Committee of the Whole Agenda Preview — September 24, 2026

Summary

One-sentence summary: Staff will present a draft Unified Regional Transit Study featuring fixed routes paired with on-demand feeders across 12,640 square kilometres and seek public input regarding Bill 9 regulations before the committee considers these agenda items. The proposal outlines a recommendation to remove an Elora stop and sets a proposed base fare of $10 until provincial harmonization is finalized. Grey County Paramedic Services will consider plans to transition its electronic medical record systems to ESO's IMEDIC platform and TELUS PS Suites following Prehos closure, with equipment replacement involving the implementation of new iOS-based equipment via Canoe Procurement Group of Canada by December 2026. Staff will provide a strategic progress update highlighting third-year Master Plan achievements, including a new Team Grey Memorandum of Understanding with municipal representatives. Economic initiatives under review include site selection support for healthcare and manufacturing, alongside advocacy efforts for regional transit studies and sustainable funding for Georgian College. Tourism and cultural updates note that Grey Roots Museum visitation remains ahead of previous years while reporting on the African-Canadian history journal launch and Emancipation Festival. Business support progress includes assistance for new enterprise launches like Sound Pressure Washing and facility updates such as the Sydenham Campus boiler replacement. The committee will consider comments on Bill 9 regulations, including proposed education and training requirements effective November 2026. Council will approve the City of Owen Sound Updated Official Plan (2026) subject to minor modifications. Dillon Consulting will present findings on the Unified

The Committee of the Whole will consider seven substantive items regarding regional transit planning, municipal services governance, and regulatory comments on Bill 9. Staff presenters will outline a draft Unified Regional Transit Study proposing joint operations across four counties and will update the committee on the transition of electronic medical records following Prehos closure. - **6.a CCR-CW-15-26 Comments on Regulations - Bill 9, Municipal Accountability Act (Subsections):** Consultations on Bill 9 Standardized Code of Conduct Regulations will occur regarding proposed regulations effective November 15, 2026, seeking public input until October 2, 2026 via Proposal Number 26-MMAH054. These proposed regulations establish a single standardized municipal code of conduct applying to all council members and certain local boards across Ontario. The proposed code includes core principles, definitions, application rules, and provisions regarding gifts, benefits, use of influence, property, confidential information, respectful conduct, and harassment. Additionally, the regulations address standardized integrity commissioner processes including complaint forms, screening requirements, timelines, investigation procedures, and reporting requirements. Mandatory education and training requirements are also proposed for municipal integrity commissioners and members of councils and local boards. Proposed Code of Conduct Rules on Gifts and Influence will apply to council members and specific local boards without replacing existing conflict of interest legislation. Rules will prohibit accepting gifts, benefits, or hospitality from lobbyists except for authorized political contributions, with a reporting requirement for values exceeding $

Top Newsworthy Developments

Key Topics & Sections

Full Transcript

Agenda item 1: Call to Order

Agenda item 2: Declaration of Interest

Agenda item 3: Business Arising from Minutes

Agenda item 4: Delegations

Agenda item 4.a: Dillon Consulting, Dennis Kar - Unified Regional Transit Network Study

Agenda item 5: Determination of Items Requiring Separate Discussion

Agenda item 6: Consent Agenda

Agenda item 6.a: CCR-CW-15-26 Comments on Regulations - Bill 9, Municipal Accountability Act

---

Attachment: Bill 9, Municipal Accountability Act Regulation Consultations - CCR-CW-15-26.pdf
Source: https://helpos.ca/attachments/d53a3e0bebe25e82402f0b45640269eb42ab22c5770c182c71ecf4a2f1c5f4bd/6-a-1-bill-9-municipal-accountability-act-regulation-consultations-ccr-cw-15-26-pdf.pdf

Committee Report
 To:                           Warden Matrosovs and Members of Grey County Council
 Committee Date:               September 24, 2026
 Subject / Report No:          CCR-CW-15-26
 Title:                        Bill 9, Municipal Accountability Act Regulation Consultations
 Prepared by:                  Tara Warder, Clerk and Randy Scherzer, CAO
 Reviewed by:                  Randy Scherzer, CAO
 Lower Tier(s) Affected:


Recommendation
   1. That Report CCR-CW-15-26 regarding Bill 9, Municipal Accountability Act, 2026
      Regulation Consultation Proposal Number 26-MMAH054, be received for
      information.


Executive Summary
Bill 9, the Municipal Accountability Act, 2026 has received Royal Assent and comments are now
open on the proposed regulations to the legislation through the Ontario Regulatory Registry.
Staff have prepared this report to update Council on the topic. Municipal associations such as
AMCTO and AMO, as well as municipal integrity commissioners from across Ontario intend to
make submissions on behalf of the sector.


Background and Discussion
Bill 9, the Municipal Accountability Act, 2026 was put forward in May of 2025, and recently
received royal assent on June 2, 2026. The Act amends specific pieces of the City of Toronto
Act, 2006 and the Municipal Act, 2001 around codes of conduct for municipal councillors, as
well as the integrity commissioner framework.
The amendments to the Municipal Act introduce:
   1. The establishment of a standardized municipal code of conduct for council members and
      some local boards for all municipalities across Ontario
   2. Mandatory training for council and board members and integrity commissioners and
   3. A standardized integrity commissioner inquiry process
The amendments have been cited by the Province as changes that will assist with operational
efficiencies for municipal integrity commissioners through a standard framework and inquiry
process, will assist board and council members with improved understanding of code of conduct


CCR-CW-15-26                                  1                            September 24, 2026



matters through mandatory training requirements, will support greater consistency in code of
conduct administration, and will clarify expectations and improve transparency to the public.
The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing has opened consultations and is seeking public
input on the content of the proposed regulations to the Act, which will take effect on November
15, 2026 at the beginning of the new council term. Comments can be provided through the
Ontario Regulatory Registry, Proposal Number 26-MMAH054, until October 2, 2026. The
content of the proposed regulations being put forward are attached to this report or can be
viewed on the registry.
The first section of the proposed regulations identifies the proposed contents for the
standardized municipal Code of Conduct that would apply to all municipalities across Ontario.
The proposed code includes provisions related to the following:
The proposed contents of the standardized code of conduct include the following:
   1. core principles
   2. definitions
   3. application
   4. gifts, benefits and hospitality
   5. use of influence
   6. use of municipal property and resources
   7. confidential information
   8. respectful conduct
   9. harassment/discrimination/violence
   10. respect for the Code of Conduct
Further explanation and details on each section of the proposed code of conduct can be viewed
in the Ministry document attached to this report.
The second section of the proposed regulations addresses proposed municipal Integrity
Commissioner processes including standardized complaint forms, screening requirements,
timelines, investigation procedures and reporting requirements.
The third section of the proposed regulation identifies mandatory education and training
requirements for municipal Integrity Commissioners and for members of councils and certain
local boards.

