 By Staff
August 13th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
Our friends across the Bay in Hamilton have published a newsletter that has to be shared.
Citizens at City Hall (CATCH) comment on Bill 108 and the degree to which it is going to gut the way planners within municipalities have to deal with development applications.
CATCH said:
Additional though still incomplete information has come from the province about massive changes being made to rules on planning, community benefit agreements, parkland funding and development charges. Described as “welfare for developers”, the More Homes, More Choice Act appears to mean more subsidies from property taxpayers and an abandonment of the claim that growth pays for itself.
 The good citizens of Hamilton have looked at Bill 108 -and they don’t like what they see. The view will be the same from this side of the Bay. The stated objective of the legislation is to lower housing costs. It eliminates growth fees for services such as libraries, recreational facilities, parkland development and social housing. These make up about a quarter of the development charges currently collected in Hamilton from developers to offset some of the costs of new growth.
Some of these revenue losses could be recovered with modified Community Benefits Charges that are included in the legislation. These replace existing “section 37” collections whereby cities bargain with developers who want to exceed approved building sizes and densities and in return obtain various community benefits.
But the modified community benefits charge will be capped by the province at a rate that has still not been released so there is no certainty that the financial result will be equivalent to that obtained by the existing two growth funding mechanisms. And if a city utilizes this community benefits charge it will be forced to abandon collection of parkland dedication fees – a long-standing method of ensuring sufficient land for parks.
Currently the parkland dedication fee – which has been in effect since the early 1970s – requires developers to provide land or monies based on the number of new residents in the growth area. Now it will be set irrespective of how dense the development.
Toronto staff have calculated that for one new apartment tower the new rules will mean an 80 percent drop in parkland paid by the developer. In another situation, the park area falls from nearly four square metres per resident down to half a square metre.
 Developers will finance the same amount of parkland for a 48-storey building as for a four-storey one. This flies in the face of both provincial and local commitments to encourage higher densities, especially along major transit lines like the LRT. Instead the municipality will be penalized for more concentrated residential development and the developers will finance the same amount of parkland for a 48-storey building as for a four-storey one.
Other changes in the legislation drastically shorten the time allocated to cities to respond to development proposals. For example, the timelines for an official plan amendment drop from 210 days to 120. Local planners contend these make proper review and public consultation virtually impossible and will mean many more appeals to the provincial planning tribunal.
All of these changes are likely to leave existing taxpayers shouldering more of the costs of growth. As Hamilton’s chief planner Steve Robichaud warned in June: “There’s a big shift in terms of who pays for growth and how that balances and they’ve taken the costs off the developer and they’re shifting some of those costs onto the municipality.”
While the new rules are purported to lower housing costs, they don’t include any way to ensure this. “It is unlikely that they will positively impact housing affordability,” argue Toronto planners, “as Bill 108 does not provide for any mechanisms to ensure that reduced development costs are passed through to future home buyers and renters.”
 The developers may have been given even more than the keys to the city. The Ford government rushed through the legislation without details between May 1 and June 6, leaving municipalities scrambling to even provide comments on changes that could not be properly evaluated. Now Queen’s Park has extended the confusion with incomplete draft regulations and schedules.
“The province has not posted an actual draft regulation, but rather has posted a notice of intent to issue a regulation”, notes Hamilton staff.
“The regulations … have been provided in general terms and the full impact of the proposal is not capable of being fully understood and assessed without the official language that will appear as written in the regulation.”
 By Pepper Parr
August 6th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
This is a seven part series on transit and how Burlington plans to get to the point where the public will take public transit to get to where they want to go in the city because it is cheaper, faster, more convenient and seen as the smart thing to do.
Part 6
Partnerships is going to have to be a large part of what the transit people do going forward. All the stakeholders have to be at the table which includes people who don’t see themselves as transit stakeholders.
Transit in Burlington has been trying for some time to create partnerships with the larger employers – looking for ways to create transit services that meet the needs of employees working shifts that were outside traditional working hours.
Nothing seemed to get any traction.
Strategy 4E: Employer Partnerships
 Fearmans was an excellent prospect for a partnership with transit. No one was able to make it work. Targeting employees that regularly commute represents a good opportunity to increase ridership on Burlington Transit. Employers that have standard office hours are typically located along key arterial corridors that have direct service, with start and end times that typically coincide with peak transit frequencies. Since service levels are high, the strategy for office employees is typically to target communications and marketing of the service and work with employers to offer an emergency ride home program if midday or evening service levels are not attractive.
 Mapleview parking lots are the size of a couple of football fields. The sales staff might consider public transit if they knew it was going to be reliable. Expect the Director of Transit to begin looking into that opportunity. Large industrial-warehousing employers, retail service employers and other employers located in areas not well serviced by Burlington Transit provide another employer partnership opportunity. These types of opportunities typically involve some degree of employer funding to provide more tailored service to meet employee requirements. This could include free or discounted transit passes, emergency ride home programs, and/or shuttle or on-demand services from transit hubs to work locations.
Burlington Transit staff time would be required to develop these programs and establish partnership with key employers. It is recommended that Burlington Transit staff first target a key employment area (e.g. the industrial area along Harvester Road) prior to developing a city-wide employer strategy.
This initiative aligns with Burlington Transit’s Strategic Direction #3 (Be Business-Minded and aligned with municipal directions), particularly Objective 3.2 (Partnerships), by working with employers to generate mutually beneficial outcomes.
Recommendations:
• Explore opportunities for partnerships with employers and evaluate alternative service delivery models to provide service to employees (Strategy 2A). Target one employment area first for a year to assess level of effort relative to uptake and ridership growth.
• Look at whether regular service can be supplemented by on-demand alternatives during off-peak travel times and/or emergency ride home programs (see Strategy 2A and 2B).
• In the longer term, explore an Employee Pass Program that offers discounts on transit passes based on enrollment in the program.
Strategy 4G: Improve Coordination with Other City Departments
Transit’s biggest asset is the land use and community design it operates in. Transit services that operate along mixed-use high density corridors with good connectivity to the places where people live, work and play offer the highest potential to grow ridership. In this way, transit and land use development are inexorably linked and therefore land use planning should always give strong consideration to transit needs, and vice versa. Ensuring the alignment of land use and transit will help create sustainable, mixed-use communities and also drive ridership by placing transit where residents and employees are located.
The City of Burlington has a number of plans to intensify around key transit corridors and mobility hubs. This is primarily focussed around the Burlington and Appleby GO Stations and the downtown terminal. In addition, the City of Burlington Official Plan (2018) identifies several corridors for mixed-use development and increased intensification. These include Brant Street south of Highway 407, the Plains Road and Fairview Street corridor and Appleby Line. The City is also currently conducting an Interim Control Bylaw review to assess the appropriate density and land use around downtown Burlington, the Burlington GO Station and the section of Brant Street connecting these two nodes.
 When you have a service pattern with routes that under perform the way several do – change is in the wind. Burlington Transit’s growth should largely be focussed on these corridors, which aligns with the arterial focus of Strategy 1A. As recognized in Strategy 1A, access between transit stops and this increased development will be key to ensuring that the potential transit ridership growth is achieved.
While improved planning integration between land use, roadway planning and transit is unlikely to result in measurable ridership growth in the short-term, it will pay dividends as development patterns evolve over time.
Improved integration with land use planning is the core of Burlington Transit’s Strategic Direction #2 (Be Forward-Thinking in how services are planned and delivered), particularly Objective 2.6 (Transit Oriented Development), as it facilitates better planning and delivery of transit services.
 Sue Connor should be at every table when transportation and land use is being discussed. Recommendations:
• Play an active role in strategic land-use planning decisions, highlighting the need for high levels of pedestrian amenity and access to the arterial grid network.
• Continue to work with City of Burlington staff on the alignment of development, growth and employment areas with transit investment and service by reviewing development applications and secondary plans.
• Develop and formalize a Service Development Plan for Burlington Transit that outlines where service investment is expected in the future. This should be a living document that can help inform land use planning decisions to support transit.
• Develop a proximity service standard with the City of Burlington’s Planning and Development Department. This standard should define a five-year target from proximity to transit once the grid-network has been established and place to bonus on the Planning and Development Department to achieve the target based on growth.
• Continue to work with Transportation Services Department to coordinate transit interests in roadway capital improvement programs (e.g. new stops, shelters, accessibility improvements, transit priority features).
• Work with Transportation Services Department as a key stakeholder in the Integrated Mobility Master Plan and identify strategies to help meet the transit mode share target.
Burlington Transit has the best leadership it has had in a decade. Its leadership is far superior to that of the departments it has to work with to pull all the parts together.
The city manager appears to have gotten the message – assuming he has – there should be some heads banged together if that is what it takes them to work together – or let some of those heads roll.
Part 1: Transits five year plan has what some might call an over abundance-of wishful thinking
Part 2: Strategies and recommendations to create the needed structure and delivery model.
Part 3: Making all the parts fit.
Part 4: Can the public afford the new ideas?
Part 5 – Managing and influencing demand
By Pepper Parr
August 5th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
This is a seven part series on transit and how Burlington plans to get to the point where the public will take public transit to get to where they want to go in the city because it is cheaper, faster, more convenient and seen as the smart thing to do.
Part 5. Travel Demand Management
Travel demand management are the tools that transit agencies can employ to encourage and influence demand, through affordability, incentivisation and holistic land use planning.
The tools can be used to move demand or encourage growth during non-peak times, such as the midday, evenings and weekends. This frees up peak capacity and increases resource utilization during those less busy periods. In this way, growth can be accommodated at a lower cost and overall efficiency improved.
Strategy 4A: Free Midday Travel for Seniors
In March 2019 the City of Burlington Council directed Burlington Transit to implement a pilot program of offering seniors free travel between 9:00am and 2:30pm on weekdays. This pilot has became effective in June 2019 and runs until 31 December 2020.
It should be noted that free transit also applies to seniors who use specialized transit. The AODA requires fare parity between conventional and specialized services, which will see an increase in demand on the specialized transit system. Unlike conventional transit, specialized transit peaks during the midday period and has less capacity to accommodate an increase in demand (due to the small vehicle size and on-demand door-to-door service delivery model).
 Seniors taking part in a Bfast conference – elected officials hover over the table listening carefully. Therefore, the introduction of this policy is expected to see an increase in specialized transit service hours and vehicle requirements, including an increased operating and capital cost. The extent of this increase is currently unknown, but should be monitored over the course of the pilot, with a plan in place to increase operations during the midday period to maintain an acceptable trip accommodation rate.
This fare change aligns with Burlington Transit’s Strategic Direction #1 (Be Customer-Focused in every aspect of how service is delivered), particularly Objective 1.8 (Affordability), in promoting access to transit for all residents of Burlington.
Recommendations:
• Monitor the impacts of the free midday travel for senior’s pilot project on ridership, technology, customer service, revenue and operating costs for the course of the pilot before implementing further changes or mitigation measures.
• Budget to increase specialized transit service levels during the pilot project to maintain an acceptable trip accommodation rate.
Strategy 4B: Affordability
In conjunction with the City’s decision on senior’s fares, Council also agreed to change the Subsidized Passes for Low-Income Transit (SPLIT) subsidized pass program from a 50 percent fare reduction to a free monthly pass, effective May 1, 2019.
The existing SPLIT pass has been in place for almost nine years and has provided a 50 percent fare subsidy to residents of Burlington that are low income. The program is administered and initially funded by Halton Region Social Services. The change in the program to a free pass will see the City of Burlington cover the remaining 50 percent difference in the pass. Since the number of pass holders are relatively small, this change is not expected to have a significant impact on Burlington Transit’s operations or revenue. However, Burlington Transit should report to Council how this has affected their budget and seek additional funding to cover lost revenue.
This fare change aligns with Burlington Transit’s Strategic Direction #1 (Be Customer-Focused in every aspect of how service is delivered), particularly Objective 1.8 (Affordability), in ensuring access to transit for all residents of Burlington.
Recommendation:
• Monitor the usage of the new SPLIT pass and report the amount of lost revenue to Council.
Strategy 4C: Free Transit for Children
As of March 9, 2019, kids 12 and under were permitted to ride for free on GO Transit. The program has an estimated cost of $8 million dollars of lost revenue. This does not take into account an increase in ridership and revenue from adults that use the service more often as it is more affordable to travel as a family unit. Much of this additional ridership occurs during the off-peak periods such as weekend family travel or school trips during the day.
Currently in Burlington, children under 5 ride for free whereas children between 6 and 12 pay $3.50 cash or $1.90 with Presto. Currently, children 6 to 12 represents 0.05 percent of total ridership on Burlington Transit. Using Presto data, it is estimated that 16,723 children under 12 are current Burlington Transit customers, with an estimated revenue of $30,938.
 Tight integration between the Transit schedules and the GO schedules are critical. Having a similar fare structure is important to improve the eligibility of the system of passengers travelling with children using both GO Transit and Burlington Transit, as the same fare rules would apply between the two systems. This will become increasingly important with the introduction of RER, when the GO Rail network is further integrated with Burlington Transit routes and services (see Strategy 3D). In the short-term passengers travelling with children connecting between the two systems still receive a reduced fare through the co-fare agreement between Metrolinx and Burlington Transit (70 cents), allowing Burlington Transit to maintain an important revenue source. The challenge will be to integrate the service with Presto and to identify which passengers boarding a Burlington Transit bus as a GO Rail station are eligible for the co-fare payment between Burlington Transit and GO Transit.
This fare change aligns with Burlington Transit’s Strategic Direction #1 (Be Customer-Focused in every aspect of how service is delivered), particularly Objective 1.8 (Affordability), in ensuring access to transit for all residents of Burlington.
Recommendations:
• Continue to maintain same child fare policy in the short-term to maintain revenue stream from the co-fare agreement.
• Monitor ridership and revenue changes that have occurred on other GTHA systems that have implemented a similar child fare policy (e.g. Durham Region Transit).
• Implement the child fare policy in the medium-term, with the introduction of RER and subject to Strategy 1D, or prior, depending on the results of the review of the impact from other GTHA systems noted above.
Strategy 4D: Discount Student Pass
Secondary school students offer a significant opportunity to encourage transit familiarity, increase ridership and establish travel patterns that may continue into post-secondary student and adult life. To maximize this opportunity, Burlington Transit, Council and the school boards within the City of Burlington are in the process of investigating a secondary student strategy. This strategy should include transit familiarization outreach for grade 7, 8 and/or 9 students and a discount secondary student pass. If the ‘free child fare’ program is extended to age 12, this student pass program should begin at age 13 (grade 7 students) for ease of administration and to ensure a continuous fare program during middle school years.
