A resource for the people who ride.

Major transit decisions should be made with residents, not simply for them. Riders and communities deserve meaningful consultation, reasonable advance notice, and clear information about ridership, reliability, and performance. Council needs the information necessary to properly understand the financial and service impacts before approving major changes. I believe good decisions come from listening to the people who rely on the system every day. That is also why I moved a motion asking staff to examine the feasibility of no-cost/no-fare transit in Kingston. Before making major changes, Council should understand the options, costs, and potential benefits.

Riders and potential riders should be involved in any changes to Kingston Transit that involve changes in service levels such as hours of operation, changes in frequency of service, and fare changes. Riders should be involved at the “street level” with on-site engagement occurring on buses, transfer points, and high volume bus stops. I also am a strong believer in including bus drivers and other transit support staff in the engagement process.

As a Councillor, I would expect Kingston Transit staff to provide annual updates to Council tied to ridership goals and to seek approval from Council for any service changes, even if they are within the current budget envelope.

Service levels in Sydenham were reduced on the Union St corridor, one of the highest ridership areas of the City. This was done without proper public consultation and oversight of City Council.

Riders and residents should be consulted when major Kingston Transit decisions are being considered. These consultations should be in the form of questionnaires or public consultations via the appropriate City Hall committee. When consultations are to take place citizens should be given reasonable notice via the media and/or fliers made available on city buses.

Riders should be at the table before decisions are made. In 2017 I moved a motion to define public engagement as informing, consulting, involving, collaborating with and empowering residents, with meaningful feedback. It failed, but it is still the standard I hold.

For any major service, route or fare change, Council should expect:

Early public notice, with the proposal published in plain language.

A public meeting at the start and another before the final vote. I pushed for that standard on planning decisions in 2016.

Ridership and performance data published route by route, so riders can see what the numbers actually say.

A final decision made by Council, in public.

Riders use the system every day. They know where it works and where it fails, and that knowledge should shape every major decision.

Transit riders deserve a meaningful voice before major decisions are made not after the decision is effectively settled. I would expect early, accessible consultation, clear notice, and timely access to the ridership, reliability, cost and performance information behind a proposed change.

Council’s role is to set policy, budgets and fares and to hold staff accountable for the recommendations brought forward. Public engagement should inform those decisions, while recognizing that Council cannot adopt every request.

I want accountability after a decision, what we heard, what changed, what did not, and why. Riders should not need to be transit experts to understand how a decision affects their route, neighbourhood or ability to get to work, school or appointments. Transparency builds trust and trust is essential to a transit system that serves One Kingston.

Riders and residents should be involved early enough that their input can genuinely influence major transit decisions, not simply informed after decisions are made. Significant route, service or fare changes should include reasonable advance notice, accessible consultation and targeted outreach to those most affected. Council should also expect regular audits of transit performance, not just when new routes or changes are proposed. We should continually assess ridership, on-time performance, missed and cancelled trips, frequency, travel times and whether routes are meeting residents’ needs. Consultation should also include people who do not currently use transit. We need to understand why: Is the barrier cost, frequency, reliability, hours, accessibility, route connections or travel time? Council should receive this information publicly and regularly so we can identify gaps, make evidence-based improvements and determine whether changes are actually working.

Advance notice and transparency are the foundations of trustworthy governance. One thing I hear over and over is that trust between residents and City Hall has eroded because of opaque processes and decision-making. Listening means giving residents more, better, and earlier opportunities to give feedback – not token consultation after a decision is already made.

But I also know that another unwieldy, leading city questionnaire isn't the answer either. That's why I'd support a standing advisory body for transit – one that combines riders and stakeholders with real subject-matter experts. Consulting the public matters, and so does consulting people who understand the operational realities of running a transit system. Council should also make ridership and performance data public by default, not something residents have to request.

Riders know better than anyone what works and what doesn't, so they should be at the table early, not consulted after a decision is made. I believe the City should go to where riders already are, on the bus, at the stop and online, rather than expecting people to attend a meeting at City Hall.