Consultations in the Sector
The Association of Municipal Managers, Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario’s (AMCTO) policy
and government relations teams are reviewing the proposed regulations and are in the process
of developing another submission to the consultation on behalf of the sector. AMCTO cites the
importance of improving accountability in municipal government and recognizes Bill 9 as a step
forward, but acknowledges possible gaps in the legislation, especially around the safety and
well-being of municipal professionals.
Timing has also been cited as “unfortunate”, with the regulations coming into effect at the
beginning of a new council term. Municipal staff are running elections, preparing for incoming
councils and onboarding and working to implement new requirements coming out of Bill 97



CCR-CW-15-26                                    2                           September 24, 2026



related to Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (MFIPPA) changes.
There is possibility that work already planned for the new term will need to be repeated and
redone in response to this legislation. Additional administrative burdens and costs are also of
concern for many municipalities.
It is anticipated that AMCTO’s submission will contain feedback and recommendations on the
above.
AMO has also committed to respond to the regulation posting to promote high ethical standards
and content that will meet the diverse needs of municipalities across the province.
AMCTO, AMO, and the Ontario Municipal Administrators Association (Civic Ontario), among
others, previously provided submissions or presentations when Bill 9 was in the Standing
Committee stage throughout 2025 so have been involved in the shaping of the Bill to best of
their ability.
It is anticipated that the submissions from these organizations will be shared more widely closer
to the deadline when they are complete.

Legislated Requirements
Municipal Accountability Act, 2026
Grey County’s Code of Conduct, By-law 5107-21 will no longer be in effect with a standardized
code. Grey County will be working with its municipal integrity commissioner on any
requirements coming out of this legislation, including training and implementing the new code of
conduct.

Financial and Resource Implications
None.


Relevant Consultation
☐       Internal

        ☐       AODA Compliance (describe)

        ☐       Contribution to Climate Change Action Plan Targets (describe)

☐       External (list)


Appendices and Attachments
Bill 9 Municipal Accountability Act Content
Correspondence from the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing – Invitation to Comment on
Proposed Regulations




CCR-CW-15-26                                    3                           September 24, 2026

---

Attachment: Bill 9 Municipal Accountability Act.pdf
Source: https://helpos.ca/attachments/29413b5d112f0ba091814d1d7fe7f23ff1fc037307f0918ca18dcd353461fe2f/6-a-2-bill-9-municipal-accountability-act-pdf.pdf

Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing


Consultation on Proposed Contents of
Regulations under the Municipal Accountability
Act, 2026

Summary of Proposal
The Municipal Accountability Act, 2026 received Royal Assent on June 2,
2026. If brought into effect, the Act would strengthen the municipal code of
conduct framework and enable Minister’s and Lieutenant Governor in
Council (LGIC) regulations to:
  I. Establish a single, standardized municipal code of conduct that would
     apply to all members of council and of certain local boards.
 II. Create standardized processes to be followed by municipal integrity
     commissioners.
III. Establish roles and requirements related to education and training for
     the Integrity Commissioner of Ontario (ICO), municipal integrity
     commissioners, and members of councils and certain local boards.
It is proposed that regulations would be in effect on November 15, 2026 –
the start of the new municipal council term.
The government is seeking public input on the contents to include in these
regulations.
Note: the reference to local boards throughout the document is as defined
in s. 223.1 of the Municipal Act, 2001 and s. 156 of the City of Toronto Act,
2006

 I.   Proposal for a Regulation to Establish a Standardized
      Municipal Code of Conduct


                                                                                1



Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing

If brought into effect, the Municipal Accountability Act, 2026 would
strengthen the municipal code of conduct framework and enable, among
other matters, regulations by the Lieutenant Governor in Council (LGIC) to
establish a single, standardized municipal code of conduct that would
apply to all members of council and of certain local boards (as defined in s.
223.1 of the Municipal Act, 2001 and s. 156 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006)
in all municipalities across Ontario.
The government is seeking input on the content of the standardized
municipal code of conduct. The proposed contents of this regulation are as
follows:
   1.     Core Principles
   2.     Definitions
   3.     Application
   4.     Gifts, Benefits and Hospitality
   5.     Use of Influence
   6.     Use of Municipal Property and Resources
   7.     Confidential Information
   8.     Respectful Conduct
   9.     Harassment, Discrimination and Violence
   10. Respect for the Code of Conduct


1. Core principles to guide members’ conduct and interpretation of the
   code. Proposed principles include requiring that every member, while
   performing their duties and in representing the municipality in matters
   that materially affect municipal business, is expected to:

        • Serve and be seen to serve their functions in a conscientious and
          diligent manner
        • Act with integrity, accountability, and transparency



                                                                                2



Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing

      • Avoid misuse of their influence as a public office holder and
        conflicts of interest, both apparent and real
      • Promote respect for the municipality, other members, municipal
        staff, and municipal policies
      • Promote a safe, effective and respectful workplace free of
        harassment, discrimination, and violence


2. Definitions of key terms including:

      • Gifts or Benefits
         o Meaning anything of value including but not limited to things like
           cash, objects of value, services, meals, accommodations or
           entertainment.