 The current transit route map. Ridership growth that occurs with these types of programs may also result in service improvements required to accommodate an increase in demand, particularly around school bell times. The ridership growth plan does account for increases in service frequency over the five year business plan (Strategy 1B), which should provide enough capacity to meet increased peak demands. If demand does exceed the planned increase in service, some strategies to off-set potential operating and capital cost increases include:
a. Only allow free or discounted travel on weekends, holidays or after 4:00pm on weekdays (so that students do not use the service to go to/from school);
b. Partner with school boards to receive partial funding for lost revenue;
c. Work with the school board to ensure there is no reduction in yellow-school bus services without a corresponding increase in funding to support the student pass program; and/or
d. Develop a formal booking process for formal school group excursions to ensure Burlington Transit is aware of these trips and that it occurs during periods or on routes where there is sufficient capacity to accommodate the trip.
This program will help to achieve Burlington Transit’s Strategic Direction #3 (Be Business-Minded and aligned with municipal directions), particularly Objective 3.8 (Demand Management), by promoting long term behaviour change with younger transit users.
Recommendations:
• Implement a grade 9 transit outreach program in the short term to ensure transit literacy. If the free child fare program is extended to age 12, consideration should be made to extend this to grade 7 or 8.
• Further investigate a discounted or free middle and secondary student program, involving financial contributions from local school boards to cover a portion of predicted lost revenue. If the ‘free child pass’ program is extended to age 12, this program should be started for grade 7 students (13 years of age and older).
• Monitor program for a year-long period and extend to other grades for subsequent years.
• Partner with school boards to receive partial funding for lost revenue.
 Proposed routes Sept 2019 Part 1: Transits five year plan has what some might call an over abundance-of wishful thinking
Part 2: Strategies and recommendations to create the needed structure and delivery model.
Part 3: Making all the parts fit.
Part 4: Can the public afford the new ideas?
By Pepper Parr
July 26th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
This is a seven part series on transit and how Burlington plans to get to the point where the public will take public transit to get to where they want to go in the city because it is cheaper, faster, more convenient and seen as the smart thing to do.
Part 3
Mobility Management acknowledges all the ways that people can travel in a community and all of the different ways that these modes can be operated; bringing them together for the benefit of the customer. While Burlington Transit primary focus over the next years will be the delivery of public transit services, it is important to start investing and rethinking how Burlington Transit thinks about mobility as a whole.
Strategy 2A: Implement On-demand Alternative Service Delivery Models
On-demand transit (or microtransit) is a traditional form of mobility that is experiencing a resurgence with the help of technology. On-demand transit has four components that differentiate it from conventional fixed-route transit:
• Flexible routing and/or scheduling designed based on customer demand;
• Newly-emerged “mobility brokers” who use mobile apps to connect supply and demand;
• Use of smaller, more flexible vehicles; and
• Connecting multiple transportation services to complete a trip (using a mobile app).
On-demand transit can be differentiated from conventional transit in the way that it caters to individual needs. In an On-demand Transit model, the transit service adapts to its customers, while in conventional transit service models, transit customers must adapt to the service offered. In many cases, this provides greater convenience and customization – moving towards some of the favourable characteristics of private automobile travel. On-demand transit offers a level of flexibility, convenience, and individualism somewhere between regular fixed-route transit (“public collective transport”) and private individual transport.
There are several advantages to exploring the implementation of On-demand transit services:
• Cost Effective: On-demand transit services are typically planned in areas where there is low ridership in a larger geographic area. This allows the transit agency to reduce the number of resources required to provide service.
• Improved Coverage: On-demand transit services offer a significant advantage in terms of coverage area. Since the vehicle is not tied to a fixed-route, this increases the number of residents within a five-minute walk of an on-demand transit pick-up or drop-off point.
• Early Introduction of Service: On-demand transit service allows for early introduction of transit service in newly developing areas without committing significant resources to provide mobility for new residents.
Director of Transit Sue Connor gets out into the community and listens: seen as effective by those who have worked with her and close to adored by her staff who are energized and motivated. On-demand transit services do not entirely replace the need for fixed-route services. Fixed-route transit services require customers to make travel decisions based on pre-set transit routes and schedules. This model is effective when:
• Residents are in close proximity to a service;
• The route provides relatively direct service with minimal deviations that increase travel times;
• Higher frequencies are provided to increase the flexibility of the service; and
• There is a high demand for service between similar origins and destinations, which requires a high capacity vehicle to service.
This initiative works towards Burlington Transit’s Strategic Direction #2 (Be Forward-Thinking in how services are planned and delivered), particularly Objective 2.2 (Alternative Service Delivery), by exploring and seeking to implement on-demand alternative services.
Recommendations:
• Further explore the use of On-demand transit services as a replacement of certain fixed-route services. This should include a review of both dedicated and non-dedicated service models.
• Develop an On-demand transit service model and business case for low demand areas and operating periods, allowing customers to use a mobile app to book a shared-ride demand- responsive service to connect to the fixed-route service. This should coincide with the modifications to the existing route network to more of a grid-like structure (see Strategy 2A).
Strategic Direction 2B: Explore Partnerships with Other Mobility Providers
To address this expanding world of mobility, Burlington Transit needs to continue to evolve and see themselves as not only an operator of transit services, but as a partner and collaborator of sustainable mobility services. This means making it easier for customers to take all sustainable mobility options available to them or integrating services to allow customers to easily transfer between multiple modes.
Over the next five years, it is recommended that Burlington Transit continue to explore partnerships with TNCs, bike sharing companies, carpooling companies, taxi operators and other sustainable mobility providers to promote integration with Burlington Transit services. This could include:
1. Information Sharing and Promotion
2. Data Sharing
3. Trip Planning Integration
4. Service Integration
5. Fare Integration
 What Sue Connor brought to Burlington was an understanding that transit is both a service and a business – one that goes far beyond running big vehicles up and down the streets of the city. She understands what the future of public transit is likely to be – and gives presentations to anyone who will listen. This strategy aligns with Burlington Transit’s Strategic Direction #3 (Be Business-Minded and aligned with municipal directions), particularly Objective 3.2 (Partnerships), by seeking to partner with providers to improve efficiency, systems and lower cost.
Recommendations:
• Expand the role of a senior member of the Burlington Transit administration and management team to include the exploration of partnership approaches with other sustainable mobility service providers.
• Promote sustainable mobility services through awareness, marketing and education campaigns to inform residents of alternatives to driving alone in private vehicles.
Strategic Direction 2C: Integration of Specialized Transit and On-demand Transit Service
A key strategic direction will be to better integrate specialized transit trips with On-demand transit trips. If Burlington Transit uses its own fleet to deliver On-demand transit services, it is recommended that the Specialized Transit logo be removed from all its specialized transit vehicles, replaced with a Burlington Transit logo.
This will allow the same vehicle to be used to provide both specialized transit and On- demand Transit Services. The goal is to provide more flexibility in utilizing the right vehicle for the right type of trip, irrespective of whether a customer is registered for specialized transit service. This strategy helps support the integration of customers on vehicles that were traditionally reserved for specialized transit customers and will allow for more efficient scheduling and increase the available capacity to all Burlington Transit customers.
Under the integrated service model, a vehicle used to provide specialized transit service can also be used to provide On-demand transit service, and vice versa. This means that the services would be “co-mingled”, and specialized transit and On-demand transit service customers may share vehicles if it provides greater efficiency in the delivery of their trips. The decision to integrate trips will be based on the ability to utilize existing in-vehicle capacity and provide a better level of service to customers.
It should be noted that specialized transit will continue to operate as a core service for registered customers and any integration with On-demand transit service should not reduce the level of service for registered specialized transit customers.
Integration helps to achieve Burlington Transit’s Strategic Direction #3 (Be Business-Minded and aligned with municipal directions), particularly Objective 3.3 (Efficiency), as it allows for the delivery of similar on-demand services to combined, thereby reducing unnecessary administrative and operational duplication.
Recommendations:
• Explore the concept of integrating specialized transit services with On-demand transit services. A prerequisite of this approach is demand-response software in place to support the functions required by customers and staff.
Part 1: Transits five year plan has what some might call an over abundance-of wishful thinking
Part 2: Strategies and recommendations to create the needed structure and delivery model.
By Pepper Parr
July 23rd, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
This is a seven part series on transit and how Burlington plans to get to the point where the public will take public transit to get to where they want to go in the city because it is cheaper, faster, more convenient and seen as the smart thing to do.
The world of municipalities is all about planning; trying to determine today what will have to be in place in two years, five years, perhaps as much as a decade away.
While the bureaucrats plan – the ground underneath them shifts.
Burlington is being pulled – kicking and screaming – into a world where they are not going to be able to get around all that well if they rely on their cars – the roads will be plugged – grid lock will be come as relevant as climate change.
Get used to using public transit.
The city is going to have to get itself to the point where it can offer public transit that people will want to take because it is convenient, reliable, reasonably priced and not something a large part of the city’s residents turn their nose up at.
But transit is going to have to meet the challenge if people expect to be able to get around the city.
 Senior citizens gather at a Bfast meeting to talk about the changes they need in transit. The 2024 target identified for Burlington represents a significant rate of growth over past
performance and above what Burlington Transit’s peers have achieved over the past five years. This will be difficult to achieve in a short period of time without significant investment in transit, a focus on customer service and culture change, including a change in how transit services are delivered.
A summary of the Transit Five-Year Business Plan peer review, vision and growth plan initiatives was presented to city council recently.
In the past, the quality of the leadership at Transit was a bit of a joke. The planning that was done could only be described as pathetic.
When the city went looking for new transit leadership they got lucky – Sue Connor who earned a stellar reputation for the changes she made at the Brampton Transit operation took the job offer Burlington made.
 Transit Director Sue Connor Ms Connor had to fight for every dollar the 2014-18 city council grudgingly gave her – but she persevered and prevailed.
Now she has gotten her teeth into what has to be done in Burlington to meet the change that is coming our way.
The Business Plan document will be based on data collected with a focus on the implementation of the growth plan initiatives, including their phasing and financial impacts.
Dillon Consulting, the people who did the background work has asked that Burlington Council provide feedback on these sections, so that any changes may be incorporated into the final Business Plan.
The 2020 – 2024 Burlington Transit Business Plan will guide the implementation of transit service improvements over the next five years. The Business Plan starts with a policy framework that defines a clear direction for Burlington Transit, and clear steps on how to get there.
It is important to note that a Business Plan does not provide details of service or operational planning. The primary purpose of the plan is to ensure individual strategies, projects and activities are aligned and
contributing to the Burlington Transit’s vision and policy objectives. This includes prioritizing and staging key decisions to fit within the City’s financial guidelines.
The Business Plan is also an important communication tool for Burlington Transit that will clearly set out steps required to move towards the long-term direction of the City. Over the next five-years, the Business Plan will form the guiding document in which all other operational decisions and financial budgets should be built around.
A key focus of the business plan is to identify the strategies and resources required to meet transit ridership growth targets. Ridership growth objectives for Burlington were identified in the 2011 Halton Region Transportation Master Plan, which targets a morning peak period internal transit mode share of 13.4 percent within the City of Burlington by 2031.
This represents a significant growth from the 4.6 percent transit mode share that is forecasted to be achieved by the end of 2019 (a 216 % increase in ridership, from 3,209,091 annual rides in 2019 to 10,763,637 annual rides in 2031).
That is an astounding number, there is no sense as to how it can be reached – Connor has set it out as what will be needed if objectives are to be met.
Over the five year life of this business plan, transit mode share is targeted to reach 8.3 percent by 2024, translating to 6,356,818 annual rides (a 98 percent growth in ridership from 2019; or 19.6 percent per year).
To put this into context, over the past five years, Burlington Transit’s ridership growth averaged
1.9 percent per year, while other systems in Burlington Transit’s peer group averaged 4.3 percent per year.
 If there was ever a place to locate a transit terminal – that would be John Street where the only terminal in the city is now located. How will this terminal handle the planned increase in buses? The 2024 target identified for Burlington represents a significant rate of growth over past performance and above what Burlington Transit’s peers have achieved over the past five years.
This will be difficult to achieve in a short period of time without significant investment in transit, a focus on customer service and culture change, including a change in how transit services are delivered.
As illustrated in Table 1, the ridership growth target will move Burlington Transit ahead of many of its peers and in line with peer systems that have U-Pass agreements with post-secondary institutions (e.g. Kingston Transit, Guelph Transit and St. Catharines Transit). This suggests that the growth strategy should not only focus on supply-based solutions (e.g. increasing service levels), but also on solutions that influence demand.
While population growth will also help grow ridership, Burlington’s population is only projected to grow by 3.7 percent by 20311.
Between 2019 and 2024, the population is projected to grow by 3,259 people (from 185,911 in 2019 to 189,170 in 2024). If the existing trip rate (boardings per capita) is applied to new residents over this period, this would only result in 56,255 new rides (1.8 percent of the ridership growth target) being attributed to new residents.
This means that to achieve this ridership target, existing and new residents will need to ride transit much more, creating a greater culture of transit use in the city.
Service Hour and Fleet Investment (2020 – 2024)
To accommodate the planned growth in ridership, Burlington will need to invest in the level of service provided to accommodate both an increased demand for service and to change travel behaviour. This will require an increase in the amount of service and the fleet required to deliver the service.
  The City of Burlington Development Charges Transit Background Study (2019) identifies that Burlington Transit’s fleet will need to grow by 38 vehicles between 2019 and 2028 to meet transit mode share target. Phased in over the five-year life of this business plan, this represents a growth in 19 vehicles by 2024 (from 60 to 79).
Service hours will also need to grow to reach the mode share target. Work by Burlington Transit to support the Development Charges Study estimated that an investment in 100,800 annual revenue service hours is required over the next five years. This represents a 56 percent growth in service levels, which is a little lower than the 66 percent ridership growth, recognizing that ridership growth can lag behind investment by two to three years. The projected fleet, service hour and utilization growth is detailed in Table 2. Ridership numbers were calculated based on achieving Burlington Transit’s 13.37 percent mode share target in 2031, based on the ridership figures used in the Development Charges Study. These targets were used as a guide to determine the growth strategy for transit.