When significant changes to routes or service are proposed, Council should expect clear advance notice, a plain-language explanation of why the change is needed and what it means for riders, and a real chance for people to respond before Council votes. Council should also see the ridership and performance information behind any proposal, and I think the public should be able to find that information easily too.

Good decisions come from good information, shared openly.

A public survey I think is the best way

Riders should have a say before major transit decisions are made, not after. The City should give residents clear notice of proposed changes, explain why they are being considered, and provide enough time for meaningful feedback.

Council should have access to ridership numbers, on-time performance, cancellations and other relevant data before voting on major service or policy changes. That information should also be available to the public.

Consultation should include the people who actually rely on transit every day, including students, seniors, workers, people with disabilities and residents in neighbourhoods with limited transportation options.

After a major change, the City should report on how it is performing. If a change isn't working, Council should be willing to fix it.

Kingston needs a balanced transportation system. Transit, roads, walking and cycling all have an important role, and investments should reflect safety, growth, and community need. I also believe we need to look beyond the urban boundary. I support and am advocating for some form of reliable transit connection for our rural communities, where traditional fixed-route service may not make sense, but transportation needs are very real.

One of my campaign priorities is Active Transportation, which prioritizes investment in transit, cycling infrastructure, and walking connectivity.

Specifically, more frequent transit service on King St. & Union St., multi-use path construction on King St., and building sidewalks on Court St. I have also committed to upgraded pedestrian crossing locations on Union St. and Johnson St.

I will be pushing for significant increases in active transportation targets compared to current targets as part of the City’s Official Plan and Integrated Transportation Plan that will be approved by Council in 2027. I will not approve these plans unless they identify increases in active transportation targets.

In the current climate, public transit should be supported with the idea of minimizing the use of private vehicles. Bicycle lane routes should also be expanded and also be made available to Kingstonians who use e-bikes, e-scooters or other similar vehicles.

Transit should come first. It is the most human service a city offers. It gets people to work, school, appointments and each other, at every age and in every season.

It is also the better deal for taxpayers. The City already falls about $200 million a year short of what it needs to maintain the assets we have. Every rider on a bus eases pressure on roads we can't keep up with.

My priorities:

Grow inside the urban boundary, where transit, walking and cycling can work.

Fund frequent, reliable transit.

Make walking safe.

Add protected cycling where we can.

Ontario's 2024 law requires provincial approval to take a car lane for a bike lane, which makes transit investment even more important. Roads still need care, and they carry buses too.

Transit must be planned alongside growth, not added after neighbourhoods are built. Good land-use planning can make walking, cycling and transit practical choices from the beginning; poor planning can leave the City paying later for missing connections and costly, inefficient service. I don’t see this as transit versus roads, or cycling versus cars. Kingston needs a connected transportation system that gives residents real choices.

When making investments, I would consider population growth, where people live and work, safety, accessibility, congestion, ridership, operating and infrastructure costs, and environmental impacts. My approach would be evidence-based and integrated: plan neighbourhoods around mobility, connect active transportation to transit, improve connections between destinations, and maintain the roads and infrastructure residents and businesses depend on. As Kingston grows, transportation planning should move people efficiently not simply move vehicles.

As Kingston grows, particularly in areas experiencing significant new development, transit must grow with it. We need to invest in roads, but we cannot address growth simply by accommodating more private vehicles. Transit, walking and cycling need to be practical, safe alternatives. I see this in my own family. My children use Kingston Transit to get to school and around the city, and sometimes leave two buses earlier because a bus may be late or full. Travelling between destinations in the east and west ends can also require multiple transfers and considerable time. Over the next term, I would prioritize transportation investments based on safety, connectivity, demand and demonstrated need. We should regularly examine whether routes, frequency and transfer points still make sense as Kingston grows, while building connected pedestrian and cycling infrastructure and maintaining the roads residents and transit rely on.

As an urban designer, I see roads, transit, and bike infrastructure as layers of one integrated system, designed together – not roads first with everything else squeezed in after. That means direct, protected routes for cyclists and pedestrians, even if cars sometimes take a slightly longer way around. Cities like Copenhagen have used this kind of design for decades. It also means growing density near transit corridors and hubs, so ridership and service improve together as the city grows. I’d also like to consider HOV lanes in some corridors, to improve transit reliability and travel times, assuming approval from our traffic engineers.