      • Municipal Property
         o Includes land, facilities, equipment, supplies, services, staffing
           resources or other resources including materials, websites and
           transportation services of the municipality.

      • Confidential Information
         o Information in the possession of the municipality that this
           municipality is prohibited from disclosing, required to refuse to
           disclose, or has exercised its discretion to refuse to disclose
           under law.
         o Information concerning matters that are considered in a meeting
           closed to the public under section 239 (2 and 3) of the Municipal
           Act, 2001 or Section 190 (2 and 3) of the City of Toronto Act,
           2006.

      • Employee



                                                                                3



Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing

         o Includes all employees, dependent contractors and volunteers
           of the municipality and employees, dependent contractors and
           volunteers engaged to support members’ offices.

      • Parent
         o Means a person who has demonstrated a settled intention to
           treat a child as a member of his or her family

      • Spouse
         o Means a person to whom the person is married or with whom the
           person is living in a conjugal relationship outside marriage

      • Child
         o Means a child born within or outside marriage and includes an
           adopted child and a person whom a parent has demonstrated a
           settled intention to treat as a child of his or her family.


3. Application
   The code of conduct would apply to all members of council and of
   certain local boards (as defined in section 223.1 of the Municipal Act,
   2001 and section 156 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006).
   The code would not replace the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, and
   members of council must continue to comply with other legislation,
   policies and by-laws governing conduct including the Municipal Conflict
   of Interest Act.


4. Rules pertaining to gifts, benefits, and hospitality prohibiting their
   acceptance by members of council or their parent, spouse, or child
   except under the following circumstances:

      • Political contributions otherwise reported by law
      • Authorized compensation
                                                                             4



Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing

      • Services provided without compensation by persons volunteering
        their time
      • A gift that is received as part of protocol, custom or social obligation
      • A memento of a function honouring the member
      • Admission to a widely attended event (i.e. a convention,
        conference, etc.) if invited by the organizing entity and attending in
        official capacity to participate as a speaker, perform a ceremonial
        function or if attendance is appropriate in their official capacity and
        is unsolicited by the member
      • Admission to an event hosted by a charity or a non-profit community
        organization, unsolicited by the member, provided that the
        invitation and admission are extended directly by the host entity and
        are not provided by a third-party
      • Admission to training or educational programming related to the
        members duties and in the interest of the municipality
      • Food, lodging, transportation and entertainment provided by a
        federal, provincial, municipal or foreign government where the
        member is attending in an official capacity
      • Food and beverages consumed at an event where the member’s
        attendance serves a municipal purpose, the person extending the
        invite or their representative is in attendance, the value is
        reasonable and the invitation is infrequent
      • Communications to the member such as subscriptions to
        newspapers
   In municipalities with a by-law providing for a system of registration of
   persons who lobby public office holders, a member shall not accept a
   gift or benefit from a person who lobbies public office holders, except a
   political contribution authorized by law.
   If gifts are accepted under one of these exceptions, and the value of the
   gift or of multiple gifts from one source exceeds $200 in a calendar year
   the member must report these gifts to the Clerk of the municipality within
   30 days, by filing a disclosure statement.
                                                                                   5



Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing

   A disclosure statement should include the nature of the gift, its source,
   the date it was received, the circumstance in which the gift was given or
   received, the estimated value, and what the member intends to do with
   the gift.
   All statements of disclosure that are filed should be made available to
   the public.


5. Rules regarding improper use of influence are proposed to prohibit
   member from:

      • Using their office or influence for any purpose other than their
        official duties.
      • Using their office or influence for preferential treatment beyond
        activities in which members normally engage, including on behalf of
        their constituents, as part of their official duties.
6. Rules prohibiting use of municipal property for purposes outside of
   members’ duties of office unless:

      • The property is made available to the member in the capacity of
        their office and is used in duties associated with their office.
      • The property is available generally to the public and the member is
        not receiving preferential use.
7. Rules prohibiting the disclosure or misuse of confidential information
   including that a member:

      • Shall not disclose or release confidential information to any
        unauthorized person, including a member of the public, acquired by
        virtue of their role except as authorized by the council of the
        municipality or where required by law
      • Shall not use or disclose confidential information for any reason
        other than fulfilling their duties


                                                                               6



Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing

      • Shall not disclose or release confidential information to any
        member of the public discussed or deliberated at a closed council
        meeting unless authorized by council of the municipality or by law
      • Shall not access or attempt to access confidential information
        unless necessary for performing their duties and not prohibited by-
        law or policy of the municipality
8. Rules for respectful conduct that set standards for member behaviour in
   the exercise of their public office or where their conduct materially
   affects the municipal business, including at meetings, in interactions
   with municipal staff and lobbyists, and in official public
   communications, including on social media, but not personal or political
   activities unrelated to municipal responsibilities. Requirements may
   include that members:

      • Conduct themselves with decorum at all times, including at council
        and committee meetings in accordance with procedure by-laws
      • Respect the role of municipal employees and officers and show
        respect for their professional capacities, including their role to
        provide advice based on political neutrality and without undue
        influence from any member
      • A member must not:
         o Maliciously or falsely damage the reputation of municipal
           employees or officers
         o Compel municipal employees or officers to engage in partisan
           activity or subject them to threats or discrimination for refusing
           to participate in partisan activity
         o Use or attempt to use their authority or influence to intimidate,
           threaten, coerce, command or influence municipal employees
           or officers with the intent to interfere with their duties, including
           the duty to disclose improper activity



                                                                                   7



Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing

9. Rules prohibiting actions that constitute workplace harassment,
   discrimination, and violence. Requirements may include that the
   member shall, both in person, on social media or any other means:

      • Not engage with members of the public, municipal employees or
        other member in an abusive bullying, intimidating or derogatory
        manner
      • Help ensure that their work environment is safe and free from
        discrimination, harassment and violence


10. Rules for respect of the code of conduct such that:

      • Members shall not obstruct an integrity commissioner (i.e.,
        municipal integrity commissioner or the Integrity Commissioner of
        Ontario) in carrying out their responsibilities
      • A member must not take reprisal or threaten reprisal against anyone
        who has complained to the integrity commissioner or who has
        provided relevant information to the integrity commissioner
      • A member shall not destroy any document and relevant evidence or
        erase electronic communications or refuse to respond to the
        integrity commissioner where a complaint has been initiated in
        respect of the code of conduct.