One of the primary purposes of a business plan is to focus actions taken by an organization so they are aligned with the vision, goals and strategies directions of a system. Burlington Transit has a mandate to significantly expand ridership in line with the mode share targets identified in the 2011 Halton Transportation Master Plan.
Forecast ridership is targeted to increase from 3,209,091 trips in 2019 to 6,356,818 trips by 2024. To achieve this growth target, Burlington Transit must provide mobility to residents, employees and visitors of the city. In doing so, Burlington Transit must:
• be Customer-Focused in every aspect of how service is delivered
• be Forward-Thinking in how services are planned and delivered
• be Business-Minded and aligned with municipal directions
This has become a litany for the people over at the transit offices where staff are pumped, engaged and know they have a leader who is going to move mountains if that’s what it takes to make transit work.
What a welcome change.
 By Staff
June 16th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
CATCH (Citizens at City Hall) uses transcripts and/or public documents to highlight information about Hamilton civic affairs that is not generally available in the mass media. The Gazette has republished one of their reports that is relevant to Burlington.
The Citizens at City Hall in Hamilton are shouting as loudly as those in Burlington and across the province over a piece of legislation introduced in May and made law in June – an astounding pace for any government. Bill 108 has upended planning at the municipal level.
It “came out of nowhere”, changed thirteen statutes, and was pushed through the provincial legislature so fast that city staff could only tell councillors after the fact about the multiple problems it imposes.
Dubbed by the Ford government “the more homes, more choice act”, Bill 108 upends Hamilton’s downtown secondary plan, imposes severe challenges for municipal efforts to rationally plan and pay for growth, and makes it more difficult for citizens to challenge new development.
“The winners appear to be land developers and speculators who can avoid the current comprehensive land planning process and have been given new rights to push for urban boundary expansions. Burlington’s mayor describes it as “welfare for developers” and an analysis by Environmental Defence found it largely aligns with the requests made to the province by the Ontario Home Builders Association.
“The legislation was introduced on May 2, with a comment deadline of June 1. It was finalized two days later and will likely be imposing planning nightmares by early July when city staff expect to be inundated with developer attempts to expand the urban boundary.
 Burlington’s Urban-rural boundary was Dundas – when the 407 Hwy was created that boundary got shifted. Will Bill 108 allow additional boundary shifts? “The legislation tears up the long-standing rule that only municipal governments can propose an urban boundary expansion and only with detailed justifications. Under Bill 108, expansions of up to 40 hectares can now be applied for by individual landowners at any time and must be decided on by council within a much reduced time-frame that will be very difficult to meet.
“Official plan amendments, for example, now must be decided within 120 days of being submitted by a private developer instead of 180 days, and zoning changes must be finalized within 90 days. Failure to meet these deadlines allows the developer to bypass council and appeal directly to the provincial tribunal.
“Staff told Councillors last week that they had asked for longer periods to adequately respond but were unsuccessful. So it will now be much harder for city planners to assess developer proposals, undertake traffic and other studies, receive input from other city departments and commenting agencies, consult with the public in affected communities and then make a recommendation to council within the timeframes. And multiple developer proposals will likely arrive at the same time.
“We could have multiple 39.5 hectare applications all being submitted more or less simultaneously and then trying to figure out how to deal with all of those applications,” warned Hamilton’s chief planner Steve Robichaud. “We could have everybody applying individually and I think that is what will happen. As soon as the first person comes in, the rest will want to start piling on.”
“Among many other changes “it means the matters that were worked out with community in terms of the downtown secondary plan bonusing – that’s gone by the wayside,” Robichaud told councillors.
“That’s partly because of the severe limits that have been put on the use of the inclusionary zoning that allows cities to require affordable units in new residential developments. These were demanded by citizens last year and acceded to by the city for the full downtown, but now will be limited to major transit stops such as the proposed LRT.
“Councillor Whitehead asked staff if the province had explained why it was shortening the timeframes, and was told that no justification has been provided. Whitehead predicted there will be “a lot more cases that will bypass the democratic process and go straight to appeal”.
“Those appeals will no longer give deference to council positions. And residents registering to participate in the appeal hearings will no longer be permitted to speak at the tribunals, but only submit written statements. There’s also a reference to different fees for “different classes of persons” but no explanation of what this means.
“The changes to the Planning Act alone overturn many of the reforms of the last 15 years, including reversing the changes to the Ontario Municipal Board adopted in 2017 after nearly two years of consultations. “
 has Bill 108 put parts of the Escarpment at risk? From a Burlington perspective you can bet developers are looking at the 40 hectare boundary expansion that is now permissible and wondering how it can be applied to land north of the 407 Dundas border that has kept the escarpment safe.
These border expansions can now be applied for by individual landowners at any time and must be decided on by council within a much reduced time-frame that will be very difficult to meet.
 By Pepper Parr
May 30th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
They spent two days on the task – held three public meetings at which the turnout was more than respectable – to answer one question:
How might we enhance the way Citizen Advisory Committees engage with Council?
It is a question that lurked in the background during the October election. Those people that take an active interest in what’s going on in the city were not happy with the way city council at the time was listening to them and they wanted a change.
They got a change – a new council, except for one holdover and a new Mayor.
 A combination of a staff member and citizens doing the thinking – produced the base information from which a Staff recommendation will emerge. The city has had Advisory Committees for years. The challenge, and the struggle, for staff at city hall was to find qualified people who had the interest, the experience by way of background and the time to take part.
The Gazette has asked a number of staff people which Advisory committee really worked well. All had to pause and think about it – and everyone we spoke to agree that Heritage Advisory was doing a great job.
Many added that Sustainability was also doing a good job but that the job they were being asked to do was to big – the scope of their mandate was just too wide.
There was once Transit Advisory Committee that was a disaster – it just didn’t work and the Waterfront Advisory Committee had a chair that didn’t know what the job was – his years as a leading practitioner in law resulted in a mind that couldn’t see very far beyond a tightly written legal brief. That committee met a sundown date. There are plans to revise that one and to create a new transit advisory committee.
 Ideas were put forward, debated and revised. Outside the strictures of city hall there are a couple of committees that work very well – Bfast is seen as being the best of them.
The Direction given to the Clerk’s office was to:
Conduct an overall review of citizen advisory committees, including consultation with the public and citizen advisory committee members, and report back to council with recommendations and options for any changes to improve effectiveness by Q2 2019.
Changing the structure of the Advisory committees in place was the issue and what about 100 people spent two and a half hours on at three session this week. The participants were grouped at tables of three to five with a city hall staffer in place to help them work through the tasks they were given.
The session we observed was a group of people working through the agenda and having fun.
 Rick Boersma was the facilitator who took the participants through each of the several steps needed to get from the early investigation to their best idea. Rick Boersma, the lead facilitator who worked for Juice Inc. (a different corporate name) a company out of Guelph, made sure that each step of a process happened on time. Each group began by investigating the root causes of the problem they wanted to resolve; the do some Brain Storming to come up with ideas, then choosing the best of the ideas and be able to put forward a well articulated proposal that met the criteria.
The group we watched did some investigating on what the root causes behind the issue were and added some analysis before they did some brain storming and played a quick hand of Brain Poker that told the group what kind of a thinker each participant was. It’s was a short game worth playing.
With the Brainstorming done the group had to choose the best idea had and ensure that it met three criteria:
How desirable it was for the participant
How feasible it was.
How viable it was.
With that done they then had to write an articulated proposal.
It was really interesting to watch run of the mill people digging away and tossing out ideas. One table we watched closely included a pregnant mother, a young woman who could have been in high school student and an adult male with a doctorate in Medieval studies and a staff member who has an irrepressible level of energy.
 Narrowing the ideas and ensuring they met the criteria needed to defend them before the decision makers. Did every group come up with boffo ideas? No, but there was nothing that was embarrassing – everything that was put up on the wall had merit.
One group however did catch the spirit of what we think the public and many of the staff were hoping would come forward. Their solution consisted of a circle – with three lines coming out of it with a letter beside each line: A, B, C
A: Redevelop the application process.
B: Develop technical and communications tools for the Advisory committee.
C: Create a fluid cycle between staff, the committees and council.
Another idea that did qualify as boffo was having a Workshop event for Council where every Advisory committee met annually with council to talk about what was working for them.
 Weighing an idea, ensuring it met the criteria and then getting buy in from the rest of the group. Many feel that the application process is suspect – has too much council control and not a true reflection of the citizens in the city. Some saw sitting on an Advisory committee as the beginning of a political career while others just liked to be around the people who make decisions but bring little to the table in terms of skills and experience.
 Danielle Manton, Manager of Committee & Election Services Danielle Manton, Manager of Committee & Election Services, said there would be a Staff report to Council by September and she committed to ensuring that those who took part in the Civic Action Labs got copies as early as possible.
From where we were sitting to looked as if the participants got a lot out of it – staff seemed really pleased – there were several that put a lot of themselves into the process of drawing ideas and thoughts out of the participants.
The report gets tabled in September – let’s see what they come up with.
 By Jan Mowbray
May 7th, 2019
BURLINGTON, on
Doug Brown and that band of merry men who have been advocating for better transit celebrated their fifth Bfast Transit Form and were able to publish a report card they weren’t sure they were ever going to be able to issue.
It was a stellar day for transit users who realize now that there is a different city council in place with a mandate to improve both the funding for transit and making it more usable with schedules and equipment that will allow the transit staff to operate the kind of service they think the city needs.
 It was a full house with the more than 100 people who took part listening intently to the speakers. The interest in a better transit service is palpable. Sue Connor has been with the transit department for three years now and has needed time, patience and quite a lot of forbearance to get the departments needs through committee and approved by council
The free transit service for the 65+ crowd that will begin June 1st and operate from 9:30 to 2:30 Monday to Friday for an 18 month trial run was approved by the new council is a battle that took years to win.
 Burlington MPP Jane McKenna, on the right, poked her head into the meeting, lingered for a few minutes and left. Most of the council members were on hand, Burlington MPP Jane McKenna, poked her head into the packed room, looked about, listened for a few minutes and was able to tick of that box and went on her way. McKenna said she was there just to listen.
Mayor Marianne Meed Ward told the audience that
“This year’s budget made incredible strides for transit,” and she thanked those colleagues present for their support. This year’s budget contained additional dollars for more buses and drivers. “We want our transit system to be something the public chooses because it’s the best way to get around”.
“No change would have happened without your advocacy. Life is a marathon, not a sprint.” She had advised them “to keep speaking up, and you did! We can’t do our job without you.”
The mayor thanked Bfast for never giving up, keeping up the feedback to staff and advised everyone to keep good ideas coming.
Brown thanked the various financial and in-kind supporters: Burlington Seniors’ Centre, Poverty Free Halton, Burlington Age-friendly, Burlington Seniors Advisory Committee, Customer service at the Seniors’ Centre, Community Development Halton, Poverty Free Halton, and engaged citizens and Councillors in attendance.
Brown told the audience (he’s done this for the past four years) that Burlington spends less per capita than comparable communities. He said the city manager of the day managed to get Sue Connor from Brampton to help turn Burlington Transit around; she became a powerful voice for council in 2017.
Ward 4 city Councillor Shawna Stolte and Director of Transit Sue Connor engage in a conversation with a transit user at the 5th Annual Bfast Forum. Referring to drivers having to work excess hours contrary to driver standards, Brown said “transit is still in a crappy situation but at least we will be running within the law; we still have a long way to go – it’s a long journey. Bfast is still pushing for a comprehensive transportation plan; we need to break out of the silos that limit a transit plan”.
Brown noted that Waterloo had developed scenarios, then put them out for public comment; and went with the preferred plan – Regional Transportation Plan. “Municipalities can make no better investment than in transit.”
Director of Transit Sue Connor mentioned initiatives for 2019: Free Srs Pilot starting June and running for 18 months; free split pass. She welcomes feedback from the public; acknowledges that there will be changes, that change is hard for everybody. Community Connection Routes will be changed, and that staff will be on board those buses to help explain the need for change.
Ward 4 Councillor Shawna Stolte is turning out to be the voice for transit on council – a bit of a surprise there.
While researching transit she told the audience of an article she came across in an American publication
that acknowledged the rock star status of “Sue Connor and her premier leadership for a successful transit system that works for everyone” in Brampton.
 Doug Brown, who has laboured on transit issues for more than a decade and Collin Gibbons wore smiles at the 5th Annual Bfast Forum. Bfast Forums are two way events – Doug Brown and his side kick Collin Gibbons make plenty of time for questions and have transit people on hand to give answers.
Transit staff are a happier bunch of campers as well. They are keen and are enjoying their work. Strong positive leadership will do that. One transit staff member transferred out of city hall where he worked on communications: he was wearing a very visible smile while putting together a bus model made out of cardboard.
One staff member told the Gazette that whenever Sue Connor opens up a staff meeting she starts by making sure staff know that they are there to make city council look good.
Don’t hear words like that from other departments at city hall now do you?
Transit users wanted to know why there was:
• No connection between Via rail and Burlington transit at the Aldershot station; service for seniors is needed.
• There are no guides at Burlington GO for Burlington Transit. Staff will rectify that.
• Request that bus motors be turned off rather than idling for extended periods.
• One senior said it was going to be strange to get free transit and must pay for her grandchild. Response from Connor is that services must be balanced. The more free services provided, the more it will cost to deliver the rest of the service.
• To a response about using the service, making some sense as to just how the Presto Pass service works (good luck on re-loading your card the first time you try) – Connor said staff is looking for ways to provide videos on the city website, and travel training on the buses and in the schools. It will take some time she added – and her audience seemed ready to give her all the time she needed.
• A young man asked that at some point service be provided free for 18 years old and younger rather than current 13 limit, that subsidized fares for his generation would help them to get around, get jobs, etc. Connor said staff is working with the school board.
• A request that electric buses be used to help control green house emissions. Electric buses are part of the future but it was noted that the mere fact of using transit is helping to reduce those emissions; also that the current buses are cleaner and greener than they used to be.
• Sue Connor said Burlington was part of Phase II list for 8 electric buses, which come at a much higher cost. Funding was pulled back by the current provincial government but again emphasized that public transit is a greener option.
• A request around shelters that have advertising covering a whole wall: that they have a clear narrow band so that people can see in each direction – that it’s a safety issue.
• There was a request for heated and lit shelters. It has been considered but apparently the hydro that is provided to shelters is very minimal. Staff is setting a standard for shelters; will be assessing need and demand, and reasonable placement of shelters.
