~ .. ·

w -0

.`

0 x '

ii‘

¤¤ ·

y ..

.5

w,

¤

= •- {

u

_:

if

I

S

g' |' _ F

‘

E

¤> , |' 5

.'

I` NE| E

X ui;-

` 2*

Q

c'.£iiam·‘§·‘—<·,f.

2

{Y

—-

Q`}

2aE

LV

*

:E

·

E

»

S

PW 92-2014 September 2, 2014

Appendix 4

Cost Estimates for Implementation of Long-term Inter-municipal Transit Concept Plan

In order to undertake a preliminary assessment of the potential inter-municipal transit connections that were outlined at the June 19th Committee of the Whole session, Dillon Consulting Limited was retained to develop at a high level:

• lnter-municipal transit demand forecasts • Preliminary routes, service levels and phasing • Capital and operating costs, as well as ridership & revenue forecast

The assumptions and forecasts developed will require further refinement based on the results of the public consultation process, additional consultation with local

municipalities, and results measured through future service delivery.

Tables 1 & 2 in this appendix present key forecasted statistics from the report prepared by Dillon Consulting including service hours, ridership, operating & capital cost, as well as projected revenue. Both a high and a low growth scenario analysis were undertaken, resulting in a range of potential service levels and financial impacts.1

Based on the Dillon Consulting report, a preliminary financial impact analysis was undertaken by staff to account for additional considerations such as inflation, Provincial gas tax, and capital financing strategy. The results of this analysis are summarized in tables 3 & 4. The analysis indicates that the annual operating budget impact for inter- municipal transit could increase over the 10—year forecast period by $3,123,000 to $3,919,000, resulting a net budget requirement of $5,284,000 to $6,080,000 by 2024. This translates to an estimated cost per household of $21.14 to $24.32 in 2024, compared to the 2014 cost of $9.75 per house.

The above figures reflect numerous assumptions related to service levels, program delivery, ridership, cost, and phasing. Further, criteria would need to be developed that ensures fair and equitable funding allocations across communities and to determine the amount contributed by Niagara Region. As such, the estimates will continue to require validation and vetting in consultation with the local municipalities, service providers and the public. Any resulting impact on the budget requirement will be updated as part of the budget process if identified in advance of budget approval, or presented to Council with a proposed funding/service plan adjustment if identified during the year

1 A full version of the Dillon report is available electronically in the Council Reference Library or upon request to the CIerk’s Office.

1

<*>

2 cvS

“° El

°‘?

E2

<1·

" N_

<r

oo

" EE

{B 3

"`

of " §»

°"*

fl'

cc

"`

¤-

0

r~

‘;

OO Q

·

$

N. 2

~

“

1.

O`!

`_ __

1-

3

W {I

"§

·-

·<F

u.

°"

>~

r~

Q

2 2

.

-k

-

\··

`C

O`)

(Q_

1-

O

¤ '=

" B" »

E8

%

% (U

(0

d`

1.

DE

r~

"E

ga

2 3

Q 8

E¤

-5

cf

U,

:

"' Q *‘_

§

0

.5

‘°

co

V on

0O

`“

2 §

82

t/J

*-0

O

m'E

c Q

¤>_

g

0 B

N _

co

G,

O 3

<r

Ng

·¤‘

5 .

N

2 2

E

Z

cf)

l'\

-5

Q $3

¤0 0

.9

s.

¥‘ __

O ‘_

yo;

2 2,

2 $.1:

2 .0

2

L *¤-

...

N

E “

N ‘°

N 2

E,

‘“

|'F Q

2

|CD [`_

gg

E

LO

"° g

N ¤¥

2 2

3

N

N (sr)

x-§

*5

" F3

O

2

E gf

S g

.9

cu

co c6

0 co

-C

Q.

C Q:

\—

;

52 :.

N

no

en

oo

<rS

2 2

2

ni

·~_

8

2

OO IS

OO '-

3

E

`-

"’

uu

0

<*’>

E 8

N` g

cd LQ

g

.1:

N 2 N

2

E

1-

C`!

LO

2 |U,

E

¤>.Q

·-

0

ww-•-·

Q.

¤:$0-¤¤>~;,g`-;,\

cx

IEQ-O

00.>0'·¤—

on

`,69(DOg`5_-•-·O£-g OSONQ ‘£wuJ ·|¢

no

Q cc QW

8 6 u Q Q

cn `.

-

LQ

1*

°° 0 co O co

N,

0

{B *· L6

°° 3

no Lf)

1*

‘° 0 co O no

2~ » ‘-8 §

u·> ua

__.

"°

1;

°° 0 cz.

N 3 3 (Lg

E2

r~ · -

¤>

`

-1:

LO Ei LD

.9

*0

§

L cc

cn O

2

: 07 O

O (D O

U N L6 _

LO O C

tl) no O,

un _; 0_ O

·¤ W

<’> E

g

Q

E " 0

W OO _:

LO ,`." ..

hl N V"

W W ~

N ‘¤

N ·~

W W E

I

*5

-

I

O no

TQ

Q °°

0 >.

*· 2 ·=¤`

O $3 @3

3 W `-‘

cu

co

E? ‘°

R

u. O

g.

|N co 3 0 OU

m

|F N (q

C (|_)

O O') (5 -

qg O *-

•. C`. (0

`_ (U

C`] (\|

.C

Q,

.9

3

ii

O 0 ° *5 Ln

W

- W O ,.

O c

¤> gi —

r~ '·° .9

C") cr, V

V -6

N cuc

on

S

0 LD

u

Q r~ ‘° ; 0 :·:

C\I co O,

co

cq G

\“'

T b

0 O W O N Og

LQ.

(uq

- LQ

`C

N OO N

9,

"0 8*

GJ |O)

M

30: LE.; cv

°‘

>E¤°·’FJ""g`_€>a9\··°° "'·¤-G

yx

·-¤-0ON ¤.w0Oo ”ImO0@w§£%¤¤¤~¤ V Oggjenl-'-'

N0 Em 55.

ui" F

§<‘··>

N. NN <r

; Ld"

*·

dw °°

c5

%* .2

$2 Q

"'

I

N

"°~'\ g

cn

5

.: gw

*5

:3

" N 6

Be

no

N

"‘

`°

83 A

$8.

-9

T5

q;

Y;

{N N

gm

:

Q

N O

mg

< 3

`6<>

N

‘¤E

LO

A

*5

c

gg

ns

-|

c>>O‘D

0

¤_

0

U;

E a-

.,,

N 2

.25

- cu

ooO A

¤.:

-§

E

¤>..“2

gm.-

E5

= E

@|_¤\—©

3

V <r*¤

<1-

<n¤>

N 3

—(\| Lf)

(/).C

L?

°°

=¤

VN **5

‘°E

·|··'

O

x-

5)-..

0

NLCA

2-

<¤

"' —·~

§¤>`-Q

EE

ns

Q-

W r~°°©

c'-

._

_

{Q LO

(UE

E

§ gg

Q"-O

QE

<¤

D'

6

c0¤ 0

gm

q .§

0·;“l

¤~

(pg

5 LI:

§·

tg

§°§c>

<r

"'

¤_

¤¤

3,.9

2%

" no

‘°`< £

H6

tv

gm A

¤·

`Gm

.¤-

0,,-

30*-Q

Fg

'

mmm

'0

u

`y?(O¤ W

>

°'

-'·O gp

(N "'

*1

A

,.llJ

1.

,_OOLO'

2C

N Oi

1:-

T

sg

2 ..

·•·*'

·¤C·

¤ *8

G.

`g

2;

an

·-

ua

‘-

gm

.95

·¤ ¢¤

Dv-:

::90

rim" E0

W.:

Mao wa <@

u>..mE¤>¢nOv>

gg

ME

¤_

L.¤J>s:

<¤

W

¢_>

gg

O.

O

8::

gc?

[K

I-(D 0

0

-"’

gd) (53 gg U-> °' 9

cn

"

60

0

06

co

(Y

[x

O

<·“

gm

°°

m0

ci

<é

U

N

CD

0 ¤>

'¤

*·"

Em

E

68;;

cd

D

#$2*-

N

.:

*2

¤

wi} FZ

¤6°0

·

|

OQ

>. s.

UTNCO

|2 LO

i"°<>S

0

QO

LHGB

(D

|N ¤>

cx?

0

:s

0

‘“0

as

O,

V who

§‘

|r~

4

—

@0

OO

F,

"0

|0 gg

<"ON

|N 0<¤

qq

Lg

LI.

W5;

Ii

r~ gn

(Yflf)

fi

A

.:

fi

-

‘F

¤¤

U5

cu

{N.-

.-

Q-

** `-

NLD *-0

._

mg?

A

W

V no

I

E

N

uu

*6

E

°’¤°.‘P.

¤>

Eagceg

mm

mg Q3

Sw"?

wgém Q2

89¤§E;,S

v5 2;

3%

"“’ Q

om

E

0I

Lake

Ont

ario

Lake

Erie

Hig

hway

20

Fly

Roa

d

Tw

enty

Mile

Ro

ad

Kin

g S

tree

t

Can

boro

ugh

Roa

d

Reg

iona

l Roa

d 27

Victoria Avenue

Mountain Road

Smithville

Road

M

o

untain Road

Hig

hway

20

Bis

mar

k R

oad

Caistorville Road

Web

ber

Roa

d

St.

Pau

l Str

eet

Wes

t

Eig

hth

Ave

nue

Tho

rold

Sto

ne

Roa

d

Lund

y's

Lane

Chip

paw

a C

reek

Roa

d

Fo

rks

Roa

d

Lak

esh

ore

Roa

d

Net

herb

y R

oad

Bow

en

Roa

d

Dom

inio

n R

oad

Montrose Road

Doans Ridge Road

Moyer Road Mille r Road

Sodom Road

Wilhelm Road

Lyon

s C

reek

Roa

d

Stanley Avenue

Yor

k R

oad

Niagar

a Sto

ne R

oad

Lake

shor

e R

oad

Stewart Road

Airport Road

Four Mile Creek Road

Lake

shor

e Ro

ad

Car

lton

Stre

et

Wel

land

Ave

nue

Fou

rth

Ave

nue

Merrittville HighwayGlenridge Avenue

Pelha

m R

oad

Hig

hway

20

Allanport Road

Thorold Townline RoadTayl or Road

Brid

ge S

tree

t

Bis

ma

rk R

oad

Mud

Str

eet W

est

Mai

n St r

eet W

est

Victoria Avenue

Jordan Road

Seventh Street Louth

Fifth Street Louth

Mou

ntai

n R

oad

Rice Road

Wo

odla

wn

Roa

d

Niagara Street

Sch

isle

r R

oad

Eas

t Mai

n S

tree

t

Stevensville Road

Ga

rris

on R

oad

Gilm

ore

Roa

d

Phi

pps

Str

eet

Helena StreetThompson Road

Reg

ion

al R

oad

27

P rince

Charles Drive

Wellandp ort R

oad

Wellandport Road

Victoria Avenue Regional Road 24

Hig

hway

3

Hig

hway

3

Hig

hway

3

Highway 140

West Side Road

Que

en E

liz

abet

h W

ay

Qu

een

Eliz

abe

th W

ay

Hig

hway 406

Hig

hway

58

Montrose Road

Thirty Road

Ontario Street

Grimsby RoadM

ain

Str

eet

Eas

t

Vir

gil

Do

ug

last

ow

n

Gle

nd

ale

Wel

lan

d

Nia

gar

a F

alls

Qu

een

sto

n

Th

oro

ld

Cry

stal

Bea

ch

Fo

rt E

rie

Jord

anS

tati

on

Pru

dh

om

es

Ste

ven

svill

e

Vin

elan

d

Cam

pd

en

Fo

nth

ill

Jord

an

St.

Cat

har

ines

Po

rt R

ob

inso

n

St.

Dav

id's

Th

oro

ldS

ou

th

Bea

msv

ille

Fen

wic

k

Gri

msb

y

Po

rt C

olb

orn

e

Nia

gar

a-o

n-t

he-

Lak

e("

Old

To

wn

")

Sm

ith

ville

Th

oro

ldN

ort

h

Hal

dim

and

Ham

ilton

New

Yor

k S

tate

Lege

nd

Pro

pose

d S

tops

/T

rans

fer

Poi

nts

Rou

te 5

0/55

-

Nia

gara

Fal

ls/S

t. C

atha

rines

Rou

te 6

0/65

-

Nia

gara

Fal

ls/W

ella

nd

Rou

te 7

0/75

-

St.

Cat

harin

es/W

ella

nd

Por

t Col

born

e/W

ella

nd

For

t Erie

/Nia

gara

Fal

ls

Nia

gara

-on-

the-

Lake

Lin

k

St.