II.   Proposal for a Regulation to Establish Municipal Integrity
      Commissioner Processes
If brought into effect, the Municipal Accountability Act, 2026 would
strengthen the municipal code of conduct framework and enable Minister’s
regulations to create standardized processes to be followed by municipal
integrity commissioners. The government is seeking public input on the
contents to include in these regulations.



                                                                              8



Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing

The Ministry aims to propose a Minister’s regulation establishing
standardized processes to be followed by municipal integrity
commissioners (Commissioners).


1. A standard complaint process and form to be used for all complaints to
   the municipal integrity commissioner. This complaint process would
   include:

      • A request for an inquiry referred to in section 223.4 of the Act about
        whether a member of council or of a local board has contravened
        the code of conduct applicable to the member shall be made in
        writing on a form including:
         o The full name, address, telephone number and email address (if
           any) of the person making the request;
         o The name of the member of council or of a local board who is the
           subject of the request;
         o A description of the actions or conduct claimed to be in
           contravention of the code of conduct, with reasonable certainty
           and detail, including the date, place and nature of the
           occurrences on which the request is based;
         o The provisions of the code of conduct that may have been
           contravened, if known;
         o Copies of any documents that support the request;
         o The names, addresses, telephone numbers and email
           addresses of any persons who might reasonably be expected to
           have knowledge of the matters that are the basis of the request,
           if available; and
         o If the request is being made more than six weeks after the
           actions or conduct described, a statement of when and how the
           requestor became aware of the actions or conduct.

                                                                                 9



Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing

      • A request shall be delivered to the Commissioner or the Clerk, who
        shall promptly deliver it to the Commissioner.
      • A request may only be made within six weeks after the requestor
        became aware of the alleged contravention.
         o A request may be made more than six weeks after the requestor
           became aware of the alleged contravention if the alleged
           contravention is of a serious nature involving harassment,
           bullying, discrimination or violence.
         o A request may be made more than six weeks after the requestor
           became aware of the alleged contravention if both of the
           following are satisfied:
                     ▪ The requestor became aware of the alleged
                       contravention within the period of time starting six
                       weeks before nomination day for a regular election,
                       as set out in section 31 of the Municipal Elections
                       Act, 1996, and ending on voting day in a regular
                       election, as set out in section 5 of that Act.
                     ▪ The requestor makes a request to the Commissioner
                       under subsection 2 within six weeks after the day
                       after voting day in a regular election, as set out in
                       section 5 of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996.

      • A request may only be made within 4 years of the last date of the
        actions or conduct claimed to be in contravention of the code of
        conduct.
2. Standardized protocols for the municipal integrity commissioner to
   follow upon receipt of a complaint. These include screening for
   frivolous/vexatious complaints or complaints beyond jurisdictional
   scope of the integrity commissioner (including the complaint not being
   related to the exercise of member’s duties of public office), as follows:


                                                                               10



Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing

      • Within 10 days after receiving a request, the Commissioner shall
        review the request to determine whether the circumstances under
        which the Commissioner may conduct or continue an inquiry
        described below apply to the request and notify the requestor of
        their determination.
         o If the request does not contain the information required or the
           request is otherwise insufficient to make the determination
           required, the Commissioner may provide an opportunity to the
           requestor to remedy any deficiencies before making the
           determination required by and the time period set out does not
           apply.

      • The Commissioner shall not conduct or continue an inquiry if the
        Commissioner is of the opinion that:
         o The request was not made within the time period allowed;
         o The request for an inquiry is frivolous, vexatious or not made in
           good faith;
         o That there are no grounds or insufficient grounds for an inquiry;
         o There is no reasonable prospect of a finding that the conduct
           described in the request contravenes the code of conduct
           applicable to the member; or
         o The request is outside the jurisdiction of the Integrity
           Commissioner

      • The Commissioner shall refuse a request made during the period of
        time starting on nomination day for a regular election, as set out in
        section 31 of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996, and ending on
        voting day in a regular election.
      • Within 5 days of commencing an inquiry, the Commissioner shall
        notify the member who is the subject of the inquiry.


                                                                               11



Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing

      • If the Commissioner suspends an inquiry under section 223.8 of the
        Act, the Commissioner shall promptly:
         o Notify the municipality or local board, and the member who is
           the subject of the inquiry of the suspension; and,
         o Notify the requestor of the suspension and advise the requestor
           of the circumstances under which the inquiry will be resumed by
           the Commissioner and whether the requestor is required to take
           any steps before the Commissioner will resume the inquiry.

      • Regardless of whether any steps required of the requestor have
        been fulfilled, the Commissioner may exercise their discretion to
        resume an inquiry that was suspended under section 223.8.
         o If the Commissioner resumes an inquiry that was suspended
           under section 223.8 of the Act, the Commissioner shall promptly
           notify the requestor, the municipality or local board, and the
           member who is the subject of the inquiry.
         o If Commissioner decides not to resume an inquiry that was
           suspended under section 223.8 of the Act, the Commissioner
           shall notify the municipality or local board, the requestor, and
           the member who is the subject of the inquiry.

      • If Commissioner terminates an inquiry under subsection 223.4(7) of
        the Act, the Commissioner shall promptly,
         o notify the member who is the subject of the inquiry of the
           termination; and,
         o notify the requestor of the termination and advise the requestor
           of the requirement set out in subsection 223.4(8) of the Act.

      • The Commissioner may combine an inquiry pursuant to section
        223.4 of the Act with an inquiry pursuant to section 223.4.1 of the
        Act as long as any procedural requirements specific to each type of
        inquiry are met.
                                                                              12



Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing

      • The Commissioner may attempt to settle any matter at any time.