• A request that drivers be more considerate of passengers when using their brakes, that it’s particularly hard on those less-mobile.
• The public was advised to put suggestions in writing.
• Complaint that too many people talk too loud on their phones on the buses – perhaps bus drivers could remind people of common courtesies.
• Many issues around the Handivan – that there used to be quarterly notices, that there have been none in several years; that notices posted on Handivans are sometimes 3 years and older; and request that notices that are placed in the big buses, also be placed in the Handivan buses. These issues will all be reviewed by Sue and her staff.
• A comment from one attendee that it was a shame not all Councillors stayed for the whole event and asked about providing presto cards to each of them so they can better assess the service.
Something few people knew: Burlington Transit had provided each Councillor with a Presto pass when the service first started – a question that might be asked is how many actually tried the system out.
Collin Gibbons told the Gazette that Mayor Meed Ward has signaled that she will propose the re-establishment of a Transit Advisory Committee, chaired by new Ward 4 Councillor Shawna Stolte.
“It will be a rebirth for the Committee, said Gibbons, “which was axed by the old City Council and supposedly rolled into the Integrated Transportation Advisory Committee (ITAC). But nothing useful on transit ever came out of ITAC. Bfast made the re-establishment of the Transit Committee one of its key proposals in the civic election.
As reported in the Gazette, previously, the Transit Advisory Committee will be part of a shakeup of the City’s advisory committees that the new Council must approve.
Gibbons added that the Mayor is recommending the transit committee cooperate with the Cycling Advisory Committee and the Integrated Transportation Advisory Committee.
“We have over 1 million rides annually on our transit system but no dedicated citizen’s advisory voice to council on transit,” said Meed Ward’s report. “Establishing a committee honours the importance of transit in the community expressed during the election campaign and honours the direct request for a stand-alone transit advisory committee from Burlington For Accessible Sustainable Transit and others”, said the Mayor
 By Lawson Hunter
April 20th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
Lawson Hunter is an observer; people watching is a hobby. He chose to watch people who ride buses – this is part 2 of his experience.
 This is not a distracted driving offence. Yes there are a lot of interesting people that ride the bus, each with their own story about how and why they take transit. I don’t usually plunk myself beside people and strike up a conversation. I tend to sit and read or look out the window, but I wanted to learn more about my fellow passengers so I spent a few days riding on a number of buses throughout the city. I gathered up my courage and introduced myself as a writer doing a story about people like – us.
Many, many years ago, when I was a high school student, in another city, I didn’t have much choice when it came to getting around town. It was either the bus or walk. Things have changed a bit since then but judging by the number of students I see riding the bus each day, it’s still a fact of life and no one seems to be too upset about it.
 Running for the bus. Sometimes I took the bus to get to my part-time, after school job. That was a bit more stressful because I had to get to work on time – or else. I never did find out what “or else” was. I was pretty good at figuring out the schedule and the bus usually arrived on time. Finishing work late, however, meant that I would miss the last bus and have to walk home.
I was reminded of those days when I chanced upon Fatima on bus no. 87. She was on her way to work at one of the stores at the Power Centre on Brant street. Number 87 is the bus that runs along North Service Road and into parts of Tyandaga. It’s a weird little run – 6am until 9am and then 3pm until 6pm (approx.). It’s one of the ‘employment’ routes that service a particular area around ‘peak’ work hours.
I asked Fatima, politely, how she got home since the bus would not run around normal closing hours. “My Mom picks me up,” Fatima said. “Good,” I replied.
I continued on no. 87 and watched as a hoard of cars pulled into the parking lots of two private schools along North Service Road. I got off at the Aldershot GO station, took the train to Appleby glad with the fact that my Presto Card handled all the transfers seamlessly.
 City staff applauding the roll out of a new bus. Then I traveled up to the Alton area. Specifically, I jumped off at the 407 carpool parking lot to watch a few buses come and go. Pretty thin ridership, but then it wasn’t quite time for commuters arriving via the handful of GO buses that stop there. I then saw Bill. I didn’t catch him coming off a bus so as I approached him I asked where he was coming from. He mentioned that he was actually dropped off by one of his work colleagues at the Region of Peel in Brampton. “They encourage carpooling at the Region,” Bill stated. “I get dropped off here and the rest of the group carries on along Dundas Street (Hwy 5).”
Bill then explained that he usually catches a city bus (it could have been 6, 11, 25, 3A or 5A) and goes to the gym, to workout, before he continues, via bus, to his home. Sounded pretty good to me.
 Haber, a destination for students using transit. I decided to head back down to Appleby GO and chose the no. 11 bus. That took me past the Haber Recreation Centre and Dr. Frank J. Hayden Secondary School. The bus stopped long enough for a few students to get on board. It was after school hours, I guessed by the carrying cases they had. Musical instruments maybe. But the word ‘Badminton’ on the side of the case gave it away what they were up to.
A few minutes later, Brenda, got on the bus. “Why are you taking the bus?” I asked. “Had a car accident,” Brenda replied. “I have to wait two weeks for it to get repaired and there wasn’t a rental car provided.” As we got closer to Fairview Street, Brenda said goodbye and got off the bus to make her transfer.
As Brenda got off, Graham got on the bus. He’s saving his money so that he can take a driver’s course and get his licence. Even then he noted, “I’ll still have to take the bus until I get my full G2 licence.” As we pulled into the GO station I lost track of where Graham headed next.
Tatyana, who works in Mississauga, got off the GO train at Appleby and was on her way to catch the no. 10 bus. Well dressed, with a professional satchel on her hip – containing a laptop I guessed, Tatyana stopped long enough to tell me that she could have taken 4, 10 or 20 but the no. 4 bus ends at 6:30 so she doesn’t catch that often. “By the time I get off the train all I want to do is sit back and let someone else drive me home,” Tatyana exclaimed. Then she dashed off and onto her bus.
 John Street terminal. On a different day, at the John Street Burlington Transit depot I met an older lady. She didn’t want to give me her name but, like everyone else I met during this adventure, she had no qualms about chatting, briefly, about riding on Burlington Transit. “I prefer to walk,” she said. “But I can only walk so far and then I get tired. That’s when I wait for the next bus.” Good for you I thought.
When asked where she was headed she told me “Walmart”. “I go up there to buy groceries and such, but just one or two bags at a time,” she explained. I asked her which bus went up Brant Street. “Two or Three,” she replied. “They changed it a while ago. I’m not sure.” I told her I would ask at the kiosk on John St.
My final ‘victim’ was Lacey. Lacey works at Tim Horton’s and needs to get to work most days by 6am. “There’s not a lot of people on the bus at that time,” noted Lacy. She relies on the bus even though, in a pinch she could walk the distance.
“Not much fun in the winter,” I suggested.
“No,” she replied. “That’s why I’m grateful there is a bus. But,” she hesitated, “there could be a schedule, maybe electric, at the stop to let us know if and when the bus will arrive.”
I think about that and other things that would make me take the bus more often. I admit, I’m an occasional bus rider these days. I don’t ‘need’ to take the bus but when I do I feel a little more ‘connected’. More so than with others that drive past me. Sure, there could be more buses, more frequent departures, more routes, and softer seats, free wi-fi on the bus, maybe even more room for parcels or groceries.
It’s a chicken and egg thing. Would more riders mean better service, or vice versa? If more ‘gas tax’ money was spent on transit improvements rather than potholes, red light cameras, or parking lots would I be happier taking the bus? I’ve observed that everyone has an opinion about the money the City spends on public transit, for sure.
 A public meeting on transit problems. I’d be happy to hear what others would like to see happen to our transit system because public transit is not going away. It’s needed more now than ever – to move more people and get fewer cars on the road – to provide an alternative to the wasteful fact that most cars sit, parked somewhere 20+ hours a day – and to help combat climate change.
What do you think?
Lawson Hunter can be reached at: lawson@cogeco.ca
Part 1 of On the buses,
By Lawson Hunter
April 16th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
Part 1 of 2 Lawson Hunter approached us a number of weeks ago asking if we might be interested in publishing the experiences he has as he rides the Burlington Transit system. He doesn’t offer any solutions to the problems that exist; all we get are his observations on how transit works for some people. Enjoy and expect some interesting feedback from readers on this one.
Sitting two seats in front of me on the bus a woman was talking, loudly, on her phone. I didn’t recognize the language but it was fascinating none the less. She was speaking non-stop, so that the person on the other end of the conversation couldn’t get a word in edge-wise. And though it might have annoyed a few of my fellow passengers, I revelled in the fact that ‘where else in the world could I experience this cultural phenomenon?’
I enjoyed the fact that this woman, perhaps a recent immigrant, felt comfortable enough amidst strangers to talk so… did I mention – loudly. Was this any different than listening to a bunch of students chatting and giggling with the energy that comes after a day at school? Or two people in the midst of a heated argument?
If you’re a bit of a people-watcher, like I am, sitting on a bus is the place to be.
Old, young, affluent or otherwise, riding on the bus has an equalizing affect. We’re all along for the ride, trusting the expertise of some unnamed driver. The maddening pace of rush hour traffic has no effect on our psyches. Some turn to books, or ever-present cell phones, or keeping a brood of children in line and quiet. Me, I like to witness the exchange between fellow travellers. Taking the bus gives me the chance to experience life up close while watching the city slowly unfold outside the windows.
 Aldershot GO was part of the trip. One day I’ll be on the bus along with, say, Nolan and Lana and their two little children in a double-stroller. They came to Canada from the Congo. They’re travelling from Hamilton to Waterdown via the No. 1 bus. Wait! They’re Hamilton residents but they need a Burlington bus to connect them with downtown services and their home. Almost every day they, and their kids, travel using a Hamilton bus to get to the Aldershot GO station, then Burlington Transit drops them off at King and James, and then they make the return trip. “So much better than our country,” Nolan exclaims. And I got to practice my rusty French for a bit – before we (I) gave up.
At the other end of the city, I noticed a handful of people jumping off an Oakville Transit bus rushing to catch the GO train at Aldershot station – heading for the Blue Jay game vs. Boston. I’ll let you guess how I knew they were Blue Jay fans. Again, wait! It’s easier to go from parts of Oakville into Burlington to catch the train. “The cars are empty,” shouts one fan as she runs past me, “at this time of day. They’ll be full at the Oakville station.” Ahh. So there is some strategy when taking transit.
“I can take more than one bus to get home,” notes Jack who lives not too far from Appleby GO. He works ‘downtown’ (Toronto, but wouldn’t get into specifics). His wife has the family’s one car. Jack sees no need to buy a second car “just to drive six kilometres and then park it all day” or worse drive into Toronto and pay for parking all day.
 Some can’t live without a car – others know they will never need a driver’s license. Sitting next to Jack on the bench waiting for No. 80 is Nick. His job is, “on the other side of the (Appleby) tracks. I just walk under the tunnel to catch the bus”. Nick, who works in IT, doesn’t think he’ll ever own a car. He doesn’t even have a driver’s license.
But not everyone on the bus has the option of owning a car. Students like Liam and Liam, I’m not kidding, take the bus to school every day. Liam (1) complains, ever so slightly, that when he went to Central’s elementary school, the School Board arranged a school bus to pick him up. Each school year, approximately 33,000 students who attend 150 public and Catholic schools across Burlington, Halton Hills, Milton, and Oakville rely on school bus transportation to and from school.
Now that he’s in Secondary School, Liam has to pay to ride the civic bus – albeit the School Board subsidizes students’ fares. Liam (2) notes that his parents pay for his monthly bus pass. Both Liams claim that if they were involved in extracurricular activities, their parents would probably pick them up. “The bus is okay,” said Liam, “but it could be cheaper”. That would be, again, up to the School Board that has a limit on bus travel of greater than 3.2 km between school and home.
 Uber and Lyft are now part of the transit ecology – both are now public corporation’s as well. I caught up with Nancy, who works in downtown Burlington, and takes the No. 3 or 10 bus almost every day due to the fact that she is visually impaired and can’t drive. She mentions that the signage could be larger. “Connections are always a challenge,” Nancy observes. It’s a common complaint for any transit service in North America.
“If I have to go anywhere other than between work and home, I might consider Uber,” says Nancy. She also comments that Burlington Transit seems to be constantly modifying routes or schedules. “They say it’s to make improvements but I think it’s just to make it more convenient for drivers.” When I ask if she is planning to attend any of the public meetings set out to discuss transit issues, Nancy admits that she was unaware that they were actually taking place on the day we met.
I’ve long ago realized that public transit is not about getting about in a speedy manner. Taking the bus is a different lifestyle for sure. It takes longer but don’t we often hear experts tell us to ‘slow down and enjoy the journey’? I can’t do that when I’m concentrating on the other crazy drivers that blast along the roadway as if they were the only person on the road. For me, the bus gives me the time to slow down, maybe read a book, write a story, notice that Spring is finally here, or let me do a bit of people watching.
By Staff
April 15th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
These are happier days for the BFAST (Burlington for Accessible Sustainable Transit) people. They finally have a Director of Transit services who understands transit and wants to bring about changes.
BFAST has struggled for a number of years just to be heard. They bore the brunt of past Directors of Transit who were just plain incompetent.
A transit staff member said recently that “our Directors tells us every week that a large part of our job is to make this council look good”.
So far they are doing that part of their job quite well – and this city council is providing them the funding they need to create a transit service that people will use.
BFAST announced today that they will be holding their 5th Annual Transit Users’ Forum that will take place on Saturday, May 4 at the Burlington Seniors’ Centre. It will be the fifth annual such gathering sponsored by more than a dozen community organizations in Burlington.
The forum starts at 10:00 a.m.. Doors open at 9:30, and a continental breakfast will be served.
Transit riders will also have a chance to discuss service issues with drivers, who will participate in a panel discussion, and to vote on an annual transit report card.
“Where past forums were dominated by pleas for greater funding, this year’s meeting will focus on sustaining and improving the service. A significant increase in the transit budget, approved by the new City Council, has opened the door to a better transit service in Burlington,” said Doug Brown, chair of Burlington for Accessible, Sustainable Transit (BFAST), the lead organizer of the event.
“We were extremely pleased with the budget increases that transit achieved in this year’s city budget,” said Brown. “City Council’s decision means that Burlington is on the way to providing support for transit that at least meets the average of comparable communities. We are very optimistic about the future of transit in Burlington.”
“Transit is an essential building block for an inclusive and environmentally-friendly city,” Brown said. “Everyone benefits from an improved transit system, including drivers.”