Cat

harin

es/G

lend

ale

/N

iaga

ra F

alls

(40

/45)

Grim

sby

/Bea

msv

ille

/S

mith

ville

Grim

sby

- S

t. C

atha

rines

(via

Coa

ch C

anad

a)

Grim

sby

/Bea

msv

ille

/S

t. C

atha

rines

(vi

a G

O B

us)

Vin

elan

d/B

eam

svill

e

Grim

sby

/Sm

ithvi

lle

Sm

ithvi

lle/F

onth

ill

Fon

thill

/Wel

land

Wai

nfle

et/P

ort C

olbo

rne

Cry

stal

Bea

ch/D

ougl

asto

wn

Gle

ndal

e/S

t. D

avid

’s/

Que

enst

on

For

t Erie

/Cry

stal

Bea

ch/

Por

t Col

born

e

Th

oro

ld S

ou

th/F

on

thil

l(P

oten

tial

)

Fo

nth

ill/

Po

rt R

ob

ins

on

/W

ell

an

d (

Pot

enti

al)

Pro

vin

cia

l H

igh

wa

y

Re

gio

na

l R

oa

dw

ay

Ra

ilw

ay

Urb

an

Are

a

Mu

nic

ipa

l B

ou

nd

ary

Wa

terb

od

y

Ten

Yea

r In

ter-

Mu

nic

ipal

Tra

nsi

t S

ervi

ce C

on

cep

tIn

ter-

Mu

nic

ipal

Ser

vice

Mu

nic

ipal

Ser

vice

Un

ive

rsit

y/C

oll

eg

e

Sh

op

pin

g C

en

tre

Ho

sp

ita

l

Co

nc

ep

t m

ap

fo

r d

isc

us

sio

n p

urp

os

es

on

lyA

ug

us

t 1

8,

20

14



APPENDIX A2 October 20, 2014 Letter from St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation



APPENDIX A3 Station Site Development Cost Estimates



Station Site Development Cost Estimates:

Item: Grimsby Option 1

Grimsby Option 2

St. Catharines

Niagara Falls

Site Preparation and Demolition $0 $0 $150,000 $400,000

Parking, Kiss and Ride and Access $1,900,000 $4,300,000 $2,700,000 $2,100,000

Municipal Road Modifications $400,000 $250,000 $600,000 $300,000

Bus Facilities $300,000 $310,000 $400,000 $0

Bicycle Facilities $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $0

Station Building $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $0 $0

Pedestrian Tunnel, Stairs and Elevators $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,600,000

Station Platform and Mini Platform $3,300,000 $3,300,000 $950,000 $2,900,000

Electrical, ITS, Security, Fare Equipment, Wayfinding, Information Displays

$200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000

Landscaping $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $50,000

Rail Modifications $0 $0 $0 $4,400,000

Refuelling Tank $0 $0 $0 $600,000

Subtotal: $8,250,000 $10,510,000 $6,000,000 $12,150,000

Minor Items (20%) $1,650,000 $2,100,000 $1,200,000 $2,430,000

Utility Relocation $25,000 $25,000 $200,000 $50,000

Property $0 $0 $1,000,000 $0

Subtotal: $9,925,000 $12,635,000 $8,400,000 $14,630,000

Contingency (15%) $1,490,000 $1,900,000 $1,260,000 $2,190,000

Subtotal: $11,415,000 $14,535,000 $9,660,000 $16,820,000

Project Management and Engineering (20%) $1,710,000 $2,180,000 $1,450,000 $2,520,000

Total: $13,125,000 $16,715,000 $11,110,000 $19,340,000

Rounded Grand Total: $50,000,000



APPENDIX A4 Niagara Region GO Rail Expansion Study Ridership Forecasts

Niagara Region GO RailExpansion Study

Ridership Forecasts

Paradigm Transportation Solutions Ltd.22 King Street South, Suite 300

Waterloo ON N2J 1N8

Prepared for:MMM Group

March 2015

Lakeshore West GO Rail Line

Niagara Region GO Rail Expansion

Lakeshore West GO Rail Line

Niagara Region GO Rail Expansion

PROJECT SUMMARY

PROJECT NAME: ............................. NIAGARA REGION GO RAIL EXPANSION STUDY

RIDERSHIP FORECASTS CLIENT: ................................................................THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF NIAGARA

C/O MMM GROUP INC. 119 SPADINA AVENUE, SUITE 500 TORONTO, ON M5V 2L1 CLIENT PROJECT MANAGER: ......................................... SCOTT BOWERS, P. ENG., MANAGER, TRANSIT CONSULTANT: ..................................... PARADIGM TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS LIMITED 22 KING STREET SOUTH, SUITE 300 WATERLOO, ON N2J 1N8 PH: 519-896-3163 FAX: 1-885-764-7349 CONSULTANT PROJECT STAFF.....................................GENE CHARTIER, WILLIAM O’BRIEN, PETER KELLY REPORT DATE: ......................................................................31 MARCH, 2015 PROJECT NUMBER: ........................................................................... 150260

Niagara Region GO Rail Expansion Study Ridership Forecasts | March 2015 | 150260

Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited Page i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Niagara GO Rail Expansion Project is being undertaken by MMM Group to assist the Region of Niagara with development of a business case for the provision of GO Rail service along the CN Rail corridor from Hamilton to Niagara Falls. Paradigm Transportation Solutions Ltd. (Paradigm) has been retained by MMM Group to assist with the assessment of travel patterns in the study corridor and to prepare estimates of transit ridership that could be expected with future rail services. This report documents the investigations and findings carried out in the development of ridership estimates for the study.

The findings of this study are summarized as follows:

The Region of Niagara is a large geographic area east of the City of Hamilton on the south shore of Lake Ontario. It has a number of different urban areas of which the main areas are St. Catharines – Thorold (two municipalities with a contiguous urban area), Niagara Falls and Welland. The total population of the Region is almost 460,000 persons at the present time. Over the next 10 to 20 years this population is expected to grow by approximately 11.5% along with a forecast increase in employment of over 8.5%. There are two major post-secondary institutions in Niagara Region (i.e., Brock University and Niagara College) and the Region is also a major tourist destination.

The existing GO Rail Lakeshore West corridor runs west from Union Station in downtown Toronto with stations in Mississauga, Oakville, Burlington and Hamilton. The line currently terminates at the Hamilton GO Centre station in the downtown area of Hamilton. Metrolinx is currently constructing a new extension of the Lakeshore West GO corridor along the CN Rail line to the Hamilton GO North Station to be located on the CN Rail line west of James Street North. This project is an initial step in the development of GO Rail services along the CN Rail line to the east end of Hamilton (former Stoney Creek) and into the Region of Niagara.

The primary transportation corridor connecting Niagara Region to Hamilton and the Greater Toronto Area at the present time is the Queen Elizabeth Way (QEW) freeway route through Grimsby, Lincoln, St. Catharines, Niagara Falls and Fort Erie. Highway 406 also provides a freeway transportation corridor connecting the QEW and St Catharines to the southern communities of Thorold, Welland and to some extent Pelham and Port Colborne. Within the Region, local public transit services are operated in St. Catharines and Thorold, Niagara Falls, Welland and Fort Erie. There are also some inter-municipal transit services provided by the Region of Niagara. Inter-regional passenger transportation service is provided by GO Transit with the Route 12 bus service connecting Niagara Falls to the Burlington GO Station along the QEW corridor.

The existing travel demand characteristic in the study corridor is established based on the trip to work demand (i.e. Home-Based-Work or HBW) and the trip to school for post secondary students demand (Home Based School or HBSch) from 2011 Transportation Tomorrow Survey (TTS) travel data. This methodology does not include other trip purpose activity and in Niagara Region trip purposes such as tourism are likely to increase the travel demand beyond that estimated based on home based work and school travel.

In the Niagara – Hamilton – Greater Toronto Area corridor, there are currently approximately 24,000 daily person trips in each direction that are Niagara-based (i.e., have a trip origin or destination in Niagara) and travel outside the Region. The most significant component of this travel occurs between Niagara Region and Hamilton with approximately 60% of the Niagara-based trips starting or ending in Hamilton. The amount of Niagara-based travel declines further east along the corridor towards downtown Toronto.


Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited Page ii

The TTS data indicates that private automobiles are currently the dominant mode of travel in the study corridor with GO Rail trips to and from Niagara Region amounting to less than 1% of the total trips in the corridor. This is largely related to the absence of GO Rail service within Niagara Region at the present time as well as relatively long distances to the major activity areas within the Greater Toronto Area (GTA).

The daily travel demand in the study corridor is forecast to increase by 15 % to 20 % over the 20 year period from year 2011 to year 2031. By year 2031, it is estimated that over 27,000 daily HBW and HBSch trips will travel across the Niagara – Hamilton boundary in each direction, using all travel modes.

Based on the future corridor trip demand in the study area and the observed GO Rail mode share in other similar corridors, under the low estimate conditions, the potential GO Rail passenger volumes in the study corridor are forecast to be approximately 680 peak period, peak direction passenger trips by year 2021. By year 2031 it is estimated that the peak period, peak direction passenger trips would increase to about 1,190 trips and the daily both direction passenger trips would be about 1,800 trips on GO Rail. The low ridership estimates are based on the existing, business as usual conditions related to transit services. However, it is also noted that the estimated ridership levels do not include other trip purposes such as tourism travel and these activities would contribute additional ridership to a Niagara GO Rail extension.

Based on the future corridor trip demand in the study area and the existing GO Rail mode share rate in other similar corridors, under the high estimate conditions the potential GO Rail passenger volumes in the study corridor are forecast to be approximately 780 peak period, peak direction passenger trips by year 2021. By year 2031 it is estimated that the peak period, peak direction passenger trips would increase to about 1,550 trips and the daily both direction passenger trips would be about 2,290 trips on GO Rail. Achievement of the high ridership estimates would require development and full implementation of comprehensive transit supportive transportation and land use policies and practices as currently being planned by the Region of Niagara. However, it is also noted that the estimated ridership levels do not include other trip purposes such as tourism travel and these activities would contribute additional ridership to the Niagara GO Rail extension.

The estimated ridership levels for a GO Rail extension to Niagara tend to be somewhat lower than the ridership levels observed on existing GO Rail corridors west of Toronto. This is attributed to various factors including the length of time GO service has been established in these corridors, the much longer rail corridor distance between the Niagara urban areas and downtown Toronto, the more dispersed pattern of urban development in Niagara Region and the attractiveness of the QEW highway corridor connection to the GO Rail Lakeshore West line in Burlington. However, the CN Rail corridor does provide an excellent opportunity for GO Rail service to provide higher order transit service to the urban areas of Grimsby, Beamsville, St Catharines and Niagara Falls. The local and inter-municipal bus services within the Region of Niagara are well established and will support the establishment of GO Rail service to the Region.

Based on the future corridor trip demand in the study area, forecasts of the potential ridership demand at the proposed stations were developed. Based on the ridership estimates, a parking estimate for each station was determined utilizing existing and forecasted mode share data. The following estimates of passenger boarding activity and station parking demand were developed:

o By 2021 under low estimate conditions:

70 daily boardings in Niagara Falls, with a peak parking demand of about 35


Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited Page iii

vehicles for peak only service and 50 vehicles for all day service;

190 daily boardings in St. Catharines, with a peak parking demand of about 60 vehicles for peak only service and 125 vehicles for all day service; and

250 daily boardings in Grimsby, with a peak parking demand of about 190 vehicles for peak only service and 225 vehicles for all day service.

o By 2031 under low estimate conditions:

110 daily boardings in Niagara Falls, with a peak parking demand of about 55 vehicles for peak only service and 75 vehicles for all day service;



o By 2021 under high estimate conditions:




o By 2031 under high estimate conditions:




In the planning of the GO Rail station infrastructure, it is recommended that the parking provided should be at least 25% higher than the estimated peak parking demand to recognize the potential error of the estimates and to allow for less than ideal utilization of the parking spaces.


Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited

CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................... 1

1.1 OVERVIEW ..................................................................................................................1 1.2 BACKGROUND..............................................................................................................1 1.3 STUDY AREA ...............................................................................................................1

2.0 EXISTING TRAVEL DEMAND ....................................................................................... 6

2.1 AM PEAK PERIOD TRAVEL ...............................................................................................6 2.2 PM PEAK PERIOD TRAVEL................................................................................................9 2.3 DAILY TRAVEL............................................................................................................11 2.4 DEMAND SUMMARIES...................................................................................................13 2.5 GO RAIL MODE SHARE .................................................................................................15

3.0 FUTURE TRAVEL DEMAND ....................................................................................... 16

3.1 DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES ...............................................................................................16 3.2 FORECASTING METHODOLOGY ..........................................................................................17 3.3 FORECAST CORRIDOR DEMANDS.......................................................................................17

4.0 FUTURE GO RAIL DEMAND...................................................................................... 20

4.1 GO RAIL MODAL SHARE ESTIMATES ..................................................................................20 4.2 GO RAIL STATION DEMAND CHARACTERISTICS ......................................................................28 4.2.1 PROPOSED GO TRAIN STATION LOCATIONS....................................................................................................... 28 4.2.2 STATION RIDERSHIP ESTIMATES..................................................................................................................... 28 4.2.3 GO STATION ACCESS MODAL CHOICE ESTIMATES .............................................................................................. 29

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A – 2011 TTS SUMMARY OF CORRIDOR DEMAND BY MUNICIPALITY



FIGURES

FIGURE 1.1: GO RAIL EXPANSION STUDY AREA ................................................................... 3

FIGURE 1.2: TRANSPORTATION TOMORROW SURVEY STUDY AREA ............................................. 4

FIGURE 1.3: TRAVEL DEMAND STUDY CORRIDOR .................................................................. 5

FIGURE 2.1: 2011 TEMPORAL TRAVEL DEMANDS (HBW + HBSCH) ........................................ 7

FIGURE 2.2: 2011 CORRIDOR TRAVEL DEMANDS (HBW + HBSCH) ....................................... 14



FIGURE 4.1: 2021 LOW ESTIMATE OF CORRIDOR GO RAIL DEMAND ESTIMATES (HBW + HBSCH) . 24

FIGURE 4.2: 2031 LOW ESTIMATE OF CORRIDOR GO RAIL DEMAND ESTIMATES (HBW + HBSCH) . 25

FIGURE 4.3: 2021 HIGH ESTIMATE OF CORRIDOR GO RAIL DEMAND ESTIMATES (HBW + HBSCH) 26

FIGURE 4.4: 2031 HIGH ESTIMATE OF CORRIDOR GO RAIL DEMAND ESTIMATES (HBW + HBSCH) 27



TABLES

TABLE 2.1: 2011 AM PEAK PERIOD HOME BASED WORK (HBW) DEMAND .............................. 8

TABLE 2.2: 2011 AM PEAK PERIOD HOME BASED SCHOOL (HBSCH) DEMAND .......................... 8

TABLE 2.3: 2011 PM PEAK PERIOD HOME BASED WORK (HBW) DEMAND ............................ 10

TABLE 2.4: 2011 PM PEAK PERIOD HOME BASED SCHOOL (HBSCH) DEMAND ........................ 10

TABLE 2.5: 2011 DAILY HOME BASED WORK (HBW) DEMAND ........................................... 12

TABLE 2.6: 2011 DAILY HOME BASED SCHOOL (HBSCH) DEMAND ....................................... 12

TABLE 2.7: 2011 DAILY MODE SHARE (HBW + HBSCH) ................................................... 15

TABLE 3.1: POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT FORECASTS ...................................................... 16