Where bike and bus infrastructure currently conflict with each other, that's worth fixing as well – good multi-modal planning avoids those conflicts from the start. The goal is definitely not banning cars: it's building incrementally toward a genuinely transit- and bike-forward city over the next decade or two.

Growth and transit go hand in hand. Where we build matters: when new homes are concentrated in well-connected neighbourhoods, transit, walking and cycling become practical choices, and we avoid endless sprawl.

I don't see this as transit versus roads. Kingston needs both, and we've started the largest road repair program in the City's history. But as we grow, I want transit to carry more of the load. That means strengthening service on our highest-demand routes, using new technologies to bring affordable options to suburban and rural areas, and improving walking and cycling connections between neighbourhoods, campuses and employment areas.

I'd also keep working with our regional neighbours so housing, infrastructure and transportation are planned together, and the connections get built alongside the homes.

making it as accessible as can be

Kingston needs to plan transportation around where the city is going, not just where it is today. Roads will always be important, but we can't keep adding more infrastructure for cars while transit, walking and cycling fall behind.

I would prioritize maintaining the infrastructure we already have while investing in reliable transit, sidewalks, cycling routes and safer crossings.

Transit also needs to be considered when new neighbourhoods and major developments are approved. We shouldn't build thousands of homes and then figure out how people will get around afterward.

In Pittsburgh and the surrounding areas, better connections to the rest of Kingston are especially important. New growth should come with the roads, transit and other infrastructure needed to support it.

Residents should be able to count on Kingston Transit to be reliable, predictable, and practical. That means looking at frequency, evening and weekend service, and better connections between neighbourhoods. I also believe affordability and access need to be part of the conversation. My motion asking staff to examine the feasibility of no-cost/no-fare transit is about understanding whether we can remove financial barriers while maintaining a sustainable system. At the same time, different parts of Kingston have different needs. Improving urban service while finding practical ways to connect rural residents should both be priorities.

More service, more often, in more areas.

At a minimum, consistent service with a frequency of 10 mins or less should be provided at all times on all major transportation corridors. The City must continue to invest in more transit that supports intensification of development within the urban boundary.

Public transit should be supported with the idea of minimizing the use of private vehicles while providing reliable options for people to get from their home to work or school. Costs should also be considered in terms of off-peak transport even though this may require extra planning for people who go to and from work during non-standard hours.

Residents should be able to count on buses that come often on main routes, run on time, and keep running in the evenings and on weekends, when shift workers, students and seniors need them.

Yes, the City should invest in frequency, reliability, evening and weekend service, and better connections between neighbourhoods, as well as routes into downtown.

The right standard grows with density. That is one more reason to build inside the urban boundary: every new home near an existing route makes better service cheaper to run.

I'd want service standards set publicly by Council, measured every year and reported route by route, so residents can see whether the City is meeting them.

Residents should be able to rely on Kingston Transit to be safe, accessible, reliable and useful. Frequency matters, but so do evening and weekend service, connections between neighbourhoods, and the ability to make a trip without excessive waiting or uncertainty.

I would need to understand the resources required to deliver standard transit services for a growing city. Kingston is currently undertaking a Transit Service Review that is developing service guidelines and performance measures. I would use that work to establish clear expectations for service and regularly measure whether we are meeting them.

Good transit also starts before a bus reaches the stop. New neighbourhoods need connected streets, sidewalks and cycling infrastructure that support efficient transit from the outset. If we plan poorly, transit becomes slower and more expensive to operate. As Kingston grows, we should plan land use and transit together, so service can grow where people need it.

Residents should be able to rely on transit to move throughout the whole city for work, school, recreation and social activities, including evenings and weekends. My family uses transit regularly, and our experience shows me where gaps exist. As Kingston grows, our routes and schedules need to grow with it. Someone should be able to travel from Greenwood Park to Bayridge without multiple connections and lengthy travel times, just as someone in the east or west end should be able to enjoy dinner downtown or a show at the Grand Theatre and be confident they can get home by transit. I support improving reliability, frequency, later service and more direct connections. Transit should be a practical, cost-effective and environmentally responsible alternative to driving that supports independence, recreation and participation in our community.

Residents should be able to count on transit the way they count on roads being plowed – reliably, without checking three times whether the bus is coming. The frequency improvements from January 2025 (15-minute Express service, 30-minute elsewhere) were a real step forward, but this year's construction-related delays showed how fragile that progress is. I'd prioritize fixing reliability first – it's the foundation that everything else depends on – then continue investing in evening and weekend service and better cross-neighbourhood connections, especially for people who don't have another transportation option.

For a growing city, the standard should be that transit is a genuine alternative to driving, not just a fallback: frequent enough, reliable enough, and connected enough that choosing the bus is convenient, not a compromise.

Residents should be able to count on transit that is reliable, that gets them where they need to go, and that fits the neighbourhood they live in. I'm a big fan of transit, and yes, I believe we should keep investing in it.

In this term we added new routes in the west end and downtown. Next, I want to strengthen service on our highest-demand routes, where improvements help the most people. In suburban and rural areas, where a traditional bus route isn't always the right fit, I'd like to explore newer service models that connect people affordably and conveniently.

On evening and weekend service and neighbourhood connections, I'd rather set a standard together with riders and transit staff than announce numbers on my own. A growing city should expect service that grows with it.

yes there needs to be more frequency between neighborhoods

Residents should be able to count on Kingston Transit to get where they need to go without planning their entire day around an unreliable schedule.

I support improving frequency and reliability where demand justifies it, while addressing gaps in evening, weekend and cross-neighbourhood service. A bus route isn't much use if buses don't come often enough or service ends before people finish work.

Kingston should establish clear service standards and publicly report whether those standards are being met.

We also need to look beyond the busiest routes. Neighbourhoods such as Pittsburgh need practical connections to schools, jobs, shopping and other parts of the city.

As Kingston grows, transit needs to grow with it. It should be a realistic option for everyday trips, not just something people use when they don't have another choice.

Transit can make a real difference in a young person's independence, ability to get to school, recreation, employment, and community activities. I support maintaining affordable access for youth and exploring opportunities to expand programs that reduce barriers. Young people who learn to use transit today are more likely to see it as an important transportation option as they get older. No young person should be unable to participate in school, recreation, or employment simply because transportation is unaffordable.

Kingston has been a leader, recognized provincially and nationally, for the adoption of programs and policies that support youth transit.

I 100% support maintaining and expanding programs that provide young people with affordable or fare-free access. The future of Kingston Transit must include the continuation of fare-free transit for children under 14 and all high school students. I also support the continuation of the Municipal Fee Assistance program to ensure that low cost transit passes are available to those who need it the most.

As a high school student, I had the opportunity to learn how to use Kingston Transit to get to school and participate in other activities in the community without relying on my parents to drive me everywhere. Without the fare-free high school program myself and other young people would not have had the opportunity to become comfortable with using transit on a regular basis.

I support subsidized rates for youth and students who use public transit. In terms of expanding existing programs, I believe that this should be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Keep it and grow it. Free transit for children and high school students works. Young people who learn to ride the bus keep riding it, and families save real money.

I would maintain the youth programs fully, and I support piloting free fares for seniors and low-income residents next. Transit should start with the people who have the fewest other ways to get around.

Free fares cost revenue, so they have to be paid for honestly. That means growing the tax base inside the city we already service and bringing in non-tax revenue, instead of raising the tax rate.

Youth transit is about access to school, jobs, recreation, healthcare and community life. Kingston should continue affordable youth access and build on programs that are already working, while making sure our partners remain part of the solution.

I would also strengthen the education that comes with youth transit including how to pay or tap a fare card, transit etiquette, safety and what riders can expect. We should explore modernizing partnerships with school boards so transit can support more home-to-school travel where appropriate.