Sue Connors, Director of Transit This year’s meeting will be co-sponsored by Burlington Transit, which will also provide logistical support for the event.
There was a time when the transit service neglected to provide transit service that would get people to their event.
Can transit fans expect to see the Director of Transit behind the wheel of one of the big buses?
 By Staff
April 5th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
The transit people aren’t going to give up on getting your attention.
Burlington Transit is looking for feedback from the public about significant transit changes proposed to take effect in September 2019. Transit riders and non-riders are invited to share their feedback at an upcoming open house session on April 8, 9 and 11, or online at www.getinvolvedburlington.ca until Friday, April 19.
 Has anything changed? Funding has certainly improved. At the drop-in sessions, attendees will have an opportunity to share feedback on proposed changes that will help Burlington Transit move toward a grid network that operates buses along the city’s most-travelled roads in an east-west and north-south direction.
Some of the proposed changes include:
• the relocation of all transit stops at the Burlington GO station to the south side, off Fairview Street
• the introduction and expansion of weekday 20-minute service on routes, including 1, 10 and 25
• the discontinuation of routes with low ridership, including 15, 40, 83, 300, 301 and 302, to improve frequency on grid network routes.
Open House Dates
• Monday, April 8 – 11 a.m. to 2 p.m., Central Arena, 519 Drury Ln
• Tuesday, April 9 – 3 to 6 p.m., City Hall, 426 Brant St.
• Thursday, April 11 – 6 to 9 p.m., Tansley Woods, 1996 Itabashi Way
A series of drop in sessions in March held at three different locations didn’t get much in the way of a response from Gazette readers.
Two readers had these comments:
Let’s see how this next drop in session woks out. They are being held at the same locations – which are accessible by transit,
There has been a significant change on the part of city council and the amount of money they are prepared to spend on transit to meet what they believe is going to be a much needed change in the way people move around the city.
Now it is up to the residents to look over the ideas and comment – dialogue runs in both directions.
Charles Stolte, Transit Operations Manager explains that: “Establishing a grid network to meet the mobility needs of the city’s population over the next 20 years is not something that will happen overnight, but there are improvements to our current transit service that we can make in the short term that will help lay the stepping stones of what is to come. In making these improvements, we need the thoughts and ideas of transit riders and non-riders to learn more about what’s important to them.”
 Over the next 20 years, the City of Burlington will grow in its urban areas, with 193,000 people expected to live in the city by 2031. As the population grows, ensuring people can move around the city easily and conveniently, whether by foot, car, bicycle or Burlington Transit, is important.
In the last two years, the city’s budget has made investments to enhance public transit, including $1.9 million in the 2019 capital budget and $1.55 million in the 2018 operating budget.
The free transit service that will start in June and run from 9:30 to 2:30 Monday to Friday is part of a pilot program to see if people will use transit if there is no fare to pay.
By Staff
March 13th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
 Burlington Transit getting new buses. Now that transit is something the city is prepared to spend money on (they approved the purchase of three new buses) the transit people want to know what you think should be done in terms of frequency of service, peak service hours, key travel destinations and transit connections in the GTHA.
“As Burlington’s population grows, moving around the city should be easy and convenient, including on Burlington Transit”, according to the transit people.
 Bfast has consistently provided reliable data setting out where the problems are. A series of drop in sessions are being held by the Transit service for you to learn more about the future vision for Burlington Transit and for you to share your input on what the future is going to hold.
The Drop In sessions will take place on the following dates and at the following locations:
Monday, March 18 – 3 to 6 p.m.
City Hall 426 Brant St.
Wednesday, March 20 – 11 a.m. to 2 p.m.
Central Arena, 519 Drury Ln
Thursday, March 21 – 6 to 9 p.m.
Tansley Woods, 1996 Itabashi Way
The people in Aldershot, Alton and the east end of the city are going to have to truck themselves into the middle of the city to take part.
Hopefully, the Drop in Sessions will be more of a listening exercise than a one way flow of information from them to us.
 This is also an occasion for Bfast to put together a well-researched paper on what the city needs and where it is needed.
There are changes in the air – make sure the changes reflect what you need – take part.
Director of Transit Sue Connors Burlington currently has a Director of Transit who brought a strong past with her – she changed the way Brampton put its buses to use – that city once had a terrible transit service. When Sue Connor left it was one of the best in the province.
She listens and genuinely wants a transit that works for people who use buses. Let he know what you think.
By Staff
March 5th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
The bylaw is pretty clear, almost blunt and it has $100,000 behind it to, get the work done “expeditiously”.
The task is to:
Assess the role and function of the downtown bus terminal and the Burlington GO Station as Major Transit Station Areas, including assessing the existing and long range planned transit service for the Study Area and the connections between the two respective MTSAs;
Examine the planning structure, land use mix, and intensity for the lands identified on attached schedules. (These are the maps included in the Staff Report.
Update the Official Plan and Zoning By-law regulations, as needed, for the lands identified.
Delegate authority to the City Manager in conjunction with the Director of Finance, the ability to single source or sole source work for this initiative that may exceed $100,000, allowing staff to begin the Study expeditiously.
To do all that the city wants to put a one year freeze on all development within a designated area. They will use an interim control by-law to permit the development freeze. That bylaw they want to have council pass states:
Notwithstanding any other by-law to the contrary, no person shall, for the lands identified on Schedule ‘A’ attached hereto:
a) use any land, building or structure for any purpose whatsoever except for a use that lawfully existed on the date of the passage of this By-law as long as it continues to be used for such purpose; or
b) be permitted to construct, alter or expand any building or structure, save and except where such construction, alteration or expansion is an outcome of a site plan application currently in process on the date of the passage of this By-law that is fully in accordance with the approved zoning bylaw. Site plan applications received for lands within the study areas include: 374 Martha Street, 490-492 Brock Avenue, 421 Brant Street, and 442 Pearl Street.
This By-law shall come into force and take effect immediately upon its passing by Council and shall be in effect for a period of one year from the date of passage of this By-law, or until such time that the Study is completed to the satisfaction of the City Council, unless this By-law is otherwise extended in accordance with the provision of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990, c.P.13, as amended.
The Municipal Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to proceed with the giving of notice of the passing of this By-law, in accordance with the Planning Act.
This means those developers with projects that have yet to be approved will be getting a letter in the mail.
 Planners asking council to put the brakes on development. What does it all mean? The city has put the brakes on the number of development applications being put before the Planning department – with the exception of the four that are exempted because they are in the site plan phase.
Anything else is on hold while the city figures out what it wants to do with the Urban Growth Centre boundary and the Downtown mobility hub that has been a contentious issue almost from the day it was dropped on us.
The Planning department explains:
“The need for an interim control by-law is due to staff concerns with the cumulative growth pressures quickly emerging in the Urban Growth Center and on lands in proximity to the Burlington GO Station that are requesting intensities significantly higher than anticipated by the Official Plan.
“The proposed study area includes lands that are within the Urban Growth Centre and lands in proximity to the Burlington GO Station. The interim control by-law will allow the City the opportunity to complete a land use study.
“An interim control by-law would ensure that new developments within the Study Area will be informed by the City’s transit, transportation and land use vision for the Study Area. The recommended interim control by-law will ensure the City can realize the following objectives as set out in the City’s 2015-2040 Strategic Plan:
“An interim control by-law puts a temporary prohibition or limitation on the development of certain lands while a municipality is studying or reviewing its land use policies. This “freeze” can be imposed for only a year, with a maximum extension of a second year. In accordance with the Planning Act, there is no ability to appeal an ICBL when it is first passed; however, an extension to an ICBL for the second year may be appealed.
“The Planning Act provides that an ICBL remains in effect if the new zoning regulations resulting from the ICBL are appealed. The Planning Act also sets out that when an ICBL ceases to be in effect on certain lands, a subsequent ICBL may not be imposed on those lands for a period of 3 years.
 The part of the downtown core that will be subject to a development freeze. There are more detailed maps below. “lCBLs are an important planning instrument as they allow a municipality to reconsider its land use policies by suspending development that may conflict with any new policy. ICBLs can also be exercised in situations where unforeseen issues arise, as a means of providing breathing space during which time the municipality may study the issues and determine the appropriate planning policy and controls for addressing the issues under study.
“The 2017 Growth Plan identifies an Urban Growth Centre as an existing or emerging downtown area and mandates a density target of a minimum of 200 residents and jobs combined per hectare. It is noted that there is a minor discrepancy in the boundary for Burlington’s Urban Growth Centre (UGC) when comparing between the city’s current and in force Official Plan and that of the Halton Region Official Plan. For the purposes of this interim control by-law, the boundaries of the UGC as shown in the Halton Region Official Plan will be used to establish the boundaries of the study area relating to the UGC.
 The northern part of the study area.
 The southern part of the study area. The 2017 Growth Plan defines a Major Transit Station Area as:
“The area including and around any existing or planned higher order transit station or stop within a settlement area; or the area including and around a major bus depot in an urban core. Major transit station areas generally are defined as the area within an approximate 500 metre radius of a transit station, representing about a 10-minute walk.”
 This is part of the transportation system. The 2017 Growth Plan defines Higher Order Transit as:
“Transit that generally operates in partially or completely dedicated rights-of-way, outside of mixed traffic, and therefore can achieve levels of speed and reliability greater than mixed-traffic transit. Higher order transit can include heavy rail (such as subways and inter-city rail), light rail, and buses in dedicated rights-of-way.”
“The 2017 Growth Plan does not define a Major Bus Depot.
 Is this part of the “higher order” of transit? “It is also noted that amendments to the Major Transit Station Area (MTSA) policies are currently proposed by the Province in Amendment No. 1 to the Growth Plan. For example, the area around a Major Transit Station Area where intensification may be supported is proposed to be increased from 500 to 800 metres.
“In the context of the UGC and lands in proximity to the Burlington GO Station, staff are concerned about the role and function of the Downtown John Street Bus Terminal as an MTSA as set out in the 2017 Growth Plan, and as relied upon by the Ontario Municipal Board (0MB) in the Adi Decision for 374 Martha Street.
“While the concept of an MTSA has existed since the emergence of the 2006 Growth Plan, the 2017 Growth Plan differentiates between those MTSAs located along a priority transit corridor (such as the GO Transit rail network) and those that are not. For those MTSAs located along priority transit corridors, the Growth Plan assigns prescribed minimum density thresholds of 150 residents and jobs combined for lands served by the GO Transit rail network. It is noted that this density threshold is less than the minimum density threshold of 200 persons and jobs combined as ascribed to the UGC by the 2017 Growth Plan.
“For all other MTSAs, the Growth Plan directs municipalities to plan and design these to be “transit-supportive” in accordance with Section 2.2.4.8 of the Growth Plan. Transit supportive is defined by the Growth Plan to essentially mean compact mixed use development that has a high level of employment and residential densities.
 In order to get a better grip on development in the downtown core the planners are asking city council ti impose a freeze on development for one year. “The 2017 Growth Plan does not include minimum density thresholds for transit supportive MTSAs that are not located on a priority transit corridor.
“While the Terminal is located in the UGC and a number of bus routes connect to it, it generally would not be considered to be “higher order transit” as would a GO Transit Station (for example: Burlington GO Station) or a conventional subway station as is the case in the City of Toronto where significant transit ridership occurs.
“The Study will allow for a detailed examination of the future planned function of the Terminal, which is a critical element of planning justification for the Downtown precinct framework which is absent in the Official Plan. The Terminal comprises a potential key land use element of the Downtown, and in staffs view, pursuant to the Adi Decision, is emerging as an unanticipated driver of residential intensification which may be unjustified, and which has not been planned for in the context of community and infrastructure services.
“Studying the appropriate role and function that the Terminal should play is critical in shaping the final pattern and mix of land uses and transit supportive development within the UGC and is consistent with MTSA policies.
“Moreover, given the close proximity of the Burlington GO station to the northern part of the UGC, it is prudent to study these two MTSAs and the areas around them in concert as they could have a direct influence on one another.
“The Growth Plan has steadily promoted the intensification of development within settlement areas since its inception in 2006. The 2017 Growth Plan has placed additional importance on intensification and transit through prescriptive policies targeting all UGCs and MTSAs. This is readily apparent from the Decision of the 0MB in the Adi case for 374 Martha Street. The 0MB held that compliance with the provincially prescribed minimum density target for Burlington’s UGC is not entirely sufficient; that the provincially prescribed target for the UGC is but a minimum, which municipalities should not hesitate to exceed, subject to good planning. Moreover, lands located within the boundary of the downtown MTSA deserve even higher densities.
“The City strongly objected to this Decision and requested a Section 43 review by the 0MB. The Section 43 Decision was released on November 5, 2018, and dismissed the City’s appeal for a re-hearing.
 The OMB approval of the ADI development threw all the long term thinking in the air. The Director of Planning at the time missed a major opportunity to change the way the original hearing was proceeding. “The Adi property is located within the Downtown Core Precinct which has a maximum height limit of 8 storeys in the Official Plan. Contrary to the Downtown Core Precinct policies, the 0MB approved a height limit of 26 storeys for the Adi property. The Adi Decision causes serious concern as it throws into question the merit of the established land use framework of the current and in force Official Plan for allocating and distributing the Growth Plan’s mandated density target within the UGC and the Terminal’s capacity to absorb the transit impacts of such unanticipated growth.
“When the boundary for the UGC was defined, staff’s best estimate at the time indicated that at build out, the densities prescribed in the current and in force Official Plan could meet the target set by the Growth Plan.
“With the incorporation of Adi’s recently approved density, together with other pending development applications that are requesting intensities higher than anticipated by the current and in force Official Plan (or the 2018 adopted Official Plan now before the Region for approval and currently under review), staff are concerned about the cumulative growth pressures quickly emerging in the UGC. At the Adi hearing, the Terminal was seen to be an MTSA that supports intensities well in excess of those contained in the Official Plan. Moreover, the OMB’s view was that by not approving the Adi proposal, it would be contrary to MTSA policy of the Growth Plan.
A portion of Growth Plan policy reads as follows:
“Within all major transit station areas, development will be supported, where appropriate, by …
d) prohibiting land uses and built form that would adversely affect the achievement of transit supportive densities” After considering the Adi decision, and the reliance that other developers in Burlington will place on the downtown MTSA as a rationale for additional intensity, it is imperative that the role and function of the Terminal in concert with the Burlington GO Station, be determined as part of a land use study.