TABLE 4.1: 2011 DAILY MODE SHARE ESTIMATES TO/FROM TORONTO................................... 21

TABLE 4.2: TTS DATA SUMMARY OF DAILY MODE SHARE OF GO TRIPS.................................... 22

TABLE 4.3: LOW ESTIMATES OF NIAGARA GO RAIL MODAL SHARE OF TOTAL TRAVEL DEMAND........ 23

TABLE 4.4: HIGH ESTIMATES OF NIAGARA GO RAIL MODAL SHARE OF TOTAL TRAVEL DEMAND ....... 23

TABLE 4.5: STATION RIDERSHIP ESTIMATES (LOW SCENARIO)................................................ 28

TABLE 4.6: STATION RIDERSHIP ESTIMATES (HIGH SCENARIO) ............................................... 29

TABLE 4.7: EXAMPLE GO STATION ARRIVAL MODE CHOICE ................................................... 29

TABLE 4.8: GO RAIL STATION DRIVE & PARK MODE SHARE ESTIMATES.................................... 30

TABLE 4.9: ESTIMATED GO RAIL STATION PARKING DEMAND (LOW RIDERSHIP SCENARIO) ............ 30

TABLE 4.10: ESTIMATED GO RAIL STATION PARKING DEMAND (HIGH RIDERSHIP SCENARIO) ......... 31


Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited Page 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Overview

The Niagara Region GO Rail Expansion Study is being undertaken by MMM Group to assist the Region of Niagara with confirmation of a business case for the provision of GO Rail service along the CN Rail corridor from Hamilton to Niagara Falls. Paradigm Transportation Solutions Ltd. (Paradigm) has been retained by MMM Group to assist with the assessment of travel patterns in the study corridor and prepare estimates of transit ridership that could be expected with the future rail services.

This report is a technical paper documenting the investigations and findings carried out by Paradigm in the development of ridership estimates for the study. These estimates will be utilized by MMM Group in the business case study of GO Rail expansion and the more detailed planning of service expansion.

1.2 Background

GO Transit currently provides commuter rail service in three corridors in the western portion of the Greater Toronto Hamilton Area (GTHA); namely the GO Rail Lakeshore West corridor ending in Hamilton (extending to Niagara Falls during summer month weekends), the Milton corridor ending in Milton and the Kitchener corridor ending in Kitchener. The Lakeshore West corridor has all day service as far west as Burlington (Aldershot Station) with peak period service to Hamilton while the Milton and Georgetown corridors only have peak service on weekdays at the present time with bus service during other time periods. Metrolinx is currently constructing a new extension of the GO Lakeshore West corridor located along the CN Rail corridor to a new Hamilton GO North Station to be opened for service in mid-2015. This new station is located on the CN Rail corridor west of James Street North, in Hamilton.

The Niagara Region is a region with several growing urban areas with a combined population of approximately 460,000 persons (expected to grow to 511,000 by 2031). The Region has considerable commuter travel to and from Hamilton and the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) and is not currently served by GO Transit rail services. There is currently a GO Transit bus service that operates between Niagara Falls and the Burlington GO Station.

Through previous consultation and study it has been determined that the preferred route for the potential GO Rail expansion would utilize the existing CN Rail line. The CN Rail line generally runs parallel to QEW between Hamilton and Grimsby, St. Catharines and Niagara Falls. This line connects to the existing GO Lakeshore West corridor at the westerly end of Hamilton Harbour. This corridor continues to Niagara Falls, crossing the Welland Canal in St Catharines.

Figure 1.1 illustrates the CN Rail corridor, relative to the surrounding cities and road infrastructure.

1.3 Study Area

For purposes of developing GO Rail ridership estimates, the commuter shed area that would potentially be serviced by an expansion of the Lakeshore West GO Rail line is assumed to consist of the Region of Niagara (i.e., the municipalities of Grimsby, Lincoln, West Lincoln, Pelham, Niagara Falls, Niagara-on-the-Lake (NOTL), St Catharines, Thorold, Welland, Wainfleet, Port Colbourne and Fort Erie). This service area is illustrated in Figure 1.1 below. The Lakeshore West GO rail corridor extends through Hamilton, Burlington, Oakville, and Mississauga and into the City of Toronto to Union Station. For travel demand analyses purposes, the primary study corridor is considered to include the Niagara Region, City of Hamilton, south Halton Region (specifically Burlington and Oakville), south Peel Region (specifically



Mississauga) and the City of Toronto.

In the study area, the cities St. Catharines, Niagara Falls and Welland comprise the major urban areas of the Region of Niagara. There are other smaller urban centers throughout the Region including Grimsby, Beamsville and Fort Erie. These urban centers within Niagara Region are separated by agricultural lands and undeveloped areas and are non-contiguous. The location of these urban areas relative to each other and relative to the potential GO Rail corridors is illustrated in Figure 1.1. The main existing transportation corridor in the Region is the QEW freeway connecting the GTA and Hamilton with the urban areas in Niagara Region as well as border crossings to the USA. Regional Road 20 also operates as a secondary corridor providing connections to Hamilton. Major inter-regional highway improvements within the study corridor are not anticipated within the next 20 years with the possible exception of implementation of some high occupancy lanes (HOV) along sections of the QEW. The CN Rail corridor passes through several urban centres such as Grimsby, Beamsville St Catharines and Niagara Falls. It would have connections to other municipalities by the major highway corridors of QEW and Highway 406.

Niagara Region is a major tourist destination in Ontario. Currently the transit travel opportunities for the Niagara Region consist of GO Transit bus service and weekend GO Rail service during the summer months. There are also tourist oriented charter bus services to Niagara Falls, wineries and casinos. Niagara Region has two post-secondary educational institutions that attract students from outside the Region. Brock University is located in St. Catharines and Niagara College is located in Welland with campuses in NOTL (Glendale) and Niagara Falls.

For the past 25 years, travel data in the Greater Golden Horseshoe area (and beyond in more recent years) have been collected every 5 years in conjunction with census years (i.e. 1986, 1991, 1996, 2001, 2006 and 2011) through the Transportation Tomorrow Survey (TTS). Figure 1.2 displays the TTS survey area. In general, travel data are collected for all trip purposes and trip modes made by all residents of the household (older than 11 years of age) for a sample 24-hour period. Sampling is undertaken in all member municipalities and generally falls in the 3 % to 6 % range. The 2011 TTS travel data is the very recent and covers the entire study area; it provides an excellent basis to establish the existing travel demand characteristics for the study corridor.

An understanding of two travel demand market segments is important when analyzing the potential for GO Transit Rail service. In particular, the journey to work demand (i.e. Home-Based-Work or HBW) and the journey to school demand (Home Based School or HBSch) are the markets with the greatest potential to attract GO Transit ridership. It is noted that HBSch trips are middle school, secondary and post-secondary trips but when considered at the inter-municipal and inter-regional level are almost entirely post-secondary school trips. The study corridor considered in assessing the travel patterns as related to the Lakeshore West GO Rail expansion to the Niagara Region includes the Niagara Region, the south part of Halton Region, south part of Peel Region and City of Toronto. Figure 1.3 displays this corridor in relation to the overall Golden Horseshoe Area.



FIGURE 1.1: GO RAIL EXPANSION STUDY AREA

GO Rail Expansion Study Area

Figure 1.1

Paradigmwww.ptsl.com

Niagara Region Go Rail Expansion StudyRidership Forecasts

Existing Lakeshore West GO Rail Line

CN Rail Corridor (proposed expansion route)



FIGURE 1.2: TRANSPORTATION TOMORROW SURVEY STUDY AREA

Transportation Tomorrow Survey Study Area

Figure 1.2





FIGURE 1.3: TRAVEL DEMAND STUDY CORRIDOR

Travel Demand Study Corridor

Figure 1.3

Toronto

St. CatharinesHamilton

Burlington

Mississauga

Existing Lakeshore West GO Rail Line

CN Rail CorridorNiagara

Falls

Oakville





2.0 EXISTING TRAVEL DEMAND

In terms of GO Rail service to the Niagara Region area, AM peak period and PM peak period demands are important to determine the level of service required to accommodate the corridor travel demand. Daily demands also provide information with respect to potential total ridership, although outside of the peak periods, HBW and HBSch trips total approximately 27% of the total daily demand in the primary study area as shown in Figure 2.1.

2.1 AM Peak Period Travel

For intercity travel demand, the AM peak period has been defined as any trip that has a start time between 6:00 AM and 9:00 AM. Table 2.1 summarizes the observed HBW demand in the study corridor for the 2011 AM peak period for all travel modes combined. Some important observations include:

there are approximately 6,025 work trips made during the morning peak period from Niagara Region to City of Hamilton and approximately 2,575 made from City of Hamilton to Niagara Region;

Burlington-Oakville attracts 3,250 work trips from Niagara Region and it generates approximately 700 work trips to Niagara Region;

Mississauga attracts 750 work trips from Niagara Region while it generates approximately 400 work trips to Niagara Region;

Toronto attracts approximately 1.050 work trips from Niagara Region while it generates approximately 450 work trips to Niagara Region; and

There is significant travel occurring within and between the communities within Niagara Region.

Table 2.2 summarizes the observed HBSch post-secondary travel demand in the study corridor for the 2011 AM peak period. Some important observations include:

most HBSch travel tends to be shorter-distance travel with a significant amount of the demand being self-contained within each community;

there are approximately 1,125 school trips made during the AM peak period from Niagara Region to City of Hamilton and approximately 375 made from City of Hamilton to Niagara Region; and

Toronto attracts approximately 75 school trips from Niagara Region during the AM peak period.



FIGURE 2.1: 2011 TEMPORAL TRAVEL DEMANDS (HBW + HBSCH)

2011 Temporal Travel Demands(Home Based Work & Home Based School)

Figure 2.1

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

AM Peak Period(6:00-9:00)

PM Peak Period(15:00-18:00)

Off-Peak Period

Home Based School

Home Based Work

Trip PurposeAM Peak Period

(6:00‐9:00)PM Peak Period (15:00‐18:00)

Off‐Peak Period Daily

1,017,016 895,769 770,880 2,683,66537.9% 33.4% 28.7% 100.0%506,748 396,538 275,717 1,179,00343.0% 33.6% 23.4% 100.0%

1,523,764 1,292,307 1,046,597 3,862,66839.4% 33.5% 27.1% 100.0%

Home Based Work

Home Based School

Total



*Volumes from study corridor as outlined in Figure 1.3



TABLE 2.1: 2011 AM PEAK PERIOD HOME BASED WORK (HBW) DEMAND

Municipality

Toro

nto

Peel

Hal

ton

Ham

ilton

Nia

gara

Tota

l

Toronto 521,136 37,462 3,893 818 451 563,760

Peel 56,039 115,713 9,163 1,068 409 182,392

Halton 20,461 17,215 36,634 7,072 706 82,088

Hamilton 4,408 4,903 18,824 71,550 2,580 102,265

Niagara 1,062 748 3,257 6,021 75,423 86,511

Total 603,106 176,041 71,771 86,529 79,569 1,017,016

TABLE 2.2: 2011 AM PEAK PERIOD HOME BASED SCHOOL (HBSCH) DEMAND

Municipality

Toro

nto

Peel

Hal

ton

Ham

ilton

Nia

gara

Tota

lToronto 283,614 1,392 334 331 0 285,671

Peel 12,009 80,082 1,625 1,324 0 95,040

Halton 1,609 942 30,208 2,079 66 34,904

Hamilton 456 112 350 50,407 373 51,698

Niagara 78 0 0 1,117 38,240 39,435

Total 297,766 82,528 32,517 55,258 38,679 506,748



2.2 PM Peak Period Travel

For intercity travel demand the PM peak period has been defined as any trip that has a start time between 3:00 PM and 6:00 PM. Table 2.3 summarizes the observed HBW demand in the study corridor for the 2011 PM peak period. Some important observations include:

there are approximately 2,365 work trips made during the afternoon commute from Niagara Region to City of Hamilton and approximately 6,050 made from City of Hamilton to Niagara Region;

Burlington-Oakville attracts 800 work trips from Niagara Region and it generates approximately 3,225 work trips to Niagara Region;

Mississauga attracts 375 work trips from Niagara Region while it generates approximately 900 work trips to Niagara Region; and

Toronto attracts approximately 250 work trips from Niagara Region while it generates approximately 1,150 work trips to Niagara Region.

Table 2.4 summarizes the observed HBSch demand in the study corridor for the 2011 PM peak period. Some important observations include:

there are approximately 375 school trips made during the PM peak period from Niagara Region to City of Hamilton and approximately 750 made from City of Hamilton to Niagara Region; and

Toronto attracts 0 school trips from Niagara Region while it generates approximately 25 school trips to Niagara Region.



