The choo-choo isn't everything.

The news is in on rail service to Niagara; there was a big show with a choo-choo train and everything. Maybe now that it can't scare off an announcement of more choo-choo trains the word can get out: There is already GO service to (and from) Niagara; an hourly bus service that has far more capacity than usage. And, because Niagara Falls is a place that people actually want to come to rather than just flee, in addition to weekend choo-choo trains Metrolinx also doubles the bus service on weekends (with an express to avoid the parking lot "stations" in Hamilton, Grimsby, and St. Catharines).

There is also no lack of service going to Toronto. If someone wants to be in Toronto for 9:00 tomorrow morning there will be no less than three buses leaving Bridge St. in Niagara Falls that will accomplish exactly that. There would be no problem finding a parking space. No problem getting a parking space on Stanley either. The problems with the current service are not problems with moving people to and from Toronto. The problems are: infrequent or non-existent local transit to pick up points; no fare or schedule integration with local services (such as they are); no placemaking at all.

The benefits of the project, if successful, will not be seen on the tracks; they will be seen in the areas in and around the mobility hubs. The Niagara Falls station has to be a hub for local transit and the WeGO visitor transportation service, and with fare integration so that Presto is all that is required. The hub has to be a signature piece of placemaking where incoming people will be inspired to shop, linger, and take selfies. It has to be the centre of a new density of both residential and commercial spaces in downtown Niagara Falls.

In St. Catharines the hub will have to be a one-site switch point for GO/regional transit/local transit. Lincoln was completely bypassed in this announcement and for the project to be worth their while in the short term there will have to be frequent regional transit (with fare integration to both local connections and GO) to the St. Catharines hub. The same is true for the other municipalities, the ones that didn't expect a station: Welland, Thorold, Pelham, Niagara-on-the-Lake, Port Colborne, Fort Erie, Wainfleet, West Lincoln. For these places to get value from the project there has to be more than just a choo-choo train going to Niagara Falls twice a day in the evening and twice a day in the morning. Relocating service from Fairview Mall to an area just outside of downtown is also a big benefit. And, again, not just for trains. To maintain current service levels, ten GO buses will leave there per day to compliment the seven departure train service to Confederation Station.

The communications for the website from the business case last year didn't use train iconography, it used bus iconography.

Whether they were conscious of it or not, the communications team gave a strong message that replacing a 35 trip/day service with a 14 trip/day service would be foolhardy. It may be choo-choo trains that are easy to sell to the public and unsophisticated press, but the reality is that frequency of service, integration of both fares and schedules to/from local/regional/GO services, and density around hubs is what will make this plan worthwhile. Getting the hubs built, plus Metrolinx's expertise, plus some trains, is a great deal to only be paying 1/3 for.

If Niagara wants to get a head start on the goodies that are on the way they can get on a bus today. It's not all about the choo-choo train, and there isn't champagne and caviar on GO trains. Promise. And maybe now that the commitment to choo-choo trains is in place marketing will be allowed to promote the robust service already here.

It's the hub, not the trains.

Minister of Transportation Steven Del Duca is going to be in St. Catharines today to make the announcement that sometime in the future, a GO Rail line from West Harbour station in Hamilton to Downtown Niagara Falls will be a reality, and the initial run will feature two morning rush hour trains from Niagara Falls and then one train shuffling between St. Catharines and Hamilton until two evening rush hour trains cross the canal to Niagara Falls.

The announcement will not be specific, of course. But with all the consultants and all the give and take with Metrolinx, and the St. Lawrence Seaway, and CN, and whoever else; that will be the end result, eventually. The last time the mayors and CAOs were in front of the public, with the April 2015 business plan, the plan was to fire off two five car trains from Niagara Falls in the morning, park one at the siding at Lewis Road, and run the other one back and forth from West Harbour to St. Catharines. The other train would run back to the Falls for the afternoon rush, and park there to do it all again the next day. If buses were eliminated completely to save operating costs (which was actually proposed in that document), then NF service would go from a robust 35 trips a day with the current bus schedule to 4 trips per day (and at a higher cost).

