By Jack Brittle, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter
Burlington council has approved development of a proposal to study a potential on-demand transit pilot, prompting debate over accessibility, cost, and existing services. The same meeting also saw approval of $300,000 for the city’s Vision Zero road safety plan.
Burlington resident Doug Brown delegated to council on behalf of Burlington for Accessible Sustainable Transit (BFAST) regarding item 8.7 on the agenda, “Motion memorandum regarding On-Demand Transit Pilot Project.” The on-demand transit service for the pilot is Argo Transit, which provides small, electric buses; riders request pickup via an app. The motion was to approve a proposal, not the pilot project itself.
BFAST also submitted a statement to the city about Ward 5 Councillor Paul Sharman’s comments on Burlington Transit.
“We were not happy with Councillor Sharman’s recent criticism of Burlington Transit about how we’re not getting, I think the term was ‘value for money,’” Brown said. “We’re not going to let that comment pass. And I think there is evidence that we do get very good value for money from our transit service.”
Brown said that neither he nor Sharman should determine whether this is true, and suggested the city hire a team of economists to audit the service.
“Seven or eight years ago, Hamilton took the opportunity to do a benefit-cost analysis, which was done by a Burlington academic,” Brown said. “It showed very good rates of return, just in economic terms, for the HSR. What we need to do is do something similar in Burlington, and we have missed those opportunities. The last major transit study did not look at the economics at all. That was the Left Turn, Right Turn study several years ago.”
BFAST is also concerned about the involvement of Argo Transit in the city.
“It’s a Brampton-based private organization,” Brown said. “It seemed to come out of nowhere. Suddenly, Argo minibuses started to appear.”
Brown said that the pre-existing Handi-Van service already serves much the same purpose as the on-demand Argo buses. The City of Burlington website, however, notes that Handi-Van service is for “people with disabilities…who are unable to use a conventional bus.”
Sharman asked Brown if removing the disability requirement for Handi-Van would make the service more accessible to all seniors. Argo Transit has no such requirement for ridership; its buses are wheelchair accessible.
Ward 6 Councillor Angelo Bentivegna asked Brown if the study that is requested in item 8.7 would help staff and council determine if Handi-Vans or Argo Transit would better serve citizens.
“We don’t envisage something like Argo taking over from Handi-Van,” Brown said. “Universally, when you talk to anyone who uses Handi-Van, they talk about how great the drivers are because they’re dealing with people with various disabilities day after day, and they have real empathy for them, and they provide great service.”
He said that the main problem with Handi-Van is that they are underfunded. Brown also claimed that the Argo buses are not as “robust and heavy-duty” as Handi-Vans. BFAST’s position is that the city should focus on getting more Handi-Vans on the road to alleviate wait times for passengers.
Sharman said that the city does provide a taxi service for residents who use the Handi-Van service, which uses cars and minivans to pick people up when a Handi-Van can’t be there to take them home.
Sharman also clarified that Argo Transit is not mentioned anywhere in item 8.7.
“I don’t have skin in this game,” Sharman said. “I mean, we saw the Argo buses. They were attractive and interesting. But that doesn’t mean that that is what I am suggesting we do.”
Later in the meeting, Sharman spoke to the motion, outlining its intent.
“The purpose of this report is to summarize the potential mobility, ridership, financial, and social benefits of implementing a localized on-demand transit pilot in Burlington,” Sharman said. “The pilot would test the use of flexible vehicles operating within neighbourhood zones to complement the existing fixed bus route network. The intention is to improve mobility for older adults with limited mobility. We have 39,000 people over the age of 65, of whom 20 to 25% can’t get around.”
“They are living in a kind of isolation and have trouble travelling,” Sharman continued. “There is desperation for more Handi-Vans, but we require some sort of doctor’s certificate to make that happen. It’s overbooked, and often leaves you at your doctor’s appointment, requiring us to send a taxi to pick you up. That is not effective and efficient.”
Sharman said that young people not yet able to drive and residents going to the GO Station could also be served by this pilot project.
“What that does in all of these instances is it gets cars off the road and increases our ridership,” Sharman said.
Bentivegna said that he also supports the project and called it a “smart thing to do.”
Raewyn Jackson, director of Burlington Transit, said that if the motion was approved, council could expect a report from staff about the benefits of the pilot project by Q4 2026.
“This is a part of the industry that is really growing,” Jackson said. “And there’s a lot of interest in a lot of different agencies, and there’s a lot of new technology and software that we’re seeing. So I think that we can come back with a few different solutions that might work for Burlington, and then we just go from there.”
Mayor Marianne Meed Ward said that while we will always need fixed route transit, sometimes that makes it difficult to serve residents in more rural areas.
“It’s about the ability to participate in the life of our community,” Meed Ward said. “It’s more than just a way to get around. So we don’t want anyone to have to choose between the doctor’s appointment or visiting family because they can only get one ride in two weeks based on our Handi-Van service as it exists.”
Ward 3 Councillor Rory Nisan said that while he is interested in the report’s findings, he is also concerned about the per-rider cost.
“Fixed transit routes have been around a long time,” Nisan said. “They function very well. They’ve been proven through studies. We don’t need to do a study on fixed transit; it works. Burlington Transit also functions very well and provides a very important service in our community. I was just looking at the transit map, and I’m pretty sure that at least 95% of our communities are within a 15-minute walk of transit, if not higher.”
The motion, which directs the director of transit to develop a proposal for a 24-month pilot project that provides a phased implementation plan for on-demand transit service within Burlington, passed unanimously.
Council also turned its attention to road safety funding later in the meeting, approving $300,000 from the Capital Purposes Reserve Fund to go towards the Vision Zero Road Safety Action Plan.
The money will be used to hire a consultant through a Request for Proposals (RFP) process.
Initially, the funding was going to be partially provided through the planned provincial automated speed enforcement program, but when that was cancelled, the money would instead come from an in-year budget request.
Vision Zero is also mentioned in the city’s Horizon 2050 plan, which was recently approved by council last month.
The motion directs the director of transportation services to report back to council with the completed action plan and implementation recommendations by Q4 of 2027.
READ MORE: Inside Burlington Council’s January Committee of the Whole Meeting
Bentivegna suggested delaying the approval of funding until next year’s budget so that residents would not be surprised by a larger tax bill.
“Timing is everything at this point,” Bentivegna said. “And it really will not affect a whole lot by making the decision in January or February. We’ll still have the results when we need to have the results in 2027.”
In her comment on the motion, Meed Ward criticized the province’s decision to scrap funding for speeding cameras.
“I maintain the view that speeders should pay for poor behaviour on our streets, not taxpayers,” Meed Ward said. “Now it’s everyone else who has to pay to provide safer streets rather than the folks who are causing the streets to be unsafe in the first place. But I’m an optimist. I believe one day we will have speed cameras because science and good decision-making will prevail. But it’s not going to be anytime soon. So in the meantime, it falls to us to really put our money where our values are, which is that we want safe streets, and there’s a cost to that.”
Meed Ward said that she is happy to explain the importance of Vision Zero to any residents concerned about the effects it may have on their taxes.
Nisan voiced his opposition to delaying approval of Vision Zero funding.
“If we agree to this, we’re saying that we agree that this should not wait any longer,” Nisan said. “We need to get ahead of this problem, and we don’t have to wait for a budget cycle in order to do a one-time expense. And by the way, as we all know, there is an election between now and the next budget. And that doesn’t mean we should stop doing what this council thinks is right.”
Sharman said that funding Vision Zero is akin to buying a car seat for your child.
“We spend the money on that,” Sharman said. “If we have a problem with safety in our home, we fix it. I don’t see anybody thinking that us spending money on doing a job to help people save their lives or live without injury is inappropriate.”
He also spoke to the concern around the budget impact.
“This isn’t a budget discussion, it’s a coming out of a capital reserve,” Sharman said. “We replenish those when we do, and it comes out of any end-of-year adjustments. It doesn’t have an automatic effect on next year’s budget. It’s one-time money, and we do that every year, and I’m okay with that because it’s for a really good purpose. The cost of it is almost negligible. It’s about 0.1 of 1% of our annual budget.”
The motion passed 5–1, with only Bentivegna in opposition.