3. Standardized inquiry timelines requiring that inquiries be completed
   within a specific timeframe after a complaint is received. Including:

      • The Commissioner shall complete the inquiry within 120 days after
        receiving a complete request.
      • The time needed to complete an inquiry may be extended by up to
        60 days if both of the following conditions are met:
         o If the alleged contravention is of a serious nature or involving
           harassment, bullying, discrimination or violence, and
         o The Commissioner provides notice and reason for the extension
           to the requestor, subject of the inquiry and municipality or local
           board.

      • The period of time for completion of an inquiry does not run during
        the period of time an inquiry is suspended under section 223.8 of
        the Act.
      • After terminating an inquiry under subsection 223.4(7) of the Act,
        the period of time for completion of an inquiry established starts
        again if another inquiry is commenced under subsection 223.4(8) of
        the Act.
4. Standardized reporting and recommendations process for outcomes of
   investigations, including:

      • Within the 120 days to complete the inquiry and possible 60 days
        extension, before issuing a report finding a contravention of the
        code of conduct, the Commissioner must provide notice to the
        member who is the subject of the inquiry the basis for the proposed
        finding and any recommended penalty or remedial action, and an
        opportunity to comment on the proposed findings and any
        recommended sanction or remedial action.

                                                                              13



Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing

      • Upon completion of the inquiry, if the Commissioner is of the
        opinion that the member has not contravened the code of conduct,
        the Commissioner shall notify the requestor and the member who is
        the subject of the inquiry about the outcome of the inquiry, and may
        provide written reasons for their determination to the requestor and
        the member who is the subject of the inquiry, and may provide a
        report to the municipality or local board.
      • Upon completion of the inquiry, if the Commissioner is of the
        opinion that the member has contravened the code of conduct, the
        Commissioner shall report to the municipality or local board within
        30 days unless the Commissioner intends to make a
        recommendation to the Integrity Commissioner of Ontario pursuant
        to section 223.4.0.1 of the Act.
      • Upon completion of the inquiry, if the Commissioner is of the
        opinion that all of the criteria listed in subsection 223.4.0.1(1) of the
        Act are met, and the Commissioner recommends that the seat of
        the member be declared vacant, the Commissioner shall so notify
        the municipality or local board, the requestor, and the member who
        is the subject of the inquiry.
      • If a matter is referred back to the Commissioner under paragraph 1
        of subsection 223.4.0.2 (4) of the Act, the Commissioner shall
        report to the municipality or local board within 30 days.
      • A report to the municipality or local board by the Commissioner
        shall address whether the Commissioner is of the opinion that the
        member has contravened the code of conduct, and if so, whether
        either of the penalties described in subsection 223.4 (5) should be
        imposed on the member.
      • The Commissioner shall provide a copy of any report made to the
        municipality or local board to the requestor and the member who is
        the subject of the inquiry.




                                                                                14



Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing

III.     Proposal for Regulations to Establish Education and Training
         Requirements for Municipal Integrity Commissioners and for
         Members of Councils and Certain Local Boards

 If brought into effect, the Municipal Accountability Act, 2026 would
 strengthen the municipal code of conduct framework and enable Minister’s
 and Lieutenant Governor in Council (LGIC) regulations to establish roles
 and requirements related to education and training for:

         • The Integrity Commissioner of Ontario (ICO),
         • Municipal integrity commissioners, and
         • Members of councils and certain local boards as defined in s. 223.1
           of the Municipal Act, 2001 and s. 156 of the City of Toronto Act,
           2006.
 The government is seeking public input on the content of these regulations
 under the Municipal Act, 2001 and City of Toronto Act, 2006 as follows:

       1. Requirements with respect to the ICO and municipal integrity
          commissioners:
       Education and training the ICO would be required to provide municipal
       integrity commissioners that would include, but not be limited to, the
       following subject matters:

         • The application of the code of conduct and the obligations of a
           member under the code of conduct; and,
         • The application of any procedures, rules and processes for:
            o Making a complaint under the code of conduct;
            o Conducting an inquiry with respect to the code of conduct; and
            o Reporting the result of an inquiry with respect to the code of
              conduct.


                                                                                15



Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing

   Municipal integrity commissioners would be required to complete
   training provided by the ICO within three months of the regulation
   coming into force, or within three months of becoming a municipal
   integrity commissioner, whichever occurs later.
   The information that municipal integrity commissioners have taken the
   training would be made available to the public.

   2. Requirements with respect to Municipal Integrity Commissioners
      and members of council and certain local boards:
   Education and training that municipal integrity commissioners would be
   required to provide to members of council and of certain local boards
   that would include, but not be limited to, the following subject matters:

      • The application of the code of conduct, and
      • A member’s obligations under the code of conduct;
      • The application of any procedures, rules and processes for:
         o making a complaint under the code of conduct;
         o municipal integrity commissioner conducting an inquiry with
           respect to the code of conduct and interaction with council;
         o receiving an integrity commissioner’s report with the result of an
           inquiry with respect to the code of conduct.
   Members would be required to take the education and training within five
   months of beginning their term of office and every year after that during
   their term of office. Information on the status of training taken by each
   member of council and certain local board would be made available to
   the public by the municipality.




                                                                            16

---

Attachment: Invitation to Comment on Regulations Municipal Accountability Act.pdf
Source: https://helpos.ca/attachments/b4253a4621e85d471c283c5974007ef5d0e7d5a374e48ee6c8171e1bef7910a8/6-a-3-invitation-to-comment-on-regulations-municipal-accountability-act-pdf.pdf

Ministry of                         Ministère des
Municipal Affairs                   Affaires municipales
and Housing                         et du Logement

Office of the Minister              Bureau du ministre

777 Bay Street, 17th Floor          777, rue Bay, 17e étage
Toronto ON M7A 2J3                  Toronto (Ontario) M7A 2J3
Tel.: 416 585-7000                  Tél. : 416 585-7000


                                                                                        234-2026-3320
September 10, 2026
Dear Head of Council,
I am writing to advise that the content of proposed regulations under the Municipal
Accountability Act, 2026, which received Royal Assent on June 2, 2026, is now posted
on Ontario’s regulatory registry for public comment.

The Act represents a significant step toward strengthening accountability and public
confidence in local government. If the changes made by this Act are brought into force,
the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing is proposing regulations that would:
   1. Establish a standardized municipal code of conduct for members of council and
       certain local boards;
   2. Establish standardized municipal integrity commissioner inquiry processes; and
   3. Establish education and training requirements for municipal integrity
       commissioners and for members of councils and certain local boards.

I value your perspective as Head of Council and encourage you to provide comments
through the Regulatory Registry on behalf of your municipality, including any views or
feedback from members of council: Proposal for Regulations to Establish a
Standardized Municipal Code of Conduct; Municipal Integrity Commissioner Processes
and Education and Training Requirements | regulatoryregistry.gov.on.ca

The proposal is open for public comment until October 2, 2026. Feedback will help
inform the development of these regulations and support their effective implementation
for the start of the new municipal council term on November 15, 2026.

If you have any questions regarding the proposal, please contact Robert Dodd, Chief of
Staff, Minister’s Office, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
Robert.Dodd@ontario.ca.

I look forward to receiving your input.

Sincerely,


Hon. Robert J. Flack
Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing

cc :      Robert Dodd, Chief of Staff, Minister’s Office, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
          Martha Greenberg, Deputy Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing
          Laurie Miller, Assistant Deputy Minister, Local Government Division
          Sean Fraser, Assistant Deputy Minister, Municipal and Housing Operations
          Division
          Municipal Chief Administrative Officer
          Municipal Clerk

Agenda item 6.b: PSR-CW-07-26 Electronic Medical Records Transition Following Prehos Closure

---

Attachment: PSR-CW-07-26 Electronic Medical Records Transition Following Prehos Closure - PSR-CW-07-26.pdf
Source: https://helpos.ca/attachments/25466b74e47d04c58fc451953082490ae1a69f2f88f04702722644e434633907/6-b-1-psr-cw-07-26-electronic-medical-records-transition-following-prehos-closure-psr-cw-07-26-p.pdf

Committee Report
 To:                            Warden Matrosovs and Members of Grey County Council
 Committee Date:                September 24, 2026
 Subject / Report No:           PSR-CW-07-26
 Title:                         Electronic Medical Records Transition Following Prehos
                                Closure
 Prepared by:                   Kevin McNab, Director Paramedic Services
 Reviewed by:                   Randy Scherzer CAO, Niall Lobley Deputy CAO
 Lower Tier(s) Affected:        None


Recommendation
   1. That Report PSR-CW-07-26 Electronic Medical Records Transition Following
      Prehos Closure be received; and
   2. That the anticipated $73,095.00 deficit from the Prehos closure be funded by any
      available surplus in the 2026 paramedic services budget at year end, and if no
      surplus exists, be funded by the One-Time Stabilization Funding Reserve.


Executive Summary
Grey County Paramedics (including Community Paramedics and the Supportive Outreach
Services team) manage operations using a digital system. This includes the management of
calls, dispatch and operations and the recording of call and patient notes. This digital system
includes both software and hardware. Collectively, this is known as an Electronic Medical
Record or EMR system. Most recently, this has meant all paramedic vehicles being outfitted
with iPads on which information is displayed, calls managed and notes are taken, supported by
computers at fixed workstations. A previous EMR system used by Grey County used laptop
computers known as Toughbooks, installed in vehicles.
In June 2026, Grey County Paramedic Services was advised that Prehos, the provider of its
electronic medical record (EMR) systems for 911 ambulance and Community Paramedicine
operations, would cease Ontario operations as part of a receivership process. To maintain
continuity of patient care and compliance with provincial documentation requirements, 911
operations were transitioned to ESO's IMEDIC platform, the Service's previous EMR system,
while Community Paramedicine and Supportive Outreach Services (SOS) transitioned to the
TELUS PS Suites platform. This platform is the same platform implemented by Primary
Healthcare Teams with which the Community Paramedic (CP) and Supportive Outreach
Services (SOS) teams routinely interact, supporting efficient data management between care
partners.



PSR-CW-07-26                                   1                           September 24, 2026



Existing Toughbook computers were returned to service to support the transition. The
receivership of Prehos has also required Grey County to coordinate the secure transfer of
historical patient care records back to County control. This work remains ongoing and is being
managed in accordance with privacy, security, and records retention requirements.
Through the Canoe Procurement Group of Canada cooperative purchasing process, the Service
is procuring ESO's new iOS-based Electronic Health Record (EHR) platform, with
implementation planned for December 2026 following its anticipated release in November. The
new platform will replace IMEDIC and support a return to iPad-based patient care
documentation as a long-term electronic documentation solution.
The closure of Prehos has resulted in an unplanned financial impact of $73,095 to the 2026
operating budget, including potentially unrecoverable prepaid licensing fees and transition-
related costs. Despite these circumstances, the transition was completed with minimal
disruption to service delivery and patient care operations.


Background and Discussion
Grey County Paramedic Services utilizes electronic medical record (EMR) systems to document
all 911 ambulance calls and Community Paramedicine patient interactions. In June 2026, the
Service was advised that Prehos, the provider of both systems, would be ending its Ontario
operations as part of a financial restructuring process. The company advised customers that
access to the platform would continue for a limited transition period and that all client data would
be securely returned to support migration to another provider.
To ensure continuity of patient care and maintain operational readiness, Grey County
Paramedic Services transitioned 911 electronic patient care reporting from Prehos back to the
IMEDIC platform provided by its previous vendor. Existing Toughbook computer hardware was
available and allowed the Service to maintain electronic patient care documentation with
minimal disruption to operations. As part of the transition, the Toughbook computers required
re-imaging, software updates, and security maintenance. An arrangement was established with
HGlobal Technologies Inc., an Ontario-based information technology firm specializing in support
services for paramedic services to complete this work and provide support through November
2026 while preparations continue for implementation of the new electronic health record
platform.
Community Paramedicine and Supportive Outreach Services transitioned from Prehos to the
TELUS PS Suites electronic medical record platform. PS Suites is already utilized by
Community Paramedics through their work with the Owen Sound Family Health Team and
provides a familiar and stable environment for documentation and clinical record management.
Grey County Paramedic Services is completing the procurement of a new Electronic Health
Record (EHR) platform through the Canoe Procurement Group of Canada cooperative
purchasing process. The new ESO iOS-based platform is expected to become available in
November 2026, with implementation planned for December 2026. This transition will allow
frontline paramedics to return to iPad-based patient care reporting while providing a modern,
provincially recognized electronic documentation solution.




PSR-CW-07-26                                     2                            September 24, 2026



Grey County Information Technology staff are working with the trustee and vendor
representatives to obtain all historical patient care data currently held within the Prehos
environment. The transfer of this information will be completed through a secure process to
ensure the confidentiality, integrity, and protection of patient records. Once received, the data
will be returned to the control and management of Grey County in accordance with applicable
privacy, security, and records retention requirements.
The closure of Prehos has created an unplanned financial impact for the 2026 operating budget.
Grey County had prepaid for a full year of licensing and support services prior to the company's
decision to cease Ontario operations. As a result, a portion of those prepaid costs may not be
recoverable. Additional expenditures were also required to support the transition to replacement
systems and maintain operational continuity. While Grey County will participate in the
restructuring process as a creditor and continue to monitor developments through the trustee, it
remains uncertain whether any of the prepaid fees will be recovered. Given the nature of
insolvency proceedings, any recovery is expected to be limited and has not been assumed in
current budget projections.
Despite the unexpected closure of Prehos, the transition has been completed with minimal
disruption to service delivery. Staff, Information Technology Services, and vendor partners
worked collaboratively to maintain continuity of patient care while positioning the Service for the
implementation of long-term electronic documentation solutions for both 911 operations and
Community Paramedicine.

Legislated Requirements
Electronic medical record systems are an essential component of Ontario paramedic services
and must support compliance with Provincial Documentation Standards for ambulance call
reporting. The system must also support the secure transmission of required patient care
records and reports to receiving hospitals, Base Hospitals, and other health system partners.
Any electronic medical record platform used by Grey County Paramedic Services must comply
with the requirements of the Personal Health Information Protection Act (PHIPA), including the
secure collection, storage, transmission, retention, and retrieval of personal health information.
The Ontario market for paramedic electronic medical record systems is limited, with only two
established vendors currently operational offering platforms capable of supporting Ontario's 911
paramedic documentation, reporting, integration, privacy, and security requirements. The
systems selected by Grey County Paramedic Services ensure continued compliance with
legislative requirements while supporting both 911 operations and Community Paramedicine
services.

Financial and Resource Implications
The approved 2026 budget includes $87,800 for EMR software for 911 and CPLTC. Total EMR-
related expenditures to support the transition are projected at $160,895, resulting in a projected
budget deficit of $73,095.




PSR-CW-07-26                                     3                            September 24, 2026



Amount (including non-
 2026 Projected Costs
                                                                   refundable HST)

 Total 2026 Budget for EMR Software                                                 $87,800

 Prehos fees paid                                                                   $88,239

 Prehos offboarding fee (data transfer)                                               $3,053

 New EHR Platform (ESO)                                                             $39,044

 iMEDIC Transition (HGlobal)                                                        $21,222

 CPLTC EMR Platform (Telus PS Suites)                                                 $9,337

 Total 2026 Projected Cost                                                         $160,895

 Total 2026 Projected Deficit                                                      ($73,095)


Any 2026 unbudgeted costs are recommended to be funded from any year-end surplus realized
in the Paramedic Services Budget or, if none exists, be funded from the One-Time Stabilization
Funding Reserve. The balance of the One-Time Funding Reserve as of December 31, 2025,
was $6,902,678 and the projected balance as of December 31, 2026, is $5,971,878.
Although Grey County has filed a claim through the Prehos restructuring process, no recovery
of prepaid fees has been assumed in the forecast given the uncertainty of the proceedings. The
updated EMR software costs have been incorporated into the proposed 2027 budget.


Relevant Consultation
☒       Internal (list)

       Randy Scherzer, CAO

       Niall Lobley, Deputy CAO

       Garrett Reed, Interim Deputy Treasurer

       Jacquelyn Morrison, Solicitor




PSR-CW-07-26                                     4                        September 24, 2026

Agenda item 6.c: Planning and Economic Development Advisory Committee meeting minutes dated September 8, 2026

---

Attachment: Post-Meeting Minutes - PEDAC_Sep08_2026 - English.pdf
Source: https://helpos.ca/attachments/673091c733b4e11b31ebce457df2e197170387573766ef25080cb35d8bee74b7/6-c-1-post-meeting-minutes-pedac-sep08-2026-english-pdf.pdf

Minutes
 Planning and Economic Development Advisory
                 Committee
                                 September 8, 2026

_____________________________________________________________________

The Deputy Clerk advised that following the required 15-minute waiting period after the
scheduled start time, the minimum number of members required to constitute quorum
were not present. As a result, the meeting was not called to order and no business was
considered.




                                           1

Agenda item 6.d: EDTC-PEDAC-10-26 Economic Development, Tourism, and Culture Strategic Progress Update - September 2026

---

Attachment: Economic Development, Tourism and Culture Strategic Progress Update - September 2026 - EDTC-PEDAC-10-26(1).pdf
Source: https://helpos.ca/attachments/fed46cb04578343583e330724dc5d5e374079645e90b5db0b71e6d9b74a2dcc3/6-d-1-economic-development-tourism-and-culture-strategic-progress-update-september-2026-edtc-ped.pdf

Committee Report
 To:                             Chair Keaveney and Committee Members
 Committee Date:                 September 8, 2026
 Subject / Report No:            EDTC-PEDAC-10-26
 Title:                          Economic Development, Tourism and Culture Strategic
                                 Progress Update – September 2026
 Prepared by:                    Jill Paterson, Manager of Museum & Archives,
                                 Courtney Miller, Business Development Manager,
                                 Kaleena Sanford, Strategic Marketing Manager,
                                 Linnea Catalan, Economic Development Manager,
                                 Stephanie Stewart, Community Transportation Manager.
 Reviewed by:                    Savanna Myers, Director EDTC
 Lower Tier(s) Affected:         All


Recommendation
   1. That report EDTC-PEDAC-10-26 regarding the Economic Development, Tourism
      and Culture Strategic Progress Update – September 2026 be received for
      information.


Executive Summary
The purpose of this report is to share progress towards strategic priorities in year three of the
EDTC Master Plan. Staff remain committed to the 2026 theme market, which, builds on the
work of prior themes: foundation and study in years one and two. Under this theme, staff
continue to communicate and inform, drawing attention to the tools, templates, and
opportunities available to our region; while advancing a unified regional voice on priority issues.
The is the final Committee update for this term of Council. A complete year in review will be
shared through the 2026 Annual Report in early 2027.


Background and Discussion
Director
The EDTC team continues to practice and trial lean mindset, process and evaluation, which is a
theme that carries throughout the progress reports below.
Team Grey Memorandum of Understanding (1.4)


EDTC-PEDAC-10-26                                 1                              September 8, 2026



Staff are actively standing up the Team Grey MOU with municipal representatives appointed to
the County-Municipal Economic Development Working Group. This includes shared templates,
mutually agreed planning and reporting frameworks and a reframing of the 2027 workplan and
budget under Team Grey.
Economic Development Leadership Series (1.1)
The Warden’s Economic Development Leadership Luncheon was held May 29th, marking the
fourth event of the series and final event during this term of Council. The session was ranked
9/10 by delegates, and highlights included:

      Asset mapping activity with all delegates,
      Growth, Development & Strategic Alignment with Dan Mathieson,
      Clean Energy Frontier: It Starts Here with Stellina Williams, Cait MacKinnon, Chad
       Richards
      Things that go Bump in the Night with Brock Dickinson
Pursuing Strategic Advocacy (1.2)
Staff have advanced three advocacy opportunities in the third quarter of 2026. This includes
multiple meetings with the Ministry of Transportation regarding the Bruce-Dufferin-Grey-
Wellington Regional Transit Study; a third opportunity to meet with the Ministry of Colleges,
Universities, Research Excellence and Security at AMO regarding sustainable funding for
Georgian College; and support of Western Ontario Warden’s Caucus (WOWC) advocacy for
AMO.

Economic Development
Investment Readiness (2.3-2.5)
In the last quarter, Economic Development staff have continued to advance initiatives that
support business growth, entrepreneurship, workforce development, and regional collaboration
across Grey County. Staff have spent significant time with site selection requests and business
investment opportunities in healthcare, manufacturing and tourism. Part of this process includes
the ongoing development of investment readiness materials, such as, Grey County Workforce at
a Glance, Amenities Map etc. These materials are being refined and will be available for use by
municipal and community partners.
Business Retention and Expansion (3.2-3.3)
Staff supported the BEC Starter Company Plus grant review process to ensure the program
continues to effectively meet the needs of emerging entrepreneurs. Staff have also attended a
variety of business and community events, including the Municipality of Meaford's Chamber
Networking Event, SEDC’s Community Synopsis Review, and the Hanover Youth Hub meeting
with Elephant Thoughts, while also participating in several partner committees to better
understand local challenges, opportunities, and emerging trends. In addition, staff continued
work on rural employment ecosystem mapping by meeting with partner representatives to
identify ways to strengthen collaboration, improve awareness of available services and
resources, and support more intentional problem-solving within our network and the broader
regional service ecosystem.



EDTC-PEDAC-10-26                                2                            September 8, 2026



The Community Impact Lab (Georgian College/City of Owen Sound/Grey County) advanced its
soft launch over the summer and hosted the Youth Climate Change Action Group, with an
additional community group coming through the space in September.
Staff also collaborated internally to support the development of the Grey Roots Museum Made
Grey’t exhibit, helping to highlight local new and historical businesses and their contributions to
the County through new products, ideas, and experiences. This exhibit commemorates Grey
County’s 175th anniversary and will launch February 2027.
Regional training and innovation network (4.2)
Sydenham Campus events:

      Volunteer Fair (May 20)- hosted by the Grey Bruce Makers (GBM) and OSAAVA, the
       Spring volunteer fair brought the event outside, allowing volunteer organizations and the
       public to connect.
      Warden’s Economic Development Leadership Luncheon (May 29)
      Daycare Graduation (June 25)
      Grey Bruce Makers Festival & Craft Show (June 27)- the 1st GBM Festival, celebrating
       GBM 2nd anniversary. Free and open to the public, this outdoor event included GBM
       vendors, live entertainment, structured activities, and tours of the makerspace. 150
       guests enjoyed the festivities and wares for sale.
      Owen Sound Doors Open (July 18)- welcomed 25 guests into Sydenham Campus and
       provided full tours to all. Visitors were very interested in the transition from the former
       school to what the building is now sharing positive remarks.
Sydenham activation and enhancements:

      Launched a detailed inquiry and booking tracking program. The strongest
       demand continues to be for flexible training and meeting spaces serving groups
       of approximately 10 to 40 participants. This information is being used to guide future
       room configurations. Future developments: there is one short-term training room and
       one long-term rental option coming online in the fall to accommodate future needs.
      Staff have also refreshed an under-utilized office suite and added it to the short-term
       rental inventory. The space is already being regularly used for client meetings and
       consultations and as a temporary office for groups using other facilities such as the
       Auditorium, though it could also be leased for longer-term business incubation.
      Several improvements have been made across campus including west wing (Grey Bruce
       Makers) washroom improvements, additional wayfinding and office signage and touch
       screen wayfinding utilizing an inherited SMART TV (repaired
       by GBM for $12!). Two wall-mounted water bottle filling stations have also been installed
       which will reduce the reliance on third party water coolers and are expected to pay for
       themselves in less than two years.

Strategic Marketing
Strