Question 1:
What role can transit play in reducing traffic congestion and mitigating increasing expenditures on road maintenance?
Transit is one of the most cost-effective tools we have for managing congestion and protecting our road infrastructure budget. Every rider on a bus is a car off the road, and every car off the road means less wear on our streets and less pressure to fund expensive widening projects down the line. I’ve seen this play out directly on Guelph Line, where a bus pulling into a live traffic lane can back up an entire corridor during rush hour; the fix isn’t more pavement, it’s a transit system reliable enough that residents choose it. As Mayor, I’ll prioritize practical improvements: dedicated stops, better signal timing, and frequency on the routes people actually rely on, so that transit becomes a real alternative to driving, not just a fallback. That’s good for congestion, and it’s good for the taxpayer, because state-of-good-repair on our roads is one of the largest pressures on our capital budget.
Question 2:
In your opinion, what can be done to improve specialized transit for disabled riders and would you be in favour of raising the budget for this increasingly important service?
Specialized transit isn’t a nice-to-have. It’s a core municipal service, the same as transit, parks, and public safety, and it should be funded and protected as such. I’d start by making sure booking, wait times, and reliability for specialized transit are held to the same standard we expect of the rest of the system, and by looking closely at where demand is outpacing capacity. Yes, I would support increasing this budget where the need is demonstrated. This is exactly the kind of spending my fiscal approach is built for: I don’t believe in cutting frontline services to hit a number, I believe in proving where a dollar delivers value and then funding it properly. For riders who depend on specialized transit to get to appointments, work, or see family, reliability isn’t a convenience, it’s independence, and City Hall should treat it that way.
Question 3:
Burlington’s and Halton’s Official Plans call for transit’s share of all trips to rise to 20% (from the current figure of about 4%) by 2031. Do you support this objective?
Yes, I support the objective, and I want to see steady year-over-year gains toward it. Getting there depends on frequency, reliability, and connections good enough that people actually choose transit over their car, not just for commuters downtown but across every ward, from Aldershot to Brant Hills to Kilbride to Alton Village. I see 20% by 2031 as a stretch target: the right ambition to hold ourselves to, but one that depends on real support from the province and the federal government, since a target that size can’t be funded from the property tax base alone. My commitment is to keep pushing transit’s share up every year and to make the case to Halton Region and senior levels of government that hitting this target requires their investment too, not just Burlington’s.
Question 4:
With record ridership and increasing demand, are you in favour of supporting continued expansion of Burlington’s transit system?
Yes. Record ridership tells you the demand is real and growing, and a mayor who ignores that signal is setting the system up to fall further behind. I’ve consistently supported investment in transit as one of the core services City Hall exists to deliver, and I’ll continue to as Mayor: new vehicles, added frequency on high-demand routes, and infrastructure that keeps pace with how many people are actually relying on the system now. Where I’ll apply scrutiny is on making sure that expansion dollars go toward what’s proven to move the most riders efficiently, rather than being pulled toward unproven pilots at the expense of the fixed-route service residents depend on every day.
Question 5:
Have you ever used Burlington Transit? Would you be willing to give it a try?
Yes, I use transit semi-regularly, and as Mayor I want more residents to have that same option: a system reliable enough that leaving the car at home is an easy decision, not a sacrifice.
Question 6:
The Ontario Legislature recently passed Bill 98, the Building Homes and Improving Transportation Infrastructure Act, 2026, which gives the provincial Minister of Transportation the power to override municipal transit authorities and set routes and fares for municipal transit systems. We at BFAST have the following concerns about this legislation:
1) It could disrupt current arrangements between transit systems in Burlington, Oakville and Hamilton that provide connections between these cities.
2) The Minister could divert Burlington Transit resources — for example, to provide service along the planned bus rapid transit corridor on Highway 5 (Dundas St.), which was supposed to have been undertaken by GO Transit. This would, in effect, download more fiscal responsibility from the province to local governments.
3) Certain initiatives by Burlington Transit, such as free fares for seniors and students, could be eliminated.
Please comment on this legislation and what measures you would undertake or support to ensure transit service levels in Burlington would not be degraded.
I take these concerns seriously, and they’re consistent with something I’ve said clearly throughout this campaign: I don’t believe power should be concentrated away from the people closest to the decision. I’ve opposed the concentration of authority through Strong Mayor powers at the municipal level for the same reason I’m concerned here: decisions about Burlington’s routes, fares, and service levels are best made by the council and staff who are accountable to Burlington residents, not set by directive from Queen’s Park.
On the specific risks you’ve raised: cross-boundary coordination with Oakville and Hamilton exists because our transit systems worked that out locally, and any provincial framework needs to preserve that, not disrupt it. On resources being redirected to provincial priorities like the Dundas Street corridor, that would be downloading a provincial responsibility onto Burlington taxpayers, and I’ll oppose that framing directly with the province, the same way I’ve opposed downloading costs onto residents at the municipal level. And on fares for seniors and students specifically, I’ve already said I want to see transit free for high school students, not eliminate concessions that make transit accessible. As Mayor, I’ll advocate to the province, in the same way I’m advocating to remove Burlington from Strong Mayor designation, that local transit decisions should stay local, and I’ll work with Burlington’s regional and federal partners to protect the service levels and fare programs residents count on.
Question 7:
Over the past months, a plan has been promoted wherein a private company would provide on-demand transit service to potentially replace certain routes operated by Burlington Transit. Among BFAST’s concerns with this plan are:
1) Over-reliance on one private company to provide a service that could not be easily replaced if the provider were to fail.
2) Cost escalation and more traffic on our roads as mini-buses replaced current vehicles and more drivers were needed to move the same number of passengers.
3) Diversion of already-constrained Burlington Transit budget to a private, for-profit company, resulting in lower levels of service.
We would appreciate your comments on on-demand transit in general and the idea of diverting public budgets to private corporations.
I share your caution here. Fixed transit routes work. They’re proven, and Burlington’s network already puts a large majority of residents within a short walk of transit. Before this city commits real dollars to an on-demand model with a single private provider, I want to see hard numbers on per-rider cost, because if it costs significantly more to move the same number of people, that’s not an efficiency gain, it’s a worse deal for taxpayers dressed up as innovation. I also share the concern about over-reliance on one company for a service that would be difficult to unwind if that provider ran into trouble, and about diverting an already-constrained transit budget away from the fixed routes that reliably serve the most residents.
I’m not against exploring on-demand transit in principle. First- and last-mile gaps are real, and worth studying. But “worth studying” is different from “worth funding at scale,” and I won’t treat a pilot report as a foregone conclusion. Any dollar that goes to a private on-demand contract has to prove it delivers more value for residents than simply strengthening the fixed-route service we already have. Until it does, my priority is protecting and expanding what already works.