A mobility hub is a mobility hub - right? Not necessarily according to Mayoralty candidate Greg Woodruff

Letter to the editorBy Staff

July 10th, 2018



Candidate for the Office of Mayor and Aldershot resident Greg Woodruff wants the planning department to be a little clearer with the language used to report about mobility hubs.

Greg Woodruff

Greg Woodruff – candidate for Mayor.

In an Open letter to Burlington Council, Woodruff asks that:

“… Council and staff start using the terms Mobility Hub (Metrolinx) and Major Transit Station Areas (Places to Grow) properly for the various GO stations.

Burlington GO south side

There are ten platforms on the south side of the Burlington GO station – which is described as a mobility hub: a place where buses, cars, taxi and even bicycles arrive to drop off and pick up people who have taken a GO train.

“The term Mobility Hub is being used to refer to the 3 GO stations. This is causing confusion with the public as to what exactly our responsibility might be for redevelopment of these regions. The Burlington GO station is indeed flagged as a Metrolinx Mobility Hub and comes under specific recommendations.

Mobility hubs

The city has four mobility hubs.

“The Aldershot GO station and Appleby GO station are not designated as Mobility Hubs by Metrolinx. They are not and never have been “Mobility Hubs” in any way except for the city’s loose language that is now grouping them together.

“The only major specification for Major Transit Station Areas (MTSA) comes from Places to Grow and calls for a modest 150 people or jobs per hectare. This can easily be accomplished with low rise buildings.

Boundaries set out for the Downtown mobility hub.

All the Mobility Hub attention focuses on the three GO stations. The city is referring to the transit terminal on John street as an access hub. Other hubs are identified as gate way hubs. These are the boundaries for the Downtown mobility hub.

“Thus the 30 story hi-rises proposed by staff around Aldershot and Appleby are a complete construction of the City of Burlington. There is no direction from any group that calls for this. The hi-rises in these area are self-imposed. I think it important this be very clear to the public.

“I would request that Council adopt the proper terminology when discussing these matters and direct staff to use proper descriptions of “Metrolinx Mobiltiy Hub” and “Major Transit Station Area” when discussing these areas.”

Return to the Front page
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

5 comments to A mobility hub is a mobility hub – right? Not necessarily according to Mayoralty candidate Greg Woodruff

  • Steve D

    I like the cut of Greg’s jib.

  • Lynn Crosby

    I have several suggested terms for these and other City of Burlington catchphrases but the Gazette probably wouldn’t print them 🙂

    Oh and as of last night the City has a new one: optimization. They kept throwing that out at the meeting, both planning staff and developers. Expect to hear it ad nauseum now. And Sharman actually asked a developer delegate for his opinion on what the word “overintensification” means and if it’s a legally correct term or some such thing. Utter nonsense!

  • Perry Bowker

    I delegated to The P&D Committee (aka Council) during the final stages of the Official Plan public meeting circus. I suggested that they should simply remove the term “Mobiliy Hub” from all the documents. Leave everything else if they must, just remove this label, which drives everyone crazy. This was met with amusement, and protests that doing this would be impossible since it was being imposed by the province, region, whatever. I muttered that Oakville managed to do it, and was thanked for my views.

  • Hans

    Burlington has a Planner???????
    Then how do we end up with exploitation waaaay in excess of the approved heights?

    And giving silly names (e.g., Mobility Hub) to exploitation features in no way mitigates the mess that is being created in Burlington.

  • Elizabeth Hamidbasha

    I agree completely with Greg. Clarity of language has been a huge problem with the entire proposed plan. It’s like council and city planner speak a different language that we, the citizens and tax payers have to try to understand.