More broadly, youth transit can be part of a larger social-equity approach to mobility. If a young person cannot afford a fare or cannot reach a job, extracurricular activity or appointment because service is unavailable, the barrier is bigger than the bus ride itself. We should involve youth in identifying those gaps and measure whether programs are actually improving access and participation.

Yes! I have four children who all use Kingston Transit. It gives them freedom, allows them to explore the city, socialize with friends, get to after-school activities, play basketball in the east end and pickleball in Bayridge, and travel independently to sporting activities without relying on us to drive them everywhere. I support maintaining Kingston's affordable and fare-free transit opportunities for youth and would be open to expanding them where the evidence supports doing so. However, affordability must go hand in hand with service. A free pass has limited value if the bus does not run when or where young people need it. I support improving reliability, frequency, evening and weekend service, capacity and more direct connections between neighbourhoods so transit becomes a practical, cost-effective and environmentally responsible way for young people to fully participate in school, work, recreation and community life.

Kingston already does a lot right here and Kingston's Transit High School Bus Pass Project won a national FCM award back in 2018: kids 14 and under ride free, all Grade 9-12 students ride free year-round (September 1–August 31), and Queen's and SLC students have unlimited access bundled into their fees. That's real, working coverage – credit where it's due. What I'd focus on next isn't necessarily more free-access categories, it's making transit a genuinely viable choice, not just a free one: frequency, reliability, and connections that actually get people where they're going on time. Free access means little if the bus doesn't show up.

One real gap I’d like to extend coverage to: non-student youth aged 15-24 who aren't enrolled anywhere, and aren't covered by any existing pass. Many are underprivileged, some are unhoused, and they could use the service.

I believe young people who get comfortable with transit early are more likely to keep using it, and for many families a bus pass is a real part of the household budget. Transit should feel like an easy, affordable choice for a student heading to school or a young person heading to a first job. I'm also very proud of the work tha tKingston has done historically in partnering with school boards to get youth introduced to and comfortable with transit.

Affordability is at the heart of my platform. In 2023 we cut the price of the monthly transit pass in half for low-income individuals and families, and I'm very open to maintaining and building on programs that are working for young people. I think it would be important to consult with students and young people themselves first about what improvements, changes and approaches we could introduce to make transit

Response truncated at the 150-word limit in accordance with the submission rules.

yes I would support that

Young people should be able to get around Kingston without the cost of a bus ride getting in the way of school, work, recreation or other opportunities.

I support maintaining affordable youth transit programs and looking at ways to expand them where there is evidence they are helping young people get around the city and use transit.

Getting young people comfortable with transit early can also help create long-term riders.

With the cost of living putting more pressure on families, affordable transit can make a real difference. A young person shouldn't have to turn down a job, activity or opportunity because they can't afford to get across Kingston.

I would like to see the City regularly review these programs, look at participation and make sure the money being spent is actually improving access for young people.

I support moving toward a zero-emission transit fleet, but we need to do it responsibly. Kingston must consider upfront costs, charging infrastructure, reliability, winter performance, operating costs, and available provincial and federal funding. I support electrification, but I also want to ensure we aren't sacrificing reliable service or putting unnecessary pressure on property taxpayers. The right approach is a practical transition that delivers environmental benefits while keeping buses dependable and affordable to operate.

Kingston Transit should only purchase non-diesel buses going forward.

I was very disappointed to recently learn that the City of Kingston purchased several new diesel buses in 2026 and has abandoned their plans to convert to a fully electric bus fleet. If electric buses are not an option then the City needs to consider hybrid buses as an alternative in the interim.

I will not support the purchase of any diesel only buses going forward and will only support hybrid or electric buses.

I support the concept of moving to a zero-emission fleet; however, this must be done in a cost-effective way and all potential support from both the Federal and Provincial governments should be sought. Furthermore, if there are any issues of reliability, then the purchase of electrified buses should be temporarily halted. Kingston does not want or need another situation like with the Wolfe Island ferry. Buying buses that cannot be utilized should absolutely be avoided at all costs.

I support moving to a zero-emission fleet at the pace buses come up for replacement. Retiring working buses early wastes money residents have already spent.