Besides proposing to completely ditch the robust GO bus system that already comes to Niagara Falls, the April 2015 business plan also had the most disgusting of all station possibilities: there were 355 surface parking spaces proposed, in an area a previously requisitioned Community Improvement Plan suggested some sort of fitness centre/arena be placed. To make it worse, the business case predicted a peak parking demand of 85 vehicles for all-day service in 2031. 355 surface parking spaces was a guaranteed parking crater in an area that really needs something positive to happen.

The potential upside of the plan is in the hands of the latest set of consultants, hired to make recommendations about the station areas regarding placemaking, multimodality, pedestrian priority, complete & livable communities, and density and diversity. In short, everything that is lacking in Niagara is in the scope of this consulting team.

GO stations in places like Bowmanville can be big parking lots that swallow cars driven by individuals in ridiculous subdivisions, because no one ever has ever said, “When we go to Canada, we have to go to Bowmanville!” In Niagara Falls, we are blessed with geography that brings 10 million visitors notwithstanding the many failings of the city in placemaking, the arts, walkability, or just about any advantage a strong urban society can offer. A GO Station here should be a destination in itself, and a hub to other transportation options in the city, like the robust WeGO system. There is no shared system of fare payment in Niagara that uses a smartcard; a stronger Metrolinx presence here will ensure that Presto can be used on local systems as well as GO. A signature mobility hub can bring modern urban ideas to a place that desperately needs them, in addition to being the centre of public transportation in Niagara Falls encompassing Niagara Transit, Niagara Regional Transit, WeGO, and GO.

If GO rail comes, replaces the bus service, and proves to be an engine for 85 people to drive from their stupid subdivision to park and ride immediately to West Harbour station and then on to Toronto then it will have been a huge failure and a waste of the small amount of resources thrown at it. It will also have been a drastic reduction in service. If GO rail comes and brings with it a modern mobility hub; maintains the existing bus service; centralizes transportation services; makes Presto the universal payment method; and promotes intensification; it can actually be something great.

The strange opposition to Bill C-210

There will be a vote today (1 June 2016) on whether to send Bill C-210, an act to amend the National Anthem Act (gender), to the committee stage for eventual passage. It’s not a new idea, changing “thy sons” to “all of us” command. There are no good reasons to oppose the change; all parties in the House of Commons have been in favor of making the change at some point; even the Conservatives made a pledge to “ask Parliament to examine the original gender-neutral English wording of the national anthem.” (in the Speech from the Throne to open the 3rd session of the 40th Parliament)

What is a Member of Parliament to say in opposition when there are no good reasons to be in opposition? At second reading on 31 May 2016 Mr. O’Toole (Durham) claimed that

It is wrong for a country to tread on its heritage and history, even when some of those heritage symbols, songs, and anthems may seem a little dated when looking at it through the lens of 2016. That is really what we have come to with a debate about our national anthem.

One who feels that way might also appreciate the heritage and history of our language. A few short phrases later, Mr. O’Toole proved that to be untrue by saying,

Anthems, symbols, heraldry, and heritage are the connections we have to the past. We can learn now by looking at them, but we should be very reticent to change them, because they are part of our history.

If someone is reluctant to make a small change to the anthem, they should also be reluctant to abuse the word “reticent”.

Mr. Kmiec (Calgary Shepard) was

initially going to support this bill. I thought changing and adopting the words “in all of us command” would have returned the wording closer to the 1908 version by Mr. Justice Robert Stanley Weir. I thought that would be the correct thing to do.

So why will he be voting “nay” to sending the bill to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage? Because he polled his constituents and they were 87% opposed. Mr. Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan) proposed tacking the question on to the referendum the Conservatives are constantly clamoring for regarding electoral reform.

These appeals to direct democracy are the worst - as a Member of Parliament you are paid very well to occasionally substitute your judgment over a snapshot poll of the whims of your constituents at any given moment. If your only task as a parliamentarian is to stand up for the majority opinion of your riding at the time of any given vote then you might as well have a service animal in your seat.

There are plenty of votes among the 338 to get this bill to committee, and then later on vote three to send it to the Senate. Hopefully a few Conservative members will see fit to vote the right way on this one.