TABLE 2.3: 2011 PM PEAK PERIOD HOME BASED WORK (HBW) DEMAND

Municipality

Toro

nto

Peel

Hal

ton

Ham

ilton

Nia

gara

Tota

l

Toronto 442,984 49,184 17,805 4,276 1,143 515,392

Peel 30,737 109,536 14,057 4,529 894 159,753

Halton 3,203 8,202 34,547 16,715 3,215 65,882

Hamilton 819 1,002 6,914 67,253 6,061 82,049

Niagara 245 377 806 2,365 68,900 72,693

Total 477,988 168,301 74,129 95,138 80,213 895,769

TABLE 2.4: 2011 PM PEAK PERIOD HOME BASED SCHOOL (HBSCH) DEMAND

Municipality

Toro

nto

Peel

Hal

ton

Ham

ilton

Nia

gara

Tota

lToronto 246,367 9,526 1,563 340 29 257,825

Peel 1,731 48,562 813 81 0 51,187

Halton 333 1,625 19,903 487 47 22,395

Hamilton 165 899 1,791 36,313 743 39,911

Niagara 0 0 76 378 24,766 25,220

Total 248,596 60,612 24,146 37,599 25,585 396,538



2.3 Daily Travel

Table 2.5 summarizes the observed HBW demand in the study corridor for the 2011 daily period. Some important observations include:

there are approximately 12,325 work trips made over a typical day from Niagara Region to City of Hamilton and approximately 11,500 trips made from City of Hamilton to Niagara Region;

Burlington-Oakville attracts approximately 5,375 work trips from Niagara Region and generates approximately 5,275 work trips to Niagara Region;

Mississauga attracts 1,675 work trips from Niagara Region and generates approximately 1,700 work trips to Niagara Region; and

Toronto attracts approximately 2,300 work trips from Niagara Region while it generates approximately 2,425 work trips to Niagara Region.

Table 2.6 summarizes the observed HBSch demand in the study corridor for the 2011 daily period. Some important observations include:

most HBSch travel tends to be shorter-distance travel with a significant amount to the demand being self-contained within the community;

there are approximately 2,150 school trips made during a typical weekday from Niagara Region to City of Hamilton and approximately 2,075 made from City of Hamilton to Niagara Region; and

Toronto attracts approximately 175 school trips from Niagara Region while it generates approximately 175 school trips to Niagara Region.



TABLE 2.5: 2011 DAILY HOME BASED WORK (HBW) DEMAND

Municipality

Toro

nto

Peel

Hal

ton

Ham

ilton

Nia

gara

Tota

l

Toronto 1,354,386 118,141 28,677 7,464 2,421 1,511,089

Peel 116,410 328,086 31,063 7,789 1,698 485,046

Halton 29,183 32,306 100,904 32,173 5,263 199,829

Hamilton 7,898 7,833 34,481 199,015 11,510 260,737

Niagara 2,288 1,678 5,368 12,323 205,307 226,964

Total 1,510,165 488,044 200,493 258,764 226,199 2,683,665

TABLE 2.6: 2011 DAILY HOME BASED SCHOOL (HBSCH) DEMAND

Municipality

Toro

nto

Peel

Hal

ton

Ham

ilton

Nia

gara

Tota

lToronto 676,789 19,101 2,873 1,141 169 700,073

Peel 19,312 175,039 3,678 2,055 0 200,084

Halton 2,837 3,604 62,304 3,753 141 72,639

Hamilton 1,168 2,000 3,549 111,890 2,062 120,669

Niagara 167 0 128 2,154 83,089 85,538

Total 700,273 199,744 72,532 120,993 85,461 1,179,003



2.4 Demand Summaries

The 2011 origin-destination trip tables were used to develop total corridor demand estimates in order to facilitate a ridership forecasting model. Figure 2.2 depicts the combined work and post secondary school trips for the weekday peak time periods and the full weekday daily time period for all travel modes. It should be noted that the corridor travel demand shown in this figure consists of only the trips starting or ending in Niagara Region. The following characteristics of the travel demand in this corridor are noted:

The most significant travel activity occurs between Niagara Region and City of Hamilton with approximately 13,600 to 14,500 daily trips in each direction. The travel demand between these two areas is approximately 6,800 to 7,100 trips in the peak direction during the weekday peak period with the peak being eastbound in the AM and westbound in the PM. The non-peak direction travel is much lower than the peak direction travel.

The travel demand generated by the Niagara Region to Burlington-Oakville is also significant with approximately 5,400 daily trips in each direction.

The travel demand generated by the Niagara Region tends to decrease towards Toronto, indicating that many of the inter-regional trips generated are to and from the closer areas of Hamilton and south Halton Region.



FIGURE 2.2: 2011 CORRIDOR TRAVEL DEMANDS (HBW + HBSCH)

2011 Corridor Travel Demands(Home Based Work & Home Based School)

Figure 2.2

AM Peak Period(6:00 AM to 9:00 AM)

PM Peak Period(3:00 PM to 6:00 PM)

Daily Demand

Nia

gara

Reg

ion

Ham

ilton

Toro

nto

Bur

lingt

on &

Oak

ville

Mis

siss

auga

1,888 1,140

4,585 1,632 860 451

12,283 5,145

Nia

gara

Reg

ion

Ham

ilton

Toro

nto

Bur

lingt

on &

Oak

ville

Mis

siss

auga

622 245

12,132 5,328 2,066 1,172

4,247 1,504

Nia

gara

Reg

ion

Ham

ilton

Toro

nto

Bur

lingt

on &

Oak

ville

Mis

siss

auga

4,133 2,455

23,264 9,692 4,288 2,590

24,106 9,629





2.5 GO Rail Mode Share

The 2011 TTS data includes data on the various modes of travel used, including GO Rail. While there is no GO Rail service to Niagara Region, commuter trips to and from these areas may use the Lakeshore West GO Rail corridors by travelling to Hamilton or Burlington stations and completing the trip on the GO Rail service. It is noted that for trips to/from Niagara to other (non-Toronto) locations along the travel corridor (e.g. Burlington, Oakville, and Mississauga) are not discussed because the TTS data showed that no trips were occurring between these pairs. This is likely attributed to both the relative ease to access these areas by vehicle and the lack of existing easy-to-use GO transit routes.

Table 2.7 below summarizes the observed HBW and HBSch GO Rail demand in the primary study corridor (specifically trips between the Niagara-Toronto origin – destination pair) for the 2011 daily period for trips, originating from or having their destination in Niagara. This data indicates that the GO Rail ridership to and from Niagara Region is occurring, with individuals utilizing other modes to transport to access a GO station (e.g., GO bus, park and ride, kiss and ride) and completing their trip to/from Toronto. The motivation for individuals to utilize GO can be assumed to be the large traffic volumes and delays along the QEW and Highway 403 corridors during peak hours. This data indicates that the current use of GO Rail for trips to and from Niagara Region amounts to approximately 17% of the total trips in the corridor. It is noted however, that since the TTS data is based on a relatively small sample size, the reliability of small numbers such as the number of GO Rail trips is limited. However, the data clearly indicates that there are individuals currently utilizing GO Transit to travel to Toronto.

TABLE 2.7: 2011 DAILY MODE SHARE (HBW + HBSCH)

DirectionTrips (All

Modes)Trips

(GO Rail)GO Mode

ShareTrips (All

Modes)Trips

(GO Rail)GO Mode

Share

Trips (All

Modes)

Trips (GO Rail)

GO Mode Share

Toronto Bound

2,289 417 18% 167 0 0% 2,456 417 17%

Niagara Bound

2,423 472 19% 170 0 0% 2,593 472 18%

Total (HBW + HBSch)Home Based Work Home Based School

It is noted that GO Transit operates an all day two way bus service connecting Niagara Falls, St Catharines, Grimsby and Stoney Creek to the Burlington GO Station. Some observations of the ridership on this route have been undertaken during this investigation to confirm the nature and general magnitude of the existing ridership to and from Niagara Region connecting to the existing Burlington GO Station on the Lakeshore West corridor.



3.0 FUTURE TRAVEL DEMAND

The 2011 TTS data has been used in conjunction with the available forecasts of future population and employment to develop estimates of the future travel demand in the study corridor. These estimates are discussed below.

3.1 Demographic Changes

Forecasts of future population and employment for the study regions were collected from different municipalities where available, utilizing the most recent accepted values. The population and employment forecasts within the Niagara Region have been provided by the Regional Municipality of Niagara. It is noted that the Region of Niagara is currently conducting a major review of the growth forecasts for the Region and the estimates used in this study may be updated in the near future. The growth forecasts for the study corridor are shown in Table 3.1.

TABLE 3.1: POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT FORECASTS

2011 2021 2031 2011 2021 2031Toronto 2,855.0 2,915.0 3,000.0 1,615.6 1,719.5 1,835.1

Mississauga 742.7 784.7 829.1 471.6 494.5 501.6Oakville 174.8 221.8 246.4 91.0 120.8 128.4

Burlington 173.8 178.8 186.2 95.7 102.8 105.3Hamilton 535.0 611.5 678.0 230.0 270.0 300.0Grimsby 26.9 29.0 30.6 8.6 8.9 9.3Lincoln 23.8 26.4 28.6 10.7 11.1 11.7Pelham 18.2 21.2 22.4 4.5 4.8 5.1

Niagara-O-T-L 16.8 19.2 20.7 11.4 11.9 12.7St Catharines 137.6 137.5 137.9 66.6 67.8 68.7

Thorold 19.2 22.0 24.1 8.4 8.9 9.5Niagara Falls 88.2 93.0 100.3 44.4 45.9 47.7

Welland 53.1 56.3 61.5 21.2 22.2 23.7Port Colbourne 19.4 20.9 20.9 7.1 7.4 7.8

Fort Erie 32.9 36.1 38.9 12.6 13.9 15.0West Lincoln 15.1 16.6 17.0 4.1 4.8 5.3

Wainfleet 7.0 7.6 8.2 1.5 1.6 1.6

* The population and employment estimate are in 1000's

Region/MunicipailityPopulation Employment

The data sources for the population and employment forecasts are as follows:

Toronto – “Flashforward: Projecting Population and Employment to 2031 in a Mature Urban Area”, City of Toronto Urban Development Services, June 2003.

Mississauga – Population – “Population, Demographics & Housing”, City of Mississauga, Sept. 2014 – Employment – “Mississauga Growth Forecasts – Employment Growth”, City of Mississauga, Planning and Building Department, Jan. 2006.

Oakville/Burlington – “Best Planning Estimates of Population, Occupied Dwelling Units and Employment, 2011-2031”, Regional Municipality of Halton, June 2011.

Hamilton – “Places to Grow – Growth Plan”, Ministry of Infrastructure of Ontario, 2006



Niagara Region – “Regional Official Plan”, Niagara Region, August 2014

These forecasts indicate steady rates of population and employment growth over the 20 year forecast period. Halton Region and Peel Region are projected to experience significant population and employment growth. It is noted that the population of Niagara Region is expected to increase by about 11.5% while employment is expected to increase by about 8.5% between year 2011 and year 2031. With this growth pattern, the Region expects an increase in the level of out-commuting during this time period.

3.2 Forecasting Methodology

Since there is non-linear growth in the study area and differential rates of increase, it is important to develop a forecasting methodology that gives consideration to these different levels of population and employment growth. Therefore, in order to determine the future transportation demand, the principles of the conventional gravity model were applied, utilizing existing data and population and employment forecasts. The model assumed that the observed population growth between horizon years would directly correspond with trips originating within a municipality. As well, it was assumed that existing destination distributions from each origin would remain relatively similar, with a factor applied to represent the varied employment growth within each municipality. Therefore a municipality with more employment growth would receive a larger proportion of the new trips generated, compared to a municipality with less employment growth. The travel demand estimates were adjusted to maintain consistency with the overall population growth within each municipality for each horizon year.

3.3 Forecast Corridor Demands

Using the gravity model approach described above in combination with the population and employment forecasts, estimates of the travel demand for each trip origin – destination interchange were prepared. These data were then reduced to the corridor-type forecasts that were utilized in the existing corridor demand estimates. Figure 3.1 and Figure 3.2 summarize these travel forecasts for years 2021 and 2031.

The forecasts indicate that in the 20 year forecasting period to year 2031, the overall study corridor travel demand will increase by approximately 16%. The population and employment in the Niagara Region is expected to increase by approximately 11.5% and 8.5% respectively, within the 20 year horizon; however, the growth in population and employment in the other regions within the corridor is expected to increase the level of inter-regional travel activity. In particular, the travel demand between City of Hamilton and Niagara Region is expected to increase significantly. This is anticipated with the projected increased growth in population and employment rate in these two areas. The City of Hamilton, Halton Region and Peel Region are expected to add nearly 310,000 new jobs by 2031. Therefore, the corridor between Niagara Region and these areas is expected to attract more commuters. The travel demand forecasts recognizes these new opportunities and indicate a significant increase in travel demand in the study corridor west of Toronto to the Niagara Region area.