“The Study will provide certainty as to the future use of the Terminal and in turn, provide staff with the planning justification to undertake any policy refinements which may be warranted, both to the study area and to the City’s urban structure as a whole. Clarity respecting the long term structural role of the Downtown as an intensification area will also assist in setting infrastructure priorities for the City as a whole, including the land in proximity to the Burlington GO Station.
“The findings of the Study will facilitate an examination of the mix of land uses within the study areas and the role of their respective MTSAs in these intensification areas. The Study will also assess the existing and long range planned transit service for the study areas and the connections between the two respective MTSAs.
“Considering the two study areas together will inform staff and Council on the future planned function of the Terminal with regard to transit supportive development.
 Developer is requesting intensities that are well in excess of those anticipated by the current and in force Official Plan. James at Martha “There is an urgency that this Study proceeds as soon as possible as cumulative growth pressures in the UGC continue to escalate. Planning staff are aware of multiple pending developments in the application review stage such as 2082-2090 James Street, 409 Brant Street, 2069-2079 Lakeshore Road, as well as other expressions of high density development interests in the UGC and on lands in proximity to the Burlington GO Station, which similar to Adi, are requesting intensities that are well in excess of those anticipated by the current and in force Official Plan (or the 2018 adopted Official Plan now before the Region for approval and currently under review).
 Development proposed for south east corner of Brant and James. “It is noted that there is an appeal of the application at 409 Brant Street, which at the time of writing this report is scheduled for a case management conference in summer 2019. Staff are also aware of a number of major land assemblies within the UGC where higher than prescribed intensities are anticipated to be applied for over the next few years.
Land Use Study Exemptions
“Applications for site plan approval fully in accordance with the approved zoning bylaw, received prior to the date of the passage of this by-law, on lands within the study areas shall be exempt from this by-law given that most of these developments have received planning approvals by the OMB/LPAT or Council.
“At the time of writing this report, site plan applications received for lands within the study areas include: 374 Martha Street, 490-492 Brock Avenue, 421 Brant Street, and 442 Pearl Street. No new site plan applications for lands within the study areas will be processed from the date of the passage of this by-law.
 Nautique will rise at the corner of Lakeshore Road and Martha.  The Carriage Gate development – The Element will get built across the street from city hall. “Staff recognizes that there are some existing uses such as low density residential within the study areas that will be affected by the ICBL and they will be prevented from being altered or expanded during the term of the Study.
“There are some downsides and perhaps unintended consequences. “Potential financial matters as an outcome of an interim control by-law will likely include: reduced planning development application fees and revenues, reduced building permit and construction activity, reduced development charges received, and deferral of Capital Works projects within the study areas.
“Given the need to proceed expeditiously with the Study, this report recommends that the City Manager be delegated the authority for single or sole source the required work should the value exceed $100,000.
“The Study will require collaboration with the Transit and Transportation Departments to ensure the function of the Terminal aligns with the planning structure of the UGC and lands in proximity to the Burlington GO Station. It will also provide greater clarity to the Capital Works Department when predicting life cycles and investments for various city assets within the study areas.
“No notice is required prior to the passing of a by-law for an interim control by-law however, notice has been provided for the proposed interim control by-law. Notice of passing of the interim control by-law shall be provided pursuant to the provisions of the Planning Act.
Conclusion:
“Given the implications of the recent Adi Decision and its reliance upon the MTSA status for the approval of 26 storeys, which is beyond the density level established in the Official Plan, and the above-noted significant development pressures, staff recommends that an interim control by-law be passed as outlined in the Recommendation section of this report. The interim control by-law will provide sufficient time for the Study to examine the planning structure, land use mix, and intensity for the lands within the study area. It is planned that this Study would be initiated immediately by staff in order that there be an expeditious planning process in 2019.”
This gets debated at a Standing Committee meeting this afternoon. Assuming the recommendation coming out of the meeting is to go forward – the Standing Committee will become a city council meeting and the by law will be passed.
Would it be fair and reasonable to cal this a Bold move?
 By Pepper Parr
February 28th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
The first part (Capital) of the 2019 budget has been approved;city council now moves on to completing the debate on the Operations part of the budget.
This city council has shown that it is ready to do things differently. The capital focus has been on infrastructure and transit. Spending for 2019 will amount to $96.4 million with a 10-year program of $819 million.
Seventy two per cent of the 10-year capital budget will be invested in renewing Burlington’s aging infrastructure.
A breakdown of spending for the 2019 capital budget of $96.4 million includes:
 Burlington has to do a major upgrade of its information technology systems – some of it is urgently needed. • $49.5 million, the largest component, for roadways
• $10.1 million for facilities and buildings
• $8.4 million for parks and open spaces
• $6.3 million in storm water management
• $10.6 million towards fleet vehicles and equipment
• $9.5 million for information technology
• $0.9 million for local boards (Burlington Public Library, Burlington Performing Arts Centre, Art Gallery of Burlington, Burlington Museums)
• $1.1 in parking.
Some highlights of the 2019 capital budget include:
Burlington Transit getting new buses – to deliver less service. • $1.9 million in funding to improve public transit with the purchase of three new conventional buses
• $234,000 in funding to purchase one new para-transit bus
• $550,000 in funding to build a new splash pad in Brant Hills Community Park
• $450,000 in funding for a new sports lighting system for the ball diamond and pathways at Maple Park
• $600,000 in funding for new amenities at Tansley Woods Park.
Council was able to whittle away some of the Finance department recommendation of $96.8 million down to $96.4 million.
 By Staff
February 28th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
 Crossing the finish line: Easy when there is no snow. It is going to be a challenge this Sunday. That time of year again – when hundreds of runner take to the pavement and tun the Chilly Half Marathon. This time it is really going to be chilly.
There will be transit route disruptions.
Routes 3, 10 & 20 Detour – March 3
Detour Area: Brant St. south of Caroline St. and Lakeshore Rd. from Brant St. to Burloak Dr.
Detour Dates: March 3, 2019 6 a.m. to 3 p.m.
Detour Routes:
• Route 3 Northbound will leave the Terminal and travel along New St. turning left onto Guelph Line and continue regular routing
• Route 3 to Burlington GO will leave the Terminal and travel along John St. and Caroline St. then turn onto Brant Street and continue regular routing
• Route 10 will leave the Terminal and travel along John St., Caroline St, Locust St., and Ontario St. then turn onto Maple Ave. and continue regular routing
• Route 10 from the Burlington GO will travel along Maple Ave. then turn onto Ontario street and travel along Locust St., Caroline St. and John St. to the Terminal
• Route 20 will travel along Appleby Line turn left onto Spruce Ave. and travel along Hampton Heath Rd., Stratton Rd., Boxley Rd. and Winston Rd. then turn left onto Burloak Dr. and continue regular routing
Stops not in Service:
• Lakeshore Rd. between Brant St. and Guelph Line and between Appleby St. and Burloak Dr.
• Burloak Dr. between Winston Rd. and Lakeshore Rd.
• Appleby Line between New St. and Lakeshore Rd.
 Transit route changes – Sunday March 3rd, 2019
By Staff
January 31st, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
The construction of the second tower on Brock Street is going to mean a detour for Burlington Transit route 300 from Feb. 4, 2019 to June 2019
 The second Molinaro tower (shown in white) in the area fits in well and adds to the need for accommodation. The detour is on Ontario St. between Maple Ave. and Nelson Ave. Construction will begin on the second Molinaro tower in the area. The site is minutes away from Spencer Smith Park.
Detour Dates: February 4, 2019 to June 2019
Route: 3
Proceed to stops:
• On Maple Ave.
• Ontario St. east of Nelson Ave.
Stops not in Service:
• 765 – Ontario St. at Maple Ave.
• 766 – Ontario St. at Brock Ave.
• 775 – Ontario St. at Nelson Ave.
By Pepper Parr
January 18th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
Before they broke for the Christmas holidays a city council that had been sworn in just ten days earlier asked staff to sharpen their pencils and tell them how they would reduce the 2019 budget increase to 2%, 3% and 3.5%.
The budget they were looking at was coming in at 3.99% – and they didn’t want to have to swallow a number like that.
Council also asked staff to tell them what the impact would be of removing the 1.25% infrastructure tax levy for the 2019 budget.
Part 1 – 2019 Operating Budget Options
The options presented below largely result in decreased funding to the capital program. It is important to note that any changes to the dedicated infrastructure levy impacts both renewal projects as well as new projects in the capital program. The city’s asset management plan is about the long-term management of our existing infrastructure.
New capital assets add to the city’s base inventory and therefore increase our funding requirements for renewal needs. If we are unable to sustain our existing portfolio of assets it is recommended that we limit future expansion and/or new infrastructure. Continued investments in new or expanded assets compound our inability to financially manage our infrastructure.
Staff have provided this memo for information and have attempted to communicate the future challenges and impacts that each of the options pose.
Option A – 3.25% (0.74% tax reduction from 3.99%)
Options for service reductions are:
• Elimination of the loose-leaf collection program.
Benefits
o Ongoing operating savings of $450,000 (0.28% tax reduction) and approximately $45,000 of average annual renewal costs for the replacement of equipment.
o Allows for 2,400 staff hours to be reassigned to other program areas including parks, trails, sportsfield maintenance, and road maintenance.
o Allows for winter snow fighting equipment to be ready in November. Currently only one weekend of turnaround time between leaf collection and winter work.
 Can Burlington afford to be collecting the leaves? o Loose-leaf collection is not always completed due to onset of winter weather. This frustrates residents and challenges staff to convert equipment over to snow fighting in a timely fashion.
o Results in reduced greenhouse gas emissions from equipment operating for 6 weeks and trucking by contractor to Halton Waste Disposal site. Currently leaves are collected and trucked to a central area and later picked up by a contractor who transports them to the Halton Region transfer station where the city pays a tipping fee to dispose of the leaves.
o Halton Region provides bagged yard waste every other week from April to December.
o In lieu of this program, the city would promote more environmentally friendly options including mulching leaves on site or composting at home.
Drawbacks
o Reduced service to residents
o This will increase collection of bagged leaves by Halton Region Waste Services.
o Will require extensive public education / communication.
• 2019 capital program reduction of $750,000 for new infrastructure (0.47% tax reduction).
o Results in ongoing reduction of funding to the 10-year capital program of $7.5 million.
o The list of 2019 projects that would be impacted are:
Should this option be considered, an amendment to the 2019 capital budget would be required for the projects identified above. Future years would need to be amended as part of the 2020 capital budget.
 Nothing vital about putting the elimination of that right hand turn on hold. The removal of $7.5 million of funding from the 10-year capital budget and forecast would limit the city’s ability to address any requests for future new infrastructure. This would constrain future investments to implement recommendations resulting from the integrated transportation mobility plan, cycling master plan, school closure opportunities, and enhanced neighbourhood amenities such as splash pads and skate parks.
Option B – 3% (0.99 % tax reduction from 3.99%)
In addition to the items included in Option A, a further service reduction option is:
• Further reduction of $400,000 of funding to the capital program for new infrastructure (0.25% tax reduction).
o This would result in an ongoing reduction of funding to the capital program and require the removal of an additional $4 million of projects from the 10-year capital program.
o The remaining new / enhanced project meeting this dollar threshold is:
Should this option be considered, an amendment to the 2019 capital budget would be required for the projects identified above. Future years would need to be amended as part of the 2020 capital budget.
 The Promenade is to stretch across the downtown core – and when that core has undergone all the high rise construction it might be something to complete – but not now. The Elgin Street Promenade is included in the Core Commitment Implementation Strategy as a short term initiative to improve active transportation in the downtown and enhance the connectivity of existing pedestrian and cycling connections to the Centennial Multi-use Pathway and the Downtown Transit Terminal through the creation of an enhanced promenade with landscaping and pedestrian facilities that meet Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities (AODA) guidelines. The first three phases of this project have been competed. The final phase of this project is planned for 2019 and extends from Pearl Street to Martha Street.
The completed Elgin Promenade will create a significant piece of downtown infrastructure through an east-west pedestrian and cycling corridor that provides opportunities for active transportation including cycling connections, access to transit, walkability and accessibility and brings significant social, environmental and economic benefits to the downtown core. The promenade connects the downtown to the Downtown Transit Terminal and the Centennial Multi-use Pathway which extends northeast across the City.
Without funding for this project, the final phase of this project can not be completed and the objective of connecting the east and west sides of the downtown through a safe, accessible cycling and pedestrian connection will not be realized.
Option C – 2% (1.99 % tax reduction from 3.99%)
In addition to the items included in Options A & B, a further service reduction option is:
• Reduction of $1,610,000 of funding to the capital program for renewal (1% tax reduction).
o This would result in an ongoing reduction of funding to the capital program and require the removal of $16.1 million of renewal projects from the 10-year capital program.
Should this option be considered, an amendment to the 2019 capital budget would be required for the projects identified above. Future years would need to be amended as part of the 2020 capital budget.
The Asset Management Plan is built on the premise of being able to address the city’s infrastructure needs at the right time in the asset’s life cycle and in the most cost-effective manner. This is vital to ensure that city assets continue to provide a standard of service that residents expect and to minimize long-term costs.
Resurfacing a road at the optimum time results in a cost of 1x. Delaying this treatment begins to compromise the base materials, escalating costs to 3x the original value. Further delay results in the street requiring full reconstruction at a cost of 10x the original value. Removal of funding to the local road resurfacing program will result in sub-optimal timing of construction and cost escalation.
Deferring the renewal of community centres will also result in an increase in the total long-term costs to the City. This includes increased operating and maintenance costs as the facilities age as well as increased risk of system failures impacting service delivery. Recent examples of emergency facility closure include Appleby Ice Centre in December of 2018 and Nelson Outdoor Pool in the Summer of 2017.
Part 2 – Impact of removing 1.25% infrastructure tax levy
Staff interpreted the direction to include the impact for the 2019 budget year only with future dedicated levy increases continuing.
At a high level, the impacts associated with any reduction or removal of the dedicated infrastructure levy includes:
• Impact on the city’s asset management financing plan and the city’s ten-year capital program. Removing the 1.25% dedicated infrastructure levy for 2019 removes the equivalent of $2 million of capital projects (renewal/ new) in the budget year, and $20 million worth of capital projects over the ten-year capital program as the levy has a cumulative impact
• The removal of one year of funding leads to an unsustainable funding plan.