Every purchase should be judged on its full lifetime cost: the vehicle, chargers, electricity, maintenance and the cost of carbon. I moved the Cost of Carbon motion in 2015 for exactly this kind of decision. Electric buses cost more up front but can cost less to run, and those numbers should be public.

Reliability comes first, especially in a Kingston winter. Riders need the bus to show up.

We should also chase every provincial and federal dollar before spending local money. My work with staff led to the City's Grant Strategy in 2021, and electrification is where it should pay off.

I support Kingston’s transition toward a lower-emission transit fleet, including zero-emission buses where they provide reliable service and good long-term value. The pace should be based on evidence not an arbitrary percentage target. That means looking at vehicle and charging costs, battery range, winter performance, maintenance, operating costs, reliability, available funding and the capacity of our electricity system. Kingston also needs to understand how fleet electrification fits within the City’s broader emissions-reduction and energy strategy.

We already have battery-electric buses in the fleet. I would want staff to report on their performance, maximize their effective use, identify funding opportunities and bring forward a clear plan for future replacements. We should replace buses as they reach the end of their useful lives and choose the technology that delivers reliable service, meaningful emissions reductions and responsible long-term value for taxpayers. Cleaner transit and sound financial management should advance together.

I support Kingston’s transition toward a zero-emission transit fleet as part of our commitment to carbon neutrality by 2040, but the transition must be practical, measurable and financially responsible. As buses reach the end of their useful life, zero-emission options should be considered the preferred replacement where they can reliably meet Kingston’s service needs. The pace should be guided by lifecycle costs, reliability in our climate, charging and facility requirements, operating savings and measurable emissions reductions,not simply by a target number of buses. We should also pursue available provincial and federal funding aggressively so Kingston taxpayers do not unnecessarily carry the full cost of vehicles and supporting infrastructure. Council should receive regular reporting on costs, performance and emissions reductions. Electrification should move us toward our climate goals while ensuring that investment in new technology does not come at the expense of reliable, frequent transit service.

I absolutely support continuing the shift to a zero-emission fleet – but the pace has to be realistic and funded, rather than symbolic. Kingston currently has 5 electric buses out of 82; getting the rest there requires real investment in both vehicles and charging infrastructure. I'd prioritize aggressively pursuing provincial and federal funding to offset the upfront costs, since that's where the biggest barrier is. Electrification should also be sequenced so it doesn't come at the cost of reliability or service levels – residents shouldn't have to choose between a bus that shows up and a bus that's electric.

Long-term, electrification supports our sustainability goals, net-zero commitments, and lower operating costs, and the transition needs a real, funded, staged plan behind it, not just a target date.

I support moving toward a zero-emission bus fleet, and I've said for years that our plan is to get there over time. I think the right pace is the one Kingston can deliver reliably and affordably.

Electric buses need more than the buses themselves. They need charging facilities and enough electricity to power them. That's where my role as chair of Kingston Hydro's board matters: Kingston Hydro has invested in a new transformer station so the grid can keep up with growing demand, including electric vehicles and buses.

I'd weigh upfront costs against operating savings, reliability and emissions reductions, and I'd pursue every available provincial and federal dollar so local taxpayers aren't carrying this alone. I'd rather build steadily and get it right than buy buses we can't yet charge.

have to look at a funding update. Every year, making sure transit gets enough money to function properly

I support Kingston Transit moving toward a zero-emission fleet, but we need to do it responsibly.

As buses reach the end of their useful life, the City should replace them with zero-emission buses where the technology and charging infrastructure can reliably support them. We should also make full use of provincial and federal funding to reduce the cost to Kingston taxpayers.

The purchase price is only part of the equation. Council should consider fuel and maintenance costs, reliability, emissions and the total cost of operating a bus over its lifetime.

I would support a clear plan with targets and regular public reporting, while allowing the City to adjust as the technology improves.

Electrification shouldn't come at the expense of reliable service. The goal should be cleaner buses while continuing to provide the service riders depend on.

Candidates with No Response Received by Deadline

As stated in the original invitation, candidates who did not submit a response are identified only as: “No response received by deadline.”