Figure 3.1



Daily Demand

Nia

gara

Reg

ion

Ham

ilton

Toro

nto

Bur

lingt

on &

Oak

ville

Mis

siss

auga

2,012 1,211

5,079 1,745 891 460

13,223 5,522

Nia

gara

Reg

ion

Ham

ilton

Toro

nto

Bur

lingt

on &

Oak

ville

Mis

siss

auga

655 249

13,380 5,690 2,139 1,196

4,544 1,595

Nia

gara

Reg

ion

Ham

ilton

Toro

nto

Bur

lingt

on &

Oak

ville

Mis

siss

auga

4,378 2,598

25,686 10,354 4,434 2,643

25,867 10,279







Figure 3.2



Daily Demand

Nia

gara

Reg

ion

Ham

ilton

Toro

nto

Bur

lingt

on &

Oak

ville

Mis

siss

auga

2,106 1,267

5,469 1,834 927 472

13,951 5,791

Nia

gara

Reg

ion

Ham

ilton

Toro

nto

Bur

lingt

on &

Oak

ville

Mis

siss

auga

682 254

14,376 5,983 2,226 1,229

4,816 1,673

Nia

gara

Reg

ion

Ham

ilton

Toro

nto

Bur

lingt

on &

Oak

ville

Mis

siss

auga

4,576 2,714

27,613 10,884 4,606 2,715

27,300 10,783





4.0 FUTURE GO RAIL DEMAND

This section of the report provides estimates of the potential demand for an expansion of the Lakeshore West GO Rail service to Niagara Region. The estimates are based on the forecasts of overall travel demand in the study corridor as well as consideration of the observed existing GO Rail ridership levels in other established GO Rail corridors.

4.1 GO Rail Modal Share Estimates

The GO Rail ridership for this study has been estimated as a portion of the total corridor demand utilizing observed GO Rail modal share data from other existing corridors. Currently, there are three GO Train corridors serving the areas west of City of Toronto. These GO Train corridors are as follows:

Kitchener GO Train Line provides services between Kitchener, Guelph, Georgetown and Toronto Union Station with GO Train stations in Brampton, Malton and in northwest area of Toronto. It currently offers weekday peak period train services with all day GO Transit bus services connecting to Brampton, Bramalea and the York Mills Subway in Toronto.

Milton GO Train Line provides services between Milton and Toronto Union Station with GO Train Stations in Mississauga and the west area of Toronto. This line offers weekday peak period train services with all day GO Transit bus services to Toronto Union Station with connections to some intermediate GO Stations.

Lakeshore West Line is a well established GO Rail corridor. It provides rail service to Hamilton, Burlington, Oakville, and south Mississauga into Toronto with connecting GO Transit bus and local transit services at all stations. This line currently has peak period services only between Hamilton and Toronto Union. This line has all day weekday and weekend GO Train services between Toronto Union Station and Burlington (Aldershot Station) with train-meet buses connecting west to the Hamilton GO Centre.

It is noted that the GO Rail extension to Guelph and Kitchener (i.e., west of Georgetown) as well as the GO Rail service to Barrie are situations that would be most similar to the Region of Niagara service. However, these services were not fully established at the time of the 2011 TTS survey so mode share data for these two services has not been utilized in this study.

The GO Rail modal shares in these three established corridors are shown in Table 4.1 below. These estimates are based on the 2011 TTS data.



TABLE 4.1: 2011 DAILY MODE SHARE ESTIMATES TO/FROM TORONTO

AM PM Daily AM PM Daily AM PM Daily

Hamilton to Toronto 2,483 837 5,451 1,201 102 1,568 48% 12% 29%

Toronto to Hamilton 1,064 2,466 5,393 139 902 1,392 13% 37% 26%

Burlington to Toronto 6,731 971 9,668 3,947 21 4,391 59% 2% 45%

Toronto to Burlington 1,104 6,146 9,421 81 3,626 4,406 7% 59% 47%

Mississauga to Toronto 68,048 32,470 135,723 18,021 277 19,656 26% 1% 14%

Toronto to Mississauga 38,853 58,709 137,242 99 15,110 18,850 0% 26% 14%

Milton to Toronto 4,151 878 6,759 1,976 0 2,124 48% 0% 31%

Toronto to Milton 820 4,125 6,717 0 1,945 2,144 0% 47% 32%

Halton Hills to Toronto 2,191 361 3,639 825 0 892 38% 0% 25%

Toronto to Halton Hills 456 2,097 3,310 0 705 816 0% 34% 25%

Brampton to Toronto 34,698 8,342 60,183 6,920 28 7,502 20% 0% 12%

Toronto to Brampton 8,551 30,683 59,680 0 5,775 7,228 0% 19% 12%

Go Rail Mode Share

HB Work & HB SchoolRoute HB Work & HB School

Total Trips Go Rail Trips

HB Work & HB School

These data indicate that in the Halton Hills and Milton urban areas that only have weekday peak GO Train service, the GO Train modal share of total trips is approximately 38% to 48% of the total weekday AM peak period trips to and from Toronto and approximately 25% to 32% of the total weekday daily trips to and from Toronto. However, these modal choice levels are for all trips generated in the respective outlying areas, with the majority of the trips to and from downtown Toronto.

If only the trips generated to and from other suburban destinations along the corridor are considered, the GO Rail mode share is lower, in the range of 0% to 4.5% of all trips. If this experience is applied to the Niagara Region corridor, it would indicate that the GO Rail mode share for trips to and from intermediate locations (i.e., Hamilton, Burlington-Oakville and Mississauga) will likely be lower, perhaps in the range of approximately 1-5% of the total trips in the corridor while the GO Rail mode share of trips to and from downtown Toronto would be much higher at 20% to 30% of the total trips. Further, it would be reasonable to expect a higher GO Rail mode share of trips to and from Hamilton as compared to the other suburban areas since Hamilton has a well established local transit service, more concentrated activity in the downtown area and major post-secondary educational institutions. Table 4.2 displays the mode share of daily trips between the different municipalities.

The data for the Burlington urban area provides an indication of the potential GO Rail modal share with an all day services. This urban area has a strong commuter tie to downtown Toronto and the GO Rail service has been in place for several decades. The GO Rail mode share of 59% during the weekday peak periods and 45% during the weekday daily time periods reflect GO Rail ridership levels built up over several decades of service and also reflect the relatively short commute distance between Burlington and downtown Toronto. It is unlikely that this level of ridership could be developed for the Niagara Region corridor within the forecast horizon of just over 20 years.

The modal share estimates also recognize that transit use is dependent on the relative ease of local accessibility to the GO Rail facilities. The 2011 data indicates that transit use to Toronto is greater than to other areas. Toronto has high level of local transit service and it is relatively easy to get to and from different locations by public transit. Also the GO rail terminal at Union Station is within walking distance of many downtown activity centres. Therefore a higher level of modal choice is expected for this area. For all scenarios, higher estimates of the modal share for potential GO Rail extensions are expected and were



utilized for the longer term (i.e., year 2031).

TABLE 4.2: TTS DATA SUMMARY OF DAILY MODE SHARE OF GO TRIPS

Municipality Toronto Brampton Mississauga Halton Hills Milton Burlington HamiltonToronto 1.0% 12.1% 13.7% 24.7% 31.9% 46.8% 25.8%

Brampton 12.5% 0.0% 0.1% 1.7% 0.0% 1.3% 0.0%Mississauga 14.5% 0.1% 0.0% 0.4% 0.5% 0.7% 2.3%Halton Hills 24.5% 0.5% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

MIlton 31.4% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%Burlington 45.4% 1.3% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 1.0%Hamilton 28.8% 0.0% 2.8% 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0%

The results of the observed 2011 GO Rail modal shares outlined above combined with the previous forecasts of total travel demand were used as a basis to estimate the potential GO Rail ridership in the study corridor. Two scenarios have been considered in developing the future ridership estimates for the GO Rail service to Niagara Region, as discussed below.

Low estimates of ridership have been developed for a “status quo” or “business as usual” scenario. Under these estimates, it is assumed that all day, two way GO Rail service would be provided along the CN Rail corridor from the Hamilton North GO Station to Niagara Falls. The ridership would be primarily dependant on automobile access to the stations with no major improvements in the current local transit services in the communities.

The ridership levels in the high scenario are related to a commitment to strong transit supportive policies implemented over the planning period for the study. Currently, Niagara Regional Council has approved strategic priorities in the area of transportation that will establish long term transit supportive policies and practices in support of fostering an environment for economic prosperity. These priorities include initiatives that have or will commence this year and include the following:

1. Transportation Master Plan for the Region

a. Establishing the overall multi-modal transportation strategy at the Regional level, and

b. Partnering with each local municipality in the update of their respective Transportation Master Plans in order to achieve alignment with the Regional Transportation Master Plan.

2. Inter-municipal transit implementation/expansion which will provide enhanced mobility across all 12 area municipalities and serve as feeder service to GO hubs

3. Regional Official Plan Municipal Comprehensive Review

a. Establishing the revised growth projections to the year 2041 based on transit supportive policies, and

b. Supporting local municipal Official Plan updates to ensure alignment with the Regional Official Plan,

4. Mobility Hub Study which will establish the secondary plan and supporting transit amenities for the various mobility hubs in Niagara.



With the full implementation of these various initiatives across the planning horizon, the conditions to achieve forecast ridership levels on the higher end of the ridership envelop are there. Most of these improvements are assumed to be introduced prior to 2021 and fully implemented well before 2031.

The high ridership scenario utilizes the methodology that estimates the GO Rail ridership based on a share of the traditional commuter travel market of work and school trips. This approach does not fully recognize that Niagara Region is an important tourist destination and efforts to encourage tourism travel by transit should contribute to increased ridership on the GO Rail service. Tourism travel is more likely to occur outside the weekday peak time periods and therefore the estimates of daily GO Rail ridership may not fully reflect the potential tourism trips that would be attracted to an all day GO Rail service to Niagara Region.

Table 4.3 displays the GO Rail mode shares that were utilized in order to forecast ridership demand for the low estimate scenario while Table 4.4 displays the mode shares that were estimated for the high estimate scenario. It is noted that the high scenario represents a 15% increase of mode share for the 2021 horizon, and a 30% increase of mode share for the 2031 horizon.

TABLE 4.3: LOW ESTIMATES OF NIAGARA GO RAIL MODAL SHARE OF TOTAL TRAVEL DEMAND

OD Pair with Niagara

Peak Hour "Main"

Direction

Peak Hour "Off"

DirectionDaily

Peak Hour "Main"

Direction

Peak Hour "Off"

DirectionDaily

Hamilton 2.5% 2.0% 1.75% 1.0% 0.8% 0.7%Burlington and Oakville 1.0% 0.8% 0.75% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2%Mississauga 1.0% 0.8% 0.75% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2%Toronto 12.5% 10.0% 9.0% 7.5% 6.0% 5.0%Hamilton 4.0% 3.2% 2.8% 1.0% 0.8% 0.7%Burlington and Oakville 2.0% 1.6% 1.5% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2%Mississauga 2.0% 1.6% 1.5% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2%Toronto 25.0% 20.0% 18.0% 7.5% 6.0% 5.0%

"Urban" Niagara Niagara Outlying

20

21

20

31

TABLE 4.4: HIGH ESTIMATES OF NIAGARA GO RAIL MODAL SHARE OF TOTAL TRAVEL DEMAND

OD Pair with Niagara

Peak Hour "Main"

Direction

Peak Hour "Off"

DirectionDaily

Peak Hour "Main"

Direction

Peak Hour "Off"

DirectionDaily

Hamilton 2.9% 2.3% 2.0% 1.2% 0.9% 0.7%Burlington and Oakville 1.2% 0.9% 0.9% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2%Mississauga 1.2% 0.9% 0.9% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2%Toronto 14.4% 11.5% 10.4% 8.6% 6.9% 5.8%Hamilton 5.2% 4.2% 3.6% 1.3% 1.0% 0.8%Burlington and Oakville 2.6% 2.1% 2.0% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2%Mississauga 2.6% 2.1% 2.0% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2%Toronto 32.5% 26.0% 23.4% 9.8% 7.8% 6.5%

20

21

20

31H

IGH

"Urban" Niagara Niagara Outlying

Using the above suggested GO Rail modal share estimates and the estimated future corridor trip demand from previous section, estimates of the peak period and daily GO ridership in the corridor have been developed for horizon years 2021 and 2031. Figures 4.1 and Figure 4.2 illustrate the corridor ridership estimates for the low or business as usual scenario while Figures 4.3 and Figure 4.4 illustrate the corridor ridership for the high or transit supportive scenario.