• An increase to the city’s unfunded renewal needs, meaning a backlog of renewal projects beyond the 2016 amount of $126.5 million that will require immediate attention. It is important to recognize that it is possible for the Unfunded Renewal Needs (URN) to grow to a point where the possibility of tackling the immediate requirements and continuing to keep pace with current needs will not be possible due to capacity constraints and unreasonably high financing requirements.
• Deferred maintenance and deferred renewal is inevitable. The result will be an increase in the total long-term costs to the City of Burlington by way of;
o increased operating and maintenance costs to prolong the life of the asset from accelerated infrastructure deterioration
o Increased rehabilitation costs due to deterioration beyond the life of the asset
o Escalation of capital costs due to required higher cost rehabilitation treatments
o Emergency, unscheduled maintenance due to system failures impacting service delivery
o Passing costs to future generations to manage existing assets
• Infrastructure renewal investment is crucial to replacing and upgrading assets to better adapt to climate change
There is a considerable amount of room to get a budget that is very close to inflation. It will take some courage for these council members – but they asked what was possible and staff set out what will be lost if the proposed budget is changed.
Do we really have to have the leaves picked up? Does the Fire Department really need a drone? Does that right hand turn elimination need to be done now – and why would we spend a dime on the Promenade when the downtown core is going to begin to become a decade long construction site in the not too distant future.
By Pepper Parr
January 10th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
First of a five part series.
Back in July of last year, before the residents of the city decided they wanted a different city council, there was a report that was discussed debated and filed. It was a discussion paper on the draft precinct plans and land use policy directions for the Aldershot GO, Burlington GO and Appleby GO Mobility hubs. The report was received and filed and will, in the near future come back to council.
Mobility hubs were put into the planning lexicon by the provincial government- they wanted to see more intensive development close to the GO stations. For Burlington that meant development in Aldershot, along Fairview next to that GO station and in he east end beside the Appleby Station.
Each of these stations has large pieces of land on which cars park while residents take the GO train to some other location.
Burlington planners didn’t seem to be fully aware of what the term a mobility hub meant; the Mayor at the time certainly didn’t have a firm grip on the concept.
Those days are behind us – those who are aware of what is going on in the city certainly understand the concept – where the differences exist is – do we want what the province is suggesting and who determines the boundaries of each mobility hub?
The mobility hubs are part of a much larger picture – there is a Strategic Plan that is going to get some tweaking to make it fit into the priorities of the new council; the Official Plan is back in the hands of the city and that will get a review that most people expect to be significantly, if not radically different than what was approved WHEN
The purpose of the report that went before a Standing Committee, was to present the draft precinct plans for the GO Station Hubs (Aldershot, Burlington and Appleby GO) and associated draft key land use policy directions for community and Council feedback and discussion. These draft precinct plans are key inputs into the creation of the Area Specific Plans (ASPs) for the three GO Station Mobility Hubs.
By undertaking secondary plans or Area Specific Plans (ASPs) for Burlington’s Mobility Hubs, the City continues to implement the objectives of the Strategic Plan and Official Plan to direct intensification, achieve transit-supportive densities and develop pedestrian and transit-oriented mixed uses areas in the downtown Urban Growth Centre and at the City’s key major transit station areas (i.e. the GO stations).
In 2014, through the Official Plan Review process, the City along with consultants from Brook McIlroy completed the Mobility Hubs Opportunities and Constraints Study, which provided a high-level analysis of each of the City’s Mobility Hubs and informed the development of the study areas for future Area Specific Planning work to be done in each of the Mobility Hubs.
In July 2016, Burlington City Council approved a staff report which outlined a work plan, allocation of staff resources and required funding to simultaneously develop four ASPs, one for each of Burlington’s Mobility Hubs. The project was approved with unanimous City Council support; most of that council is now part of the city’s history.
In December 2016, the Mobility Hubs Team undertook a competitive Request for Proposals (RFP) process to retain a consulting team to assist with the development of ASPs for each of Burlington’s four Mobility Hubs, with the goal of supporting the future redevelopment and intensification of these areas.
In April 2017, the Mobility Hubs team initiated the study publicly with a launch party followed by the beginning of a comprehensive public consultation program around the future vision for each of the Mobility Hubs.
 The province knew it had to upgrade the GO train service – it will become every 15 minute service in the not too distant future and the longer term plan is to electrify the system. In addition to achieving City Council’s objectives for intensification and growth, the Mobility Hub ASPs will also support the objectives of Metrolinx’s The Big Move, including the development of Regional Express Rail (RER) service, through the creation of complete communities with transit-supportive densities, as identified through the Province’s Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe and in the Region of Halton’s Official Plan (2017).
 The Downtown mobility hub will be somewhere along John Street – making use of the small station that the Transit department once recommended be removed. Schedule 1 of The Big Move recognizes two Mobility Hubs in Burlington: the Downtown Mobility Hub is identified as an Anchor Mobility Hub and the Burlington GO Mobility Hub which is identified as a Gateway Hub. In the City’s New Official Plan, all three GO Stations and the downtown are identified as Mobility Hubs and as areas of strategic importance to accommodate the City’s future growth.
The hubs were to be where the growth was to take place which made sense. The problem was that development proposals for the downtown core began to come in that used to creation of a downtown mobility hub as part of their justification. A large number of citizens didn’t see that kind of development as ideal for the city.
The creation of a Downtown hub has been very controversial. Many feel that the creation of this “anchor” hub made it possible for developers to justify more height and density than was felt fit in with the small town feel that people wanted in the core part of the city.
Those developments became the election issue that resulted in a new council who now have to decide what they want in the way of development in the city. MArianne Meed Ward made it clear during the election that she believed the population growth expected of Burlington by the province had already been achieved.
On December 4, 2017, staff brought forward a report which presented preferred concepts and supporting technical memos for the GO Station Hubs (Aldershot, Burlington, and Appleby GO) for community and Council feedback and discussion. The preferred concepts outlined land uses and building heights within each of the three GO Station Hubs. These preferred concepts were based upon public and stakeholder feedback and were intended to prompt discussion regarding the emerging vision for each of the hubs. Since that time, staff have taken that feedback and used it to develop draft precinct plans for each hub which will be further explored in this report.
With this as background let us take a look at the plans for each of the mobility hubs and better understand what is planned and what the impact on the city is likely to be.
 The coloured shading sets out where the different forms of development could be located in the Burlington GO mobility hub, The objectives for each hub include:
- Directing the highest intensity to areas in close proximity to major transit stations and to current or planned frequent transit corridors;
- Minimizing shadowing impacts on public parks and open spaces and low density established residential neighbourhoods;
- Providing height transitions to established low density residential neighbourhoods outside of the hub boundaries;
- Providing increased permeability for active transportation options to and from GO stations;
- Providing recognition of existing cultural heritage resources;
- Creating feasible opportunities for new parks and open spaces to serve current and future residents and employees in each area;
- Identifying new and existing streets and other linkages to serve as key green, active transportation corridors to facilitate improved connectivity within, to and from the hubs;
- Creating new parks and open spaces that integrate with and enhance the existing city-wide parks and open space system;
- Providing a level of intensity to attract new retail and commercial functions to serve current and future residents and employees;
- Recognizing existing employment functions and providing for a variety of new and expanded employment and commercial opportunities;
- Planning for a variety of housing forms to attract a broad range of
- Identifying opportunities for a broad range of future public service facilities in locations that provide the greatest access to future residents and in locations that provide the greatest flexibility to accommodate a variety of functions and uses;
The Aldershot, Burlington and Appleby GO Mobility Hubs each required unique considerations with respect to the location and distribution of building typologies, parks and open space networks, public service facilities, active transportation connections, and streets based on the existing context within and around the hub, which was informed, in part, by public and stakeholder feedback.
The following objectives were developed for the Burlington GO Mobility Hub
The existing area around the Burlington Hub is comprised of large parcels in areas heavily fragmented by rail/spur lines, grade separated overpasses and underpasses and wide arterial City and Regional streets.
The study area is almost void of any existing residential uses, with the exception of the residential Paradigm development on Fairview, that will have residents in the first of five towers in the near future.
 With little to none in the way of parkland within the Burlington GO mobility hub planners are going to have to be creative and ready to do some arm wrestling with the property owners to get parkland. The area also lacks any functional parks or open spaces. Most of the properties currently contain large-scale and/or auto-centric commercial uses as well as heavy employment uses both within and adjacent to the study area.
Within the Burlington GO Mobility Hub, the following were identified as additional unique objectives for this area:
- Limiting intensity in areas within close proximity to existing industrial uses which continue to have a planned employment function; and,
- Locating the highest intensity developments in locations that will support strong active transportation and frequent transit corridor connections as well as provide new uses and amenities that will support the planned functions of both the Urban Growth Centre / Downtown Mobility Hub and the Burlington GO Mobility Hub;
Within the current and Council-adopted Official Plans, the City utilizes a precinct planning system for the Downtown in place of traditional city-wide land use designations typically found in other areas of the city. For Burlington, this precinct system allows for the recognition, and focused long-term planning of, discrete but inter-related areas, each with their own specific characteristics and/or planned role/function within a concentrated geographic area of the city.
Because of the limited geographic area within which precincts apply, precincts can provide the opportunity to establish highly detailed and customized policies and regulations to address a variety of matters specific to that area.
As a result of on-going public and stakeholder feedback, technical studies as well as discussions with Council at the December 4th, 2017 Committee of the Whole workshop, staff incorporated general changes in terms of mapping and terminology as part of the development of the draft precinct plans which are presented in this report. The following outlines these changes:
- Conceptual Streets/Public Rights-of-Way: Early-stage concepts included the identification of conceptual street locations (including both new streetsand extensions to existing streets) to improve pedestrian and cycling permeability throughout the hub as well as to enable conceptual opportunities for new development on large parcels. For the purposes of precinct planning, the majority of the conceptual streets have been removed from the mapping with only key new or extended arterial streets being retained in mapping.
The location and nature of any additional streets/public rights-of-way will be subject to the outcome of identified transportation/traffic infrastructure requirements resulting from the Mobility Hubs transportation studies and incorporated as part of future draft Area Specific Plan mapping and policies for public consultation in the new year.
- Proposed Parks and Open Spaces: Early-stage concepts included the identification of new park locations as well as the conceptual configuration of such parks. The exact configuration of parks was, in part, correlated to the conceptual street network which has been removed for the purposes of precinct plan As a result, staff have refined the mapping to identify parks with a symbol rather then an exact configuration. However, the general locations of key proposed park locations have been maintained and are reflective of staff collaboration with the City’s Parks and Open Space team.
Upon completion of a more detailed street network, staff will identify any recommended detailed park requirements, including sizes and configurations, as part of the future draft Area Specific Plan mapping and policies for public consultation in the new year.
- Community Use – Public Service Terminology: Early stage concepts included Community Use (CU) symbols to indicate the need for community use facilities in particular locations throughout the hubs. For clarity and consistency, staff have revised the terminology from Community Use facilities to Public Service facilities to align with the terminology included in the City’s newly adopted Official Plan and the terminology used in the Provincial Policy Statement. These facilities will accommodate current and future public services within the hubs including healthcare, education, emergency and protective services, cultural activities, and civic administration, among other things.
 Citizens, developer representatives and members of Council took part in the public sessions. Now retired Councillor John Taylor attended most of the sessions Since the Fall of 2017 staff have held numerous public engagement events to engage with the community about the future of the GO Station Mobility Hubs in various formats including public open houses, online surveys and individual meetings with various residents, property owners and other stakeholders.
Staff held nine (9) public open houses, three within each of the GO station hubs, to solicit feedback regarding the most recent draft precinct plans presented through this report.
Staff have identified the following recurring topics which have emerged from feedback provided by the community to-date with a corresponding staff response.
Parkland dedication requirements:
Some property owners and developers have expressed concerns regarding the potential need to provide parkland dedication to the City as part of a future development as identified in the draft precinct plans.
Staff Response:
Under The Planning Act and City of Burlington Parkland Dedication By- Law, the City is entitled to a parkland dedication from a development equaling 1.0 hectare for every 300 residential units or 2% of the total land area for commercial/industrial developments. Historically, in urban intensification cases where physical parkland was not deemed to be required, the City has exercised cash-in-lieu of parkland in accordance with The Planning Act and the City’s By-law. In the mobility hubs, physical parkland dedication will be a priority as these areas are being comprehensively planned as transit-oriented urban neighbourhoods that will accommodate a significant increase in residents and employees relative to what exists today.
The provision of new park spaces will be integral to ensuring that the mobility hubs are developed as healthy, active and livable neighbourhoods. As such staff have been highly focused on identifying new strategic park locations which would be the focus of future parkland dedications resulting from redevelopment. In identifying new strategic parks, staff have been cognizant of the potential constraints a physical parkland dedication may have on the overall redevelopment potential of a property. Working in collaboration with the City’s Parks and Open Space team within Capital Works, the precinct plans identify significant park locations within the hubs to ensure park needs for the entire hub are not borne by a single property and to also ensure that park locations are focused on larger parcels which have a greater opportunity to provide a parkland dedication while continuing to allow for significant redevelopment of the site.
Maximum height of tall buildings:
Comments have been received expressing concerns regarding the maximum height peak that could be achieved within the GO station mobility hubs.
Staff Response:
The draft precinct plans provide for a mix of building types at varying heights and intensities. The tallest and highest intensity developments are limited to the “Central” precincts proposed within each of the GO hubs.
Generally, these precincts are located in closest proximity to the GO stations themselves and rail corridor which provide for a significant separation from low density residential areas within or adjacent to the hubs. The draft precinct plans contemplate a maximum building height of 30 storeys within these precincts.
 Locations for possible mid rise buildings are defined; will developers push for more height and density?
This maximum building height is intended to recognize the significant opportunity these sites have to accommodate both population and employment growth in close proximity to higher-order transit balanced with the need to ensure that building intensity is limited so as to not permit long-term build-out of the mobility hub to be concentrated to a limited number of properties. Staff continue to review best practices from other municipalities for this precinct and continue to seek community feedback regarding this proposed maximum height for these “Central” precincts.
It must be noted that not all sites within a “Central” precinct, or any precinct contained within the mobility hub draft precinct plan, may be able to achieve the maximum building height contemplated. The ability of a development to achieve the maximum permitted height/intensity will be based on a variety of site specific considerations such as shadowing, transportation impacts and other infrastructure capacity matters, among others, which can only be properly assessed at the time of a development application.