FIGURE 4.1: 2021 LOW ESTIMATE OF CORRIDOR GO RAIL DEMAND ESTIMATES (HBW +

HBSCH)

2021 Low Estimate of Corridor Potential Ridership(Home Based Work & Home Based School)

Figure 4.1



Daily Demand

Nia

gara

Reg

ion

Ham

ilton

Toro

nto

Bur

lingt

on &

Oak

ville

Mis

siss

auga

150 140

120 60 50 50

340 180

Nia

gara

Reg

ion

Ham

ilton

Toro

nto

Bur

lingt

on &

Oak

ville

Mis

siss

auga

30 30

340 170 140 130

90 40

Nia

gara

Reg

ion

Ham

ilton

Toro

nto

Bur

lingt

on &

Oak

ville

Mis

siss

auga

220 210

500 270 230 220

490 260





FIGURE 4.2: 2031 LOW ESTIMATE OF CORRIDOR GO RAIL DEMAND ESTIMATES (HBW + HBSCH)

2031 Low Estimate of Corridor Potential Ridership(Home Based Work & Home Based School)

Figure 4.2



Daily Demand

Nia

gara

Reg

ion

Ham

ilton

Toro

nto

Bur

lingt

on &

Oak

ville

Mis

siss

auga

270 260

220 110 100 100

600 330

Nia

gara

Reg

ion

Ham

ilton

Toro

nto

Bur

lingt

on &

Oak

ville

Mis

siss

auga

60 60

590 320 260 240

160 70

Nia

gara

Reg

ion

Ham

ilton

Toro

nto

Bur

lingt

on &

Oak

ville

Mis

siss

auga

430 400

900 510 430 410

880 500





FIGURE 4.3: 2021 HIGH ESTIMATE OF CORRIDOR GO RAIL DEMAND ESTIMATES (HBW + HBSCH)

2021 High Estimate of Corridor Potential Ridership(Home Based Work & Home Based School)

Figure 4.3



Daily Demand

Nia

gara

Reg

ion

Ham

ilton

Toro

nto

Bur

lingt

on &

Oak

ville

Mis

siss

auga

170 160

140 70 60 60

390 200

Nia

gara

Reg

ion

Ham

ilton

Toro

nto

Bur

lingt

on &

Oak

ville

Mis

siss

auga

40 30

390 200 160 150

100 40

Nia

gara

Reg

ion

Ham

ilton

Toro

nto

Bur

lingt

on &

Oak

ville

Mis

siss

auga

260 240

570 310 260 250

570 300





FIGURE 4.4: 2031 HIGH ESTIMATE OF CORRIDOR GO RAIL DEMAND ESTIMATES (HBW + HBSCH)

2031 High Estimate of Corridor Potential Ridership(Home Based Work & Home Based School)

Figure 4.4



Daily Demand

Nia

gara

Reg

ion

Ham

ilton

Toro

nto

Bur

lingt

on &

Oak

ville

Mis

siss

auga

350 340

280 150 130 120

780 430

Nia

gara

Reg

ion

Ham

ilton

Toro

nto

Bur

lingt

on &

Oak

ville

Mis

siss

auga

80 70

770 410 330 310

210 90

Nia

gara

Reg

ion

Ham

ilton

Toro

nto

Bur

lingt

on &

Oak

ville

Mis

siss

auga

550 520

1160 660 560 530

1130 650





4.2 GO Rail Station Demand Characteristics

4.2.1 Proposed GO Train Station Locations

The planned new GO Train stations are described as follows:

Niagara Falls Station: This station would be located at or near the existing VIA Rail Station on Bridge Street in the City of Niagara Falls. This location is well served by local transit services, with an adjacent bus terminal and it is also well served by the arterial road network with convenient connections to the Provincial highway network.

St Catharines West Station. This station would be located at or near the site of the existing VIA Rail station on the west side of St Catharines. Road access would be from St Paul Street West (Niagara Region Road 81) and local bus service would be available on St Catharines Transit routes 3 and 15.

Grimsby Station. This station would be located adjacent to Casablanca Boulevard and near the existing GO Transit bus terminal. The location has excellent accessibility to and from the QEW freeway via the Casablanca interchange.

This GO Train corridor will also have a station at James Street North in the City of Hamilton which will open for service in 2015. There may also be stations near Centennial Parkway and/or near Fifty Road in the City of Hamilton. However, the development plans and timing of these latter stations is unknown at this time.

4.2.2 Station Ridership Estimates

The 2021 and 2031 AM peak and daily low scenario ridership estimates for the planned Niagara GO Train stations are shown in Table 4.5 below. These estimated ridership levels are taken from the ridership estimates for the corridor as previously outlined in this report. The forecast 2021 and 2031 ridership estimates were broken down by origin municipalities that are expected to utilize each of the three stations with adjustments to reflect the higher attractiveness of the Grimsby GO Station due to the ease of vehicular access to and from the QEW. The ridership estimates for each station corresponding to the high ridership estimates are shown in Table 4.6 below. It should be noted that the numbers in these tables have been rounded in all cases to the nearest 10s and this should be recognized in the interpretation of the numbers. For example, while the estimated daily ridership should exceed the sum of the AM and PM peak periods, the rounded numbers may not properly reflect this. It is also noted that the daily ridership estimates are based on only home based work and school trips. Other trip purposes, such as tourism travel, are likely to increase the daily ridership above the estimates provided herein.

TABLE 4.5: STATION RIDERSHIP ESTIMATES (LOW SCENARIO)

AM Peak Period

PM Peak Period

DailyAM Peak Period

PM Peak Period

Daily

Niagara Falls 50 20 70 80 30 110

St. Catharines 100 50 190 180 80 340

Grimsby 200 40 250 350 60 440

Total 340 90 490 600 160 880

2031 Passenger Boarding EstimatesPlanned Go

Station

2021 Passenger Boarding Estimates



TABLE 4.6: STATION RIDERSHIP ESTIMATES (HIGH SCENARIO)

AM Peak Period

PM Peak Period

DailyAM Peak Period

PM Peak Period

Daily

Niagara Falls 50 20 80 100 30 140

St. Catharines 120 50 220 230 100 440

Grimsby 230 40 280 460 80 570

Total 390 100 570 780 210 1,130

2021 Passenger Boarding Estimates 2031 Passenger Boarding EstimatesPlanned Go

Station

The foregoing ridership estimates reflect estimates of how the GO Rail ridership from Niagara Region may distribute among the available GO stations.

4.2.3 GO Station Access Modal Choice Estimates

The arrival mode choice at existing GO Rail stations varies considerably between different stations, depending on the facilities and services available at each station and the nature of the urban area adjacent to the station. Table 4.7 below provides some examples of the arrival modal choice levels for different existing GO Rail Stations on the Lakeshore West Corridor in 2013. Some of these stations serve as terminal stations for auto drivers from a large catchment area (i.e., Aldershot GO, Bronte GO) while other stations such as Hamilton GO Centre have no parking facilities but do have a high level of local transit service and are within walking distance of a major downtown area.

TABLE 4.7: EXAMPLE GO STATION ARRIVAL MODE CHOICE

Travel Mode to Station

Hamilton GO Centre

Aldershot GO

Bronte GO

Oakville GO

Port Credit GO

Drive & Park 6% 67% 72% 63% 52%

Walk 34% 2% 1% 4% 25%

Dropped Off (Kiss and Ride)

20% 13% 15% 13% 11%

Local Transit 34% 3% 8% 15% 9%

Other 6% 15% 4% 5% 3%

In reviewing the planned GO Stations in Niagara Region, the following considerations have been considered in determining the expected drive and park station access mode share:

Niagara Falls Station: This station has a high level of local transit service and is also within walking distance of some employment and commercial areas of Niagara Falls. However, it is also expected to attract some drive and park customers from the south end of the City of Niagara Falls as well as outlying communities such as Fort Erie. The parking demand at this station is expected to be similar to the Oakville or Port Credit GO stations.



St Catharines West Station. This station is within the urban area of St Catharines with some surrounding residential development. It is located about 1.5 kilometres from downtown St Catharines so there is some walking potential. This station is near Highway 406 so traffic from the south area of Niagara Region has reasonable vehicular access. The parking demand at this station is expected to be similar to the Oakville or Port Credit GO stations.

Grimsby Station. This station has a very convenient access to the QEW. It is adjacent to some urban development within walking distance. It does not currently have local transit service. The parking demand at this station is expected to be higher than the Aldershot and Bronte GO stations.

Using the foregoing examples, estimates of the potential drive and park mode share at each of the potential GO Stations along the CN Rail corridor in Niagara Region have been developed as shown in Table 4.8 below. These estimates are expected to be most applicable to the low ridership scenario, as shown in Table 4.5.

TABLE 4.8: GO RAIL STATION DRIVE & PARK MODE SHARE ESTIMATES

Based on the foregoing, estimates of the peak parking demand for peak period only GO service and for all day GO service are provided in Table 4.9 below. The actual parking supply should be at least 25% greater than the estimated demand to provide some spare capacity. It is also noted that the daily parking demand estimates are based on only home based work and school trips. Other trip purposes, such as tourism travel, could increase the daily parking demand above the estimates provided herein.

TABLE 4.9: ESTIMATED GO RAIL STATION PARKING DEMAND (LOW RIDERSHIP SCENARIO)

Planned GO Rail StationPeak Service

OnlyAll Day Service

Peak Service Only

All Day Service

Niagara Falls 35 50 55 75

St Catharines West 60 125 115 215

Grimsby 190 225 315 400

2021 Peak Parking Demand (vehicles)


Note: The planned parking supply should be at least 25% greater than the estimated demand to recognize the potential error of the estimates and to allow for less than ideal utilization of the parking spaces.

With the high ridership scenario, it is expected that a significant share of the increased ridership, in

Planned GO Rail Station

Drive & Park Mode Share

Niagara Falls GO 65%

St Catharines West GO 65%

Grimsby GO 90%



relation to the low ridership estimate, will connect to the GO stations by local and inter-municipal transit services as well as by walking, cycling and car-pooling. Therefore the demand for parking is not expected to increase to the same extent that the ridership increases, in comparison to the low ridership scenario. An estimate of the GO Rail station parking demand with the high ridership scenario is provided in Table 4.10 below.

TABLE 4.10: ESTIMATED GO RAIL STATION PARKING DEMAND (HIGH RIDERSHIP SCENARIO)

Planned GO Rail StationPeak Service

OnlyAll Day Service

Peak Service Only

All Day Service

Niagara Falls 40 55 65 85

St Catharines West 70 140 130 240

Grimsby 210 250 350 440



Note: The planned parking supply should be at least 25% greater than the estimated demand to recognize the potential error of the estimates and to allow for less than ideal utilization of the parking spaces.

Appendix A

2011 TTS Summary

Corridor Demand by Municipality

Hom

e Ba

sed

Wor

k –

AM T

rips

M

unic

ipal

ity

Toronto CBD

Toronto North

Toronto South

Mississauga South

Mississauga North

Oakville

Burlington

Flamborough

Dundas

Ancaster

Glanbrook

Stoney Creek

Hamilton

Grimsby

Lincoln

Pelham

Niagara-O-T-L

St Catharines

Thorold

Niagara Falls

Welland

Port Colbourne

Fort Erie

West Lincoln

Wainfleet

Total

Toro

nto

CB

D45

408

5356

1547

810

2222

0456

213

40

00

023

177

011

00

00

00

00

00

7037

5

Toro

nto

Nor

th37

265

4708

141

981

2029

7507

482

212

00

00

096

00

00

920

00

00

00

1367

45

Toro

nto

Sout

h13

6697

5002

814

1842

7763

1693

718

1069

30

050

012

460

220

00

228

083

150

00

035

6640

Mis

siss

auga

Sou

th12

439

4648

1197

819

001

2067

540

4912

030

1928

048

422

00

050

115

2236

00

00

074

733

Mis

siss

auga

Nor

th11

794

7101

8079

1115

564

882

2812

1099

590

6113

041

80

00

091

2075

00

00

010

7659

Oak

ville

9700

1407

3040

4846

6124

1181

729

4037

011

230

226

842

4138

041

5418

870

00

00

4140

0

Bur

lingt

on42

5567

713

8227

4135

0469

5114

926

479

9619

113

041

845

1153

180

6119

60

2023

023

330

4068

8

Flam

boro

ugh

495

103

5437

170

391

421

8316

0113

822

997

122

1745

800

00

470

470

00

00

8929

Dun

das

118

1998

7913

519

475

028

264

215

70

118

2259

00

00

00

490

00

00

4900

Anc

aste

r28

276

9624

936

037

185

818

751

946

6326

131

1010

30

00

4752

240

00

00

7136

Gla

nbro

ok55

1648

7139

192

673

140

7710

127

541

022

5629

2013

046

1713

320

130

045

36

Ston

ey C

reek

415

9020

720

053

370

825

2694

8632

920

223

1960

2821

515

00

013

622

135

480

2149

014

513

Ham

ilton

1290

361

585

841

1322

2111

7344

1325

1032

2784

887

3803

3739

424

026

00

3126

263

177

190

012

00

6225

1

Gri

msb

y19

760

5111

610

335

110

4982

3456

2261

212

2710

2634

917

7746

477

9943

034

170

063

16

Linc

oln

2542

059

4211

531

40

077

022

158

054

215

8159

4274

789

144

270

5788

048

51

Pelh

am0

230

055

3823

00

00

3218

8751

409

181

1189

203

358

1070

194

108

015

4054

Nia

gara

-O-T

-L22

030

015

1522

00

00

7538

2812

029

849

1060

6658

312

90

3022

031

33

St C

atha

rine

s16

375

9710

437

120

418

2524

250

305

680

419

1297

297

1624

1533

314

0821

0699

517

324

828

4526

046

Thor

old

310

00

025

510

037

019

5025

119

4215

816

5175

057

215

282

4725

038

36

Nia

gara

Fal

ls20

025

5173

7189

00

00

206

275

204

258

130

544

3132

523

9164

756

119

425

032

1609

7

Wel

land

019

1926

1164

540

270

1391

162

4524

757

920

616

5129

380

042

1772

014

472

6595

25

Port

Col

bour

ne19

00

00

047

00

00

00

047

114

3144

466

202

393

1367

233

1954

3036

Fort

Eri

e29

500

00

00

00

00

00

290

2912

943

393

713

156

432

3026

00

5119

Wes

t Li

ncol

n37

016

056

9130

00

2551

031

660

432

320

456

3726

442

4049

00

871

033

82

Wai

nfle

et12

00

00

00

00

00

012

2315

5164

7110

854

264

960

7926

711

16

Tota

l26

0768

1172

3222

5106

5072

412

5317

3386

337

908

4311

2251

5234

1732

9637

6336

435

3447

8518

2541

2527

753

3932

1558

183

8831

8344

0915

7647

810

1701

6

Hom

e Ba

sed

Wor

k –

PM T

rips

M

unic

ipal

ity

Toronto CBD

Toronto North

Toronto South

Mississauga South

Mississauga North

Oakville

Burlington

Flamborough

Dundas

Ancaster

Glanbrook

Stoney Creek

Hamilton

Grimsby

Lincoln

Pelham

Niagara-O-T-L

St Catharines

Thorold

Niagara Falls

Welland

Port Colbourne

Fort Erie

West Lincoln

Wainfleet

Total

Toro

nto

CB

D35

764

3042

410

7090

1064

198

8581

6536

5841

611

831

159

386

1235

202

00

6022

80

00

029

370

2087

08

Toro

nto

Nor

th47

8544

316

4392

546

6163

3899

465

578

1914

029

6742

917

2523

2950

00

1921

500

010

6670

Toro

nto

Sout

h16

242

3532

812

5110

1016

974

9028

5514

7833

9824

1621

060

851

4632

1786

5825

380

00

020

0014

Mis

siss

auga

Sou

th10

0818

4763

2017

593

1061

040

9321

1120

859

189

4222

696

094

170

016

70

6626

00

1615

4566

7

Mis

siss

auga

Nor

th13

6263

4113

859

1883

762

496

4805

3048

646

7332

956

551

1190

137

4255

1542

2573

490

055

011

4086

Oak

ville

434

445

1386

3323

2784

1190

857

9879

821

432

323

991

120

2738

512

338

083

2590

640

1680

031

494

Bur

lingt

on11

719

462

712

0888

729

0813

933

1596

507

629

542

2023

6906

965

356

7822

383

5813

838

470

226

034

388

Flam

boro

ugh

020

019

1956

594

1547

183

171

141

9212

4060

00

025

00

00

00

041

67

Dun

das

00

019

019

9915

670

748

5367

896

340

00

240

2027

00

250

2194

Anc

aste

r0

015

088

132

189

166

179

899

125

283

2640

5652

00

2511

00

00

520

4912

Gla

nbro

ok0

00

2818

2913

834

072

205

354

960

220

00

00

00

00

00

1860

Ston

ey C

reek

2320

3536

2223

140

513

099

256

338

2164

3941

631

319

6144

271

021

191

00

295

096

23

Ham

ilton

164

112

430

273

480

781

4241

1638

1829

2752

2046

5278

3556

497

259

146

6881

419

335

9074

065

244

5929

3

Gri

msb

y22

022

1718

7810

560

075

2922

619

794

140

978

2842

525

122

710

2122

40

3193

Linc

oln

00

00

2264

520

00

1710

522

136

013

4974

011

8663

183

191

470

151

040

85

Pelh

am0

00

00

00

00

013

00

1713

430

329

268

6018

150

517

629

3136

1782

Nia

gara

-O-T

-L0

00

500

2561

00

00

2223

5542

135

952

1281

157

425

240

3171

1332

3615

St C

atha

rine

s36

2412

367

4312

112

623

062

1389

323

392

481

1114

882

1364

314

9731

0716

0336

550

719

771

2490

9

Thor

old

00

039

450

00

023

1748

5956

4619

130

1333

624

469

233

2918

051

7635

49

Nia

gara

Fal

ls0

018

5719

1739

1649

2413

132

116

7718

017

750

417

8557

291

0372

811

973

216

5414

547

Wel

land

00

00

027

350

00

3223

1922

081

388

866

178

733

3937

568

111

4916

676

67

Port

Col

bour

ne0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

217

016

810

215

069

113

3638

70

9131

42

Fort

Eri

e0

00

00

023

00

00

048

1728

6138

230

5144

318

215

427

200

039

95

Wes

t Li

ncol

n0

00

00

033

00

00

122

9415

970

3828

1925

072

190

836

6415

79

Wai

nfle

et0

00

00

00

00

00

032

017

550

300

6473

730

028

663

0

Tota

l59

957

1190

7129

8960

6703

710

1264

3730

836

821

7545

4134

6327

4025

1337

959

728

5722

4327

3589

2834

2343

235

5015

938

8968

3059

4853

3006

935

8957

69

Hom

e Ba

sed

Wor

k –

Daily

Tri

ps

Mun

icip

ality

Toronto CBD

Toronto North

Toronto South

Mississauga South

Mississauga North

Oakville

Burlington

Flamborough

Dundas

Ancaster

Glanbrook

Stoney Creek

Hamilton

Grimsby

Lincoln

Pelham

Niagara-O-T-L

St Catharines

Thorold

Niagara Falls

Welland

Port Colbourne

Fort Erie

West Lincoln

Wainfleet

Total

Toro

nto

CB

D11

7494

4888

417

8525

1543

315

629

1146

947

8551

313

839

510

954

919

1229

135

075

333

500

00

2937

1239

6697

Toro

nto

Nor

th50

263

1367

5211

9609

8867

1999

122

5513

0713

338

140

4887

750

5525

2361

186

035

1921

500

034

0715

Toro

nto

Sout

h18

7973

1210

8039

3806

2532

432

897

6173

2688

8314

117

016

332

1910

180

6364

7144

258

109

810

016

077

3677

Mis

siss

auga

Sou

th15

609

8675

2517

057

021

4472

010

858

4175

336

138

331

7133

118

8811

142

050

327

3917

426

00

1615

1701

23

Mis

siss

auga

Nor

th15

799

1951

831

639

4333

318

3012

1062

454

0691

413

149

414

975

322

5317

742

5531

245

4517

360

00

5515

3149

23

Oak

ville

1166

624

6459

9111

011

1132

834

621

1215

111

1131

653

331

513

6339

9554

724

438

5428

843

252

640

1610

732

9855

0

Bur

lingt

on50

0313

2327

3645

7853

8912

425

4170

728

1286

911

4986

432

5115

595

1366

416

101

106

758

5823

088

7823

354

010

1279

Flam

boro

ugh

610

193

124

412

1020

1296

3456

4471

557

485

271

339

3763

238

00

011

40

470

290

160

1744

1

Dun

das

157

3816

115

417

533

010

1559

218

9637

753

229

4157

340

00

670

6927

00

250

9556

Anc

aste

r38

111

520

735

147

264

614

1445

935

329

7138

770

777

4020

152

00

8789

240

00

520

1670

8

Gla

nbro

ok10

616

6111

513

637

399

022

497

362

881

972

4701

7262

130

7617

1332

013

160

9348

Ston

ey C

reek

594

132

376

258

641

1361

3721

317

186

774

912

6550

1344

712

8252

661

6650

667

416

140

021

481

032

835

Ham

ilton

1869

755

2003

1745

2354

4189

1569

037

2638

6977

0643

8513

151

1069

4816

4211

1546

130

1484

145

580

208

7451

940

4417

4849

Gri

msb

y29

177

176

207

178

573

1352

197

3419

272

1351

1874

2960

1152

127

137

1075

103

277

136

089

541

3713

208

Linc

oln

2570

4659

6522

449

20

077

1751

211

9810

5843

3625

415

624

5126

339

330

247

5738

80

1249

0

Pelh

am0

2387

055

3855

00

013

9310

212

718

691

124

818

3733

965

519

6939

316

685

9874

80

Nia

gara

-O-T

-L38

6153

5016

4183

00

00

9714

311

425

820

324

9032

1530

515

1954

131

152

6064

9534

St C

atha

rine

s32

713

541

234

215

040

767

910

824

112

5950

515

3110

4324

4817

2731

9943

215

4053

7155

3367

839

984

313

189

7332

3

Thor

old

500

3239

4543

760

089

1767

153

8124

641

228

341

9016

5513

6252

313

626

776

7699

18

Nia

gara

Fal

ls20

1884

149

181

227

245

1649

2432

519

560

327

462

572

1509

6939

1390

2777

521

1549

216

3416

119

4547

4

Wel

land

019

8126

3011

712

80

270

4514

025

315

733

818

1249

934

3454

320

8712

228

1675

347

137

467

2459

0

Port

Col

bour

ne19

00

00

078

290

00

093

047

393

3177

719

948

016

3539

2186

119

171

8753

Fort

Eri

e29

500

00

023

020

00

078

106

2810

523

892

025

017

7138

582

683

630

1513

207

Wes

t Li

ncol

n37

016

1655

9136

434

4077

3658

895

062

140

794

8834

292

4012

219

3224

5764

6682

Wai

nfle

et12

00

015

320

00

00

076

3744

106

6415

712

316

349

420

00

7970

323

05

Tota

l40

8372

3403

9876

1395

1694

9031

8554

9841

310

2080

1607

589

2316

458

8752

3248

617

6070

1282

712

574

7117

9586

7346

599

2645

799

2456

287

8113

155

6286

2121

2683

665

Hom

e Ba

sed

Scho

ol –

AM

Tri

ps

Mun

icip

ality

Toronto CBD

Toronto North

Toronto South

Mississauga South

Mississauga North

Oakville

Burlington

Flamborough

Dundas

Ancaster

Glanbrook

Stoney Creek

Hamilton

Grimsby

Lincoln

Pelham

Niagara-O-T-L

St Catharines

Thorold

Niagara Falls

Welland

Port Colbourne

Fort Erie

West Lincoln

Wainfleet

Total

Toro

nto

CB

D11

143

1534

5652

730

220

00

00

062

00

00

00

00

00

00

1848

6

Toro

nto

Nor

th10

332

6271

518

006

287

6551

330

00

00

130

00

00

00

00

00

00

9161

9

Toro

nto

Sout

h27

145

1574

413

1343

800

167

194

340

00

00

139

00

00

00

00

00

00

1755

66

Mis

siss

auga

Sou

th18

9718

4519

0827

366

2798

739

490

00

00

651

00

00

00

00

00

00

3725

3

Mis

siss

auga

Nor

th24

9226

0512

6267

2243

196

752

8520

00

027

626

00

00

00

00

00

00

5778

7

Oak

ville

534

252

406

622

199

1778

023

20

00

00

553

00

00

00

00

00

00

2057

8

Bur

lingt

on15

110

116

596

2558

611

610

200

00

100

1406

00

00

350

031

00

00

1432

6

Flam

boro

ugh

00

00

034

027

1539

122

30

014

130

00

00

00

00

00

047

76

Dun

das

490

00

00

017

1058

190

076

20

00

00

00

00

00

019

05

Anc

aste

r56

280

026

00

00

2290

00

1476

00

028

00

00

00

00

3904

Gla

nbro

ok0

00

00

170

00

149

289

379

476

00

00

00

00

00

120

1322

Ston

ey C

reek

260

510

052

00

2222

2238

9222

5344

00

012

70

00

00

00

6511

Ham

ilton

144

4656

860

2322

424

2439

222

1159

3091

80

00

014

00

022

00

00

3328

0

Gri

msb

y0

00

00

00

230

00

8627

515

0215

90

8644

00

220

065

022

62

Linc

oln

00

00

00

00

00

00

220

479

1073

028

430

00

570

085

023

72

Pelh

am0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

724

7749

00

391

00

630

1304

Nia

gara

-O-T

-L0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

047

355

20

105

290

00

011

59

St C

atha

rine

s0

00

00

00

00

00

5314

30

680

242

1013

419

336

976

00

440

1188

9

Thor

old

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

039

3185

964

510

021

70

031

019

22

Nia

gara

Fal

ls25

240

00

00

00

00

025

00

3015

528

124

6072

563

024

00

7223

Wel

land

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

032

5726

80

5140

9426

00

045

28

Port

Col

bour

ne29

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

570

017

712

420

00

1505

Fort

Eri

e0

00

00

00

00

00

029

580

032

150

084

297

352

1853

00

2855

Wes

t Li

ncol

n0

00

00

00

00

00

4818

346

490

210

260

078

00

749

2116

80

Wai

nfle

et0

00

00

00

00

00

320

00

320

032

00

9612

80

012

873

6

Tota

l54

023

8489

415

8849

3605

246

476

2025

012

267

2819

1495

3095

333

5776

4174

025

4713

9011

6612

0913

184

862

6448

7050

1748

1877

1049

149

5067

48

Hom

e Ba

sed

Scho

ol –

PM

Tri

ps

Mun

icip

ality

Toronto CBD

Toronto North

Toronto South

Mississauga South

Mississauga North

Oakville

Burlington

Flamborough

Dundas

Ancaster

Glanbrook

Stoney Creek

Hamilton

Grimsby

Lincoln

Pelham

Niagara-O-T-L

St Catharines

Thorold

Niagara Falls

Welland

Port Colbourne

Fort Erie

West Lincoln

Wainfleet

Total

Toro

nto

CB

D10

616

7769

2297

717

0318

1254

257

049

280

072

00

00

00

00

290

00

4565

4

Toro

nto

Nor

th14

8757

127

1220

314

5822

1125

213

10

028

170

490

00

00

00

00

00

074

963

Toro

nto

Sout

h66

5315

063

1124

7213

7596

741

416

70

00

025

720

00

00

00

00

00

013

7208

Mis

siss

auga

Sou

th15

139

957

716

016

5034

708

660

00

00

290

00

00

00

00

00

022

980

Mis

siss

auga

Nor

th22

015

423

012

9526

217

390

00

00

052

00

00

00

00

00

00

2820

7

Oak

ville

136

6010

470

278

912

681

377

690

280

5297

170

00

300

00

00

00

1514

2

Bur

lingt

on0

330

4985

153

6692

00

00

3320

80

00

00

00

00

00

072

53

Flam

boro

ugh

034

00

200

2015

110

00

00

230

00

00

00

00

00

1608

Dun

das

00

00

00

031

168

70

022

00

00

00

00

00

00

010

20

Anc

aste

r0

00

00

00

114

1916

8777

2241

90

00

00

00

00

00

023

38

Gla

nbro

ok0

00

00

00

00

019

30

400

00

00

00

00

00

023

3

Ston

ey C

reek

00

00

270

330

00

169

2296

595

660

00

270

00

00

210

3234

Ham

ilton

064

6739

645

643

513

0385

139

211

3726

213

1324

196

185

185

00

900

510

00

950

3147

8

Gri

msb

y0

00

00

00

00

00

220

1122

163

00

00

00

00

193

015

00

Linc

oln

00

00

00

00

00

00

013

792

30

068

00

00

090

012

18

Pelh

am0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

346

00

7030

260

021

160

653

Nia

gara

-O-T

-L0

00

00

00

00

280

00

650

7745

524

331

027

2932

240

1011

St C

atha

rine

s0

00

00

1728

00

00

102

5523

305

2641

766

9258

234

019

129

960

089

03

Thor

old

00

00

00

00

00

00

630

00

041

553

050

00

00

707

Nia

gara

Fal

ls0

00

00

00

00

00

045

00

062

7939

3281

510

840

036

41

Wel

land

00

00

00

310

00

00

5122

2816

419

773

9241

225

5817

729

110

532

4755

Port

Col

bour

ne0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

026

484

105

064

679

Fort

Eri

e0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

320

240

011

580

012

14

Wes

t Li

ncol

n0

00

00

00

00

012

00

6585

630

031

026

00

561

084

3

Wai

nfle

et0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

096

96

Tota

l19

263

8070

314

8630

2299

437

618

1524

189

0528

5611

4729

3673

038

8726

043

1725

1689

676

953

8075

1398

4138

2955

748

1766

1110

352

3965

38

Hom

e Ba

sed

Scho

ol –

Dai

ly T

rips

Mun

icip

ality

Toronto CBD

Toronto North

Toronto South

Mississauga South

Mississauga North

Oakville

Burlington

Flamborough

Dundas

Ancaster

Glanbrook

Stoney Creek

Hamilton

Grimsby

Lincoln

Pelham

Niagara-O-T-L

St Catharines

Thorold

Niagara Falls

Welland

Port Colbourne

Fort Erie

West Lincoln

Wainfleet

Total

Toro

nto

CB

D34

269

1746

947

873

3276

3691

1045

208

3449

820

2627

70

00

00

025

029

00

010

8353

Toro

nto

Nor

th18

167

1414

9743

149

3062

3890

373

199

3424

2817

017

90

00

034

024

280

00

021

0705

Toro

nto

Sout

h49

774

4304

728

1544

3376

1806

814

234

00

00

2536

60

00

029

00

00

00

038

1015

Mis

siss

auga

Sou

th32

4931

6634

1759

319

1173

721

0520

60

00

00

993

00

00

00

00

00

00

8419

2

Mis

siss

auga

Nor

th36

2938

9719

5412

120

9186

312

2813

920

00

027

1015

00

00

00

00

00

00

1158

92

Oak

ville

1027

406

799

2022

1237

3688

087

569

028

052

939

170

00

300

00

00

00

4438

1

Bur

lingt

on17

423

219

920

613

996

423

585

200

00

167

2478

00

00

630

031

00

00

2825

8

Flam

boro

ugh

3434

00

2069

2054

7043

722

30

3415

6923

00

00

00

00

00

079

33

Dun

das

4924

00

00

041

020

4119

022

965

00

00

00

00

00

00

3530

Anc

aste

r82

280

026

280

167

1945

5215

522

2473

00

028

00

00

00

00

7580

Gla

nbro

ok0

170

00

170

00

149

567

379

568

00

00

00

00

00

120

1709

Ston

ey C

reek

260

510

2752

167

3422

2240

176

9338

8211

00

00

357

00

250

048

3212

949

Ham

ilton

215

237

371

964

963

930

2266

1480

932

2370

527

3986

7030

041

621

30

031

263

9610

90

2918

90

8696

8

Gri

msb

y0

00

00

170

230

00

108

400

2914

638

086

880

022

00

481

047

77

Linc

oln

00

00

00

00

00

00

277

616

2060

057

554

00

850

017

60

3825

Pelh

am0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

1448

7749

100

3041

70

084

352

2557

Nia

gara

-O-T

-L0

00

00

00

00

280

00

8628

7792

810

8131

260

104

2932

240

2708

St C

atha

rine

s0

3429

00

1763

00

280

382

310

8853

749

1021

2230

312

7063

317

5786

193

7032

2890

2

Thor

old

00

00

00

00

00

00

630

039

6312

7713

5412

426

70

031

032

18

Nia

gara

Fal

ls25

240

00

00

00

00

070

00

3026

061

312

412

482

842

010

80

014

578

Wel

land

260

00

00

310

00

025

8122

8542

410

315

5626

879

088

4923

135

513

196

1307

3

Port

Col

bour

ne29

00

00

00

00

00

029

00

057

860

023

124

2332

00

128

3303

Fort

Eri

e0

00

00

00

00

00

029

580

032

214

010

838

835

236

540

048

35

Wes

t Li

ncol

n0

00

00

00

00

012

4820

952

917

684

052

310

131

00

1520

2128

13

Wai

nfle

et0

00

00

00

00

00

320

00

320

032

00

160

128

021

256

949

Tota

l11

0775

2101

1237

9386

8434

511

5399

4453

927

993

7761

3524

7529

1679

1302

887

472

4879

3737

2471

2712

2873

032

4114

572

1344

632

7846

9127

8791

711

7900

3

APPENDIX B — ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLANS (CIPS)

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLANS (CIPS) Other Municipalities

In addition to the municipalities directly on the proposed GO Rail line, a review of development incentives was undertaken for the other municipalities in the Region. By developing a critical mass of population and work, targeted development incentives for a specific area, even outside of the municipalities on the proposed GO line, would warrant developing future mobility hubs, which could be linked through public transit to the proposed GO Rail stations, creating an interconnected transit network.

Lincoln

The municipality of Lincoln currently has two approved CIP plans, one for the Beamsville urban area, and one for the Vineland urban area. Lincoln is the second most westerly municipality along the proposed GO Rail line, with a proposed stop in Beamsville located across Ontario St. from the Sobey’s grocery store. This plot of land falls directly within one of the districts of the Beamsville CIP plan. This CIP plan, like all CIP plans in the Region’s municipalities, is designed to encourage and develop and intensification of local businesses in the identified area, with different mixes of commercial and residential developments in each district. As well, the plan outlines key and consistent design features for the development in the defined area, with a focus on a consistent approach to the common/pedestrian areas. As well, the plan outlines incentives for façade improvements, developments that lead to intensification, elements of the planning/approval process, and developments on brown field sites. Given that the proposed stop is located within the boundary of the municipality’s CIP plan, there is good alignment and support for the GO Rail line within the municipality of Lincoln.

Fort Erie – There are currently two CIP plans active for Fort Erie. The first CIP plan focuses on the downtown core of the city. As with most CIP’s in the Region, this plan focuses on intensification and current building improvements, building upgrades and façade enhancements. The city also has a second CIP for the main core of the Ridgeway urban area. Like the downtown CIP, the Ridgeway plan focuses on revitalizing the area, with specific grants and incentives for specific types of development, including new development and redevelopment of existing properties.

Thorold – the city has a current CIP for the municipality’s downtown core. The CIP encompasses the entire downtown are of Thorold, and has a variety of tax breaks and development grant programs included to improve the over appeal of the downtown core. The goal of the CIP is to revitalize the downtown core of Thorold with new development and refresh of existing building assets.

Niagara-on-the-Lake – The city has a defined their downtown core as a heritage district, which has defined incentives for restoration and maintenance of the existing properties. The p0lan includes incentives for façade restorations and improvements in line with maintaining the heritage of the buildings.

Welland – Similar to St. Catharines, Welland’s entire urban boundary is defined under the city’s Gateway and CIP plan. As such, all parts of the city can access certain grants and tax breaks for development. As well, the Welland plan defines three priority areas within the city limits, which enjoy enhanced levels and types of grants for development revitalization activities. The three priority areas include lands zoned for industrial and commercial parks, with lots identified for development.

Pelham – There are currently two CIP areas active for Pelham under their plan. The first CIP plan focuses on the downtown core of the city. As with most CIP’s in the Region, this plan focuses on intensification and current building improvements, building upgrades and façade enhancements. The city also has a second CIP area for the Fenwick urban area. Like the downtown CIP, the Fenwick plan focuses on revitalizing the area, with specific grants and incentives for specific types of development, including new development and redevelopment of existing properties.

Port Colborne – The city has an active CIP plan for the downtown core of the city, with the bulk of the defined area along the Welland Canal. The plan includes grants for façade improvements, residential development, and also includes tax breaks for revitalization activities.

West Lincoln – The municipality has a CIP plan in place for the urban area of Smithville. The plan includes grants for façade improvements, residential development, and also includes tax breaks for revitalization activities.

Wainfleet – Currently Wainfleet does not have an active CIP plan. They do have an official plan with areas identified for specific types of development, but they do not currently have a CIP plan with tax relief and specific development grants.

APPENDIX C – ADDITIONAL REGIONAL PLANNING INITIATIVES

APPENDIX C: ADDITIONAL REGIONAL PLANNING INITIATIVES Municipal Comprehensive Review

The Region is currently undertaking a Municipal Comprehensive Review (MCR). The MCR reviews growth in Niagara and develops new growth projections (population and employment) for the region, in this case to the year 2041 as prescribed in the Provincial Growth Plan. The MCR is an important process that will inform Regional Council understand the amount of growth that is projected to come to Niagara and the types of infrastructure and urban form will be required to accommodate it. These results of the MCR (population and employment projections) will inform many upcoming studies including the Transportation Master Plan, Water/Wastewater Master Plan and other infrastructure considerations (roads, transit service, etc.). The Region’s previous Municipal Comprehensive Review was completed in 2009 under the title of Niagara 2031, and was implemented through Regional Policy Plan Amendment 2-2009.

Imagine Niagara – Official Plan Update Consultation

A supporting action linked to the MCR will be the multiple policy updates to the Regional Official Plan that are required to implement the new vision for Niagara. The new vision for Niagara has been informed through a year-long public engagement initiative called Imagine Niagara. Through our conversations with stakeholders we noticed that there was strong support for growing Niagara’s community and ensuring access to other parts of the region and employment. In regards to Growth, resident’s top recommendations were to establish livable and vibrant communities that contain a mix of housing types and densities. In terms of transportation, GO Transit was a priority for many residents. Many of the responses regional staff received noted the lack of non-automobile connections between Niagara communities and the GTHA. The extension of GO Transit Rail service to Niagara will support Regional and local actions to deliver these types of unique and well-connected communities around station areas. Ultimately the extension of service would help the Region work towards the development of a transit-supportive built form, maximize existing infrastructure and ensure better access and mobility within and between communities.

Regional Official Plan Amendment 6 (ROPA 6)

This amendment is being completed to protect lands required for the Niagara-to-GTA East Area Corridor (between Welland and Fort Erie) and lands for GO Transit Rail Stations. The new policies have been developed and reviewed collaboratively by local municipal planning staff. These policies are currently draft and will be recommended for approval later this spring. In regards to GO Transit, these policies:

Protect station sites in 4 municipalities as identified through the 2011 GO Environmental Study Review (Grimsby, Lincoln, St. Catharines and Niagara Falls)

Direct transit-supportive development (residential and commercial) to areas within 500 metres of the station sites.

This amendment is an important step in proactively planning and protecting GO Transit station areas. Having the policies in place will allow the Region and local municipalities to plan for transit supportive development around the station site.

Niagara Employment Lands Strategy (Phase II)

Phase II of Niagara’s Employment Lands Strategy will be focused on communities in Niagara outside of the Gateway municipalities. In relation to GO Transit, St. Catharines, Lincoln and Grimsby will all affected by the Phase II employment lands work. The intent of this project and subsequent amendment will be to identify and provide new directions on supporting employment in Niagara and to maximize existing employment lands to its fullest potential.

Community Improvement Plans

The Region currently supports several community improvement plan initiatives at the local level. The Region provides funding to reinforce downtowns and rejuvenate brownfields across Niagara. CIP areas are typically hubs of activity and would benefit from higher order transit service. In Niagara, downtowns are primarily the areas that local municipalities designate as a CIP area.

CIP areas are eligible for Regional funding through the Smarter Niagara Incentives Program. The Region has an annual funding value of $1 Million (dispersed as a matching contribution to local investment) to support projects in CIP’s such as public realm improvement, revitalization work and planning studies. Generally, the public investment put into CIP’s by the Region and local municipalities is a catalyst for significant private investment ($1 of public investment equals $9 in private investment). The designation of CIP designations in and around future GO Transit Stations is possible, and would provide an opportunity to support the development of lands adjacent to the station area.

APPENDIX D — MAP OF HOSPITALS AND POST-SECONDARY INSTITUTIONS

APPENDIX D: MAP OF HOSPITALS AND POST-SECONDARY INSTITUTIONS

Label Hospitals

1 Juravinski Cancer Centre

2 Chedoke Hospital

3 Hamilton General Hospital

4 Juravinski Hospital

5 MacMaster University Medical Centre

6 St. Joseph's Hospital - Charlton Campus

7 St. Peter's Hospital

8 St. Joseph's Centre For Mountain Health Services - West 5th Campus

9 St. Joseph's Hospital - Urgent Care At King Campus

10 NHS - St. Catharines

11 St. Catharines Hospital

12 NHS - Greater Niagara General Hospital

13 NHS - Welland

14 NHS - Niagara-on-the-Lake

15 NHS - Port Colborne

16 NHS - Douglas Memorial

17 West Lincoln Memorial Hospital

Label Post-Secondary and Research Institutions

1 Ontario College Of Health & Technology

2 College Boreal

3 McMaster University

4 Mohawk College

5 Brock University

6 Redeemer University College

7 Mohawk College - Starrt

8 Concordia Theological Seminary

9 Vinelands Research and Innovation Center

10 Brock University

11 Niagara College

appendix a — technical report - niagara go

Documents