Current and future traffic congestion:
Concerns regarding impacts of future development within the mobility hubs on traffic congestion have been raised consistently throughout mobility hub public engagement.
 The planners want to see more in the way of traffic along Fairview. Getting into the southern GO station parking lot is a challenge as it is. Staff Response:
Consultants for the Mobility Hubs project are currently undertaking transportation studies to evaluate the existing traffic conditions within each hub and the projected impacts resulting from the planned people and jobs capacity of the hubs at build-out. This information will inform staff’s development of new transportation policies and new transportation infrastructure proposed for each hub, including potential active transportation connections and new streets, which will be needed to mitigate future impacts. More detail about all technical studies being undertaken as part of the development of the Area Specific Plans, including transportation studies, are provided in Section 6.0 of this report.
Compatibility with established residential neighbourhoods:
Concerns have been raised by residents of established residential neighbourhoods both within or adjacent to each of the mobility hubs about the potential impacts of tall building on their homes and neighbourhoods.
Staff Response:
As part of staff’s development of the draft precinct plans, tall building precincts were located in strategic areas to mitigate potential impacts on any existing established residential neighbourhoods and further refined in response to public feedback received through the various public meetings held. Each of the mobility hub precinct plans also utilizes a variety of building typologies and scales of development, such as mid-rise buildings and low-rise formats, to create transitions between the tallest buildings in the hub and any established residential areas.
As staff develop detailed policies for each precinct through the Area Specific Plans, additional building design and built form requirements will be investigated and established in policy and future design guidelines, to further enhance the compatibility of developments that occur adjacent to established neighbourhoods.
These measures may include, but are not limited to, angular planes, building setbacks and landscaping buffers. In addition, compatibility matters are further reviewed and addressed on a site-specific basis at the time of a development application
Burlington GO Mobility Hub
Supply of public parks and community amenities:
It has been recognized that the Burlington GO mobility hub study area is currently absent of any public parks and community gathering spaces.
Staff Response:
Through the draft precinct plan for the Burlington GO Mobility Hub, staff have focused on identifying numerous strategic parks and potential public service sites to serve new residents and employees of the hub. Given the presence of various rail and spur lines, over/under passes and large arterial streets which result in a fragmented urban structure, staff have focused on distributing park locations and other public use functions throughout the hub to ensure all new residents and employees to this hub will have meaningful access to these integral neighbourhood amenities.
Active transportation connections and permeability:
Residents in the Glenwood Park established neighbourhood located north of the rail line and east of Burlington GO station have identified a need for additional, direct pedestrian and/or cycling connections from the neighbourhood to the Burlington GO station.
Staff Response:
New active transportation linkages have been identified in the precinct plan that would connect the neighbourhood to the GO station. These linkages would be achieved at such time as the intervening lands located between the neighbourhood and the GO station are redeveloped.
Employment land conversion
Within the Aldershot, Burlington and Appleby GO Mobility Hubs, there currently exist Locally and Regionally identified employment lands. As part of the new Official Plan process, the City studied its employment lands. As part of the “Burlington Employment Lands Policy Recommendations and Conversion Analysis Report” prepared by Dillon Consulting, both City and privately initiated employment conversions were considered. The report also included a detailed analysis with respect to employment lands in close proximity to Mobility Hubs.
 The planners have proposed some urban employment can be located near the rail line in the northern part of the Burlington mobility hub boundary. The outcome of the analysis was to establish which lands would be preliminarily recommended for conversion. It is critical to note that a recommendation for conversion does not imply that the lands are no longer intended to serve an employment function. Rather, a preliminary recommendation to convert should be understood to mean that the City wants to achieve a mix of uses including employment, commercial and residential. Equally important is to reinforce that a potential mix of uses does not necessarily include residential uses, but could include a broader range of commercial uses.
The City’s recommendations for the conversion of employment lands can be organized into two categories: those conversions to support sites with unique constraints; and, those conversions to support the emerging urban structure. Employment land conversions within the Mobility Hubs support the emerging urban structure and constitute the majority of lands and parcels recommended for conversion.
The new Official Plan presents the Area of Employment overlay which both removes and adds land from the Regional Area of Employment overlay. Lands that are proposed to be removed from the Regional Area of Employment overlay will be deferred and considered subject to the Region of Halton Official Plan Review.
The Area Specific Planning (ASP) process will proceed with planning of these lands in the context of the broader objectives of the Mobility Hubs Study and the guiding principles and unique considerations for each of the hubs. The ASP process also plans to achieve new employment uses within the Mobility Hubs which are compatible in a mixed-use context.
Area Specific Plan (ASP) Development and Timing
The development of the draft precinct plans included within this report are key inputs into the creation of the Area Specific Plans (ASPs) for the three GO Station Mobility Hubs. ASPs are plans that apply to a specific geographic area, such as the City’s four Mobility Hubs. ASPs can include a variety of studies and contain specific policies to guide future development which can form the basis of an amendment to an Official Plan. City Building staff are continuing work on the ASPs for the Downtown and the three GO Station Mobility Hubs. The work will include the development of more detailed policies which are not otherwise developed at an Official Plan level of detail. These include, but are not limited to:
- Site-specific constraints;
- Detailed heritage analysis;
- Phasing of development;
- Infrastructure capacity;
- Stormwater management including floodplains;
- Feasibility of future transportation connections;
- Additional sustainability measures;
- Area-focused community engagement;
- Implementation and incentive tools; and,
- Further area-specific design
In terms of timing, staff will be bringing forward four Area Specific Plans by Q1 2019.
ASP Technical Studies
 Some development could be added to the Leland community in the upper western part of the Burlington mobility hub.  The planners have created a new name for a precinct – “public service”. Is a school proposed for the area? Preliminary technical information regarding the projected densities; market analysis; environmental studies; stormwater, water and wastewater assessments; cultural heritage resource assessments and archeology were previously provided. . The suite of technical studies consists of the following:
Environmental Impact Studies – A scoped Environmental Impact Study (EIS) is being completed for each of the four Mobility Hubs as part of this planning study. The purpose of each EIS will be to inventory existing conditions of the natural environment (e.g., woodlands, wetlands, valleys, wildlife habitat, watercourses), identify the potential impacts that the proposed Area Specific Plans may have on these features, and develop high-level mitigation plans, where appropriate, focusing on appropriately minimizing or eliminating impacts. The proposed approach for the scoped EIS work is to focus on two key objectives:
- Identifying lands which are not suitable for development based on their significance or related constraints; and,
- Identifying opportunities for ecological restoration, as a number of the lands around the hub areas are heavily
Functional Servicing – The detailed Functional Servicing Study involves a review of the existing water and wastewater services accessible to each of the hubs; confirmation of the capacity of the water and wastewater services accessible to each of the hubs; and preparation of water and wastewater servicing concepts for each of the hubs. This study will inform the Area Specific Plans in regards to water and wastewater infrastructure capital needs.
Air, Noise & Vibration – A Pre-Feasibility Noise and Vibration Study is being completed for the Aldershot, Burlington and Appleby GO Mobility Hub study areas (note: Burlington Downtown is excluded from the Noise and Vibration Study Scope). The Noise and Vibration Study includes reviewing the noise and vibration impact of introducing new sensitive land uses in proximity to existing stationary and transportation noise sources (e.g. industrial, rail, etc.). The Study will identify potential impacts which may exist and identify areas of impact and associated potential mitigation measures which may be required within the study areas. In addition, Provincial guidelines such as the D-6 guideline for compatibility between industrial facilities and NPC-300 for stationary and transportation noise, will provide staff with an understanding of the development constraints which may exist with respect to the introduction of sensitive land uses, such as residential uses, within the mobility hubs
Air Quality Impact – An Air Quality Impact and a high-level Risk Assessment Study for the Aldershot, Burlington and Appleby Mobility Hub study areas is being completed (note: Burlington Downtown is excluded from the Air Quality Study). This Study will review the air quality impacts of introducing new sensitive land uses (clusters of future sensitive receptors) in proximity to existing stationary and transportation sources of air emissions (e.g. industrial facilities, rail, highways, etc.). The Study will review these impacts, which exist within or outside the respective Mobility Hub study areas. Results of the risk assessment will be used to develop strategies to mitigate potential air quality impacts associated with the respective Mobility Hubs.
Transportation – A transportation study is currently underway to identify future transportation needs and parking strategies for all four Mobility Hubs. This Study will review the transportation network and identify improvements and enhancements needed to support the plans and encourage multi-modal transportation solutions. The Study will review the current and planned active transportation networks and identify improvements. Further, transportation demand management (TDM) strategies and policies will be developed for each hub. This work will also include a strategic parking review to identify appropriate parking rates within the mobility hubs and strategies to achieve the desired modal splits. This work will also identify a framework to deal with the changing parking demands over time and appropriate use of off-street parking; municipal parking lots, and shared parking.
This particular study is years behind – it is a critical part of the planning decisions that have to be made
Market Analysis – A market analysis is being completed for each Mobility Hub study area to help guide the planning and urban design aspects of the project. A contextual market analysis of the City of Burlington is being completed along with a more detailed assessment of the four Mobility Hub study areas. For each station area, the assessment will include development trends, land values, and an assessment of how the study areas relate to the Burlington and GTHA marketplace. This will include assessing the nature of residential, commercial and office development including both tenant and buyer profiles. This analysis will give a broad idea of the nature of long term demand and the expected development trends looking forward.
This work will also identify other development opportunities and challenges related to development economics and feasibility, the protection/enhancement of existing employment functions, development phasing, the need for financial incentives, population and employment forecasts for the land use scenarios, and other related market considerations. This analysis will inform and ensure the Area Specific Plans are both marketable and feasible from a development and economic perspective. In addition to market inputs, this study will provide strategies and advice related to overcoming development challenges (e.g. fragmented ownership and prohibitive land values, contaminated lands, land use compatibility concerns, etc.) and achieving municipal objectives (green space, affordable housing, community facilities, appropriate housing mix, etc.).
Fiscal Impact Analysis – The intent of the Financial Impact Analysis (FIA) is to measure the operating and capital cost impacts of intensification within each of the Mobility Hubs, both individually and in aggregate, for various types of residential, non- residential, and mixed-use development. The FIA would be undertaken for City and Regional services and measure the incremental costs for new development, including new infrastructure and associated lifecycle replacement requirements.
Archaeological / Cultural Heritage – The archaeological study will provide information about the history, current land conditions, geography and previous archaeological fieldwork of the hub areas. The Cultural Heritage assessment will focus on conducting and analyzing background research and field survey results for the purposes of identifying impacts of the proposed undertaking on cultural heritage resources.
ASP Implementation
Following the completion of the Area Specific Plans, there will be an implementation phase to the Mobility Hubs project. The implementation phase of the project will include the development of a wide range of tools and detailed discussion of partnerships required to implement the area specific plans over time. This phase may include the development of zoning by-law regulations; form-based codes (i.e. development permit / community planning permit system), urban design guidelines, community improvement plans, etc. Following the conclusion of the implementation phase, it is important to note that other development processes will be required. Development processes may include applications for minor variance, site plan, site-specific zoning and/or official plan amendments or development permits.
The Downtown Mobility Hub Area Specific Planning process has been conducted concurrently to the new Official Plan process. The Downtown Mobility Hub process has resulted in new policies and schedules that have been incorporated into the new, Council-adopted, Burlington Official Plan.
Citizens can expect much more on the Downtown hub once they get into the review of the Official Plan that has been returned to the city by the Region as not being complete.
To achieve the long-term objectives of the four Mobility Hubs including transportation modal split targets, future development in the Mobility Hubs must be supported by other ongoing City initiatives. There is an important symbiotic relationship between the Mobility Hubs Area Specific Plans and the City’s Transportation Plan, Cycling Master Plan, Community Trails Strategy, the Integrated Transit Mobility Plan and the Downtown Streetscape Guidelines, all of which are necessary to ensure that the four Mobility Hubs are connected to city-wide destinations through active transportation networks, a frequent transit network and well-designed complete streets.
Conclusions:
The draft Precinct Plans for each of the GO Mobility Hubs were said to achieve key important city-building objectives including: the provision of a variety of housing forms to attract a broad range of demographics; creating opportunities for new and enhanced public parks and open spaces; the provision of sites for future community and public services; the concentration of tall buildings in proximity to higher order public transit (GO Transit) as well as the frequent transit corridors; the establishment of height peaks and built form transitions; and the provision of development permissions that will attract future population and job growth.
With a demand for more meaningful participation on the part of those who take an active interest in the kind of city Burlington is going to evolve into and a city council that has said it wants to respect the citizens that elected them – what gets built on the mobility hub sites may well be quite a bit different than what the planners have put forward to this point.
 Rosa Bustamante with Mark Bales on the left and Nick Carnacelli of Carriage Gate; the company has three developments in various stages of approvals in the downtown core. The city is at a critical transition point – whether or not this city council can pull it off is a large part of what 2019 is going to be about.
Planners Rosa Bustamante, Manager of Policy Planning – Mobility Hubs, Phil Caldwell, Senior Planner – Mobility Hubs and Kyle Plas, MCIP RPP, Senior Planner – Mobility Hubs and Samantha Romlewski, M.Pl., Planner II have been the leads on this file.
By Staff
December 31st, 2018
BURLINGTON, ON
As a result of customer feedback Burlington Transit has introduced improvements to Routes 1, 2, 5, 11, 21, 81, 87 and 101 on January 6, 2019.
 One of the new buses added to the Burlington Transit fleet. Route Changes:
• Route 1 – Schedule adjustments to improve transit rider connections to other Burlington Transit routes
• Route 2 – Schedule adjustments to better service Brant St.
• Route 5 – Buses for Route 5 will wait at the Downtown Terminal to improve transit rider connections to other Burlington Transit routes
• Route 11 – Route 11 will add one morning trip leaving the GO 407 Carpool Lot, add one evening trip departing Appleby GO, and adjust one afternoon trip to improve transit rider connections at GO stations
• Route 21 – Late-night schedule leaves Appleby GO station on the hour to improve connections at the Burlington GO station
• Route 81 – Route 81 will add another morning trip leaving Burlington GO at 5:24 a.m.
• Route 87 – Schedule adjustments to improve connections with Route 1
• Route 101 – Early morning schedule adjustments for better connections with Route 21 and 81
|
|
I went to one session and felt it was the same old public meeting. Handed a number of dots to put on various maps. Little interaction. No vision or sense of urgency. No mention of a Master Transit Plan – due Sept. What was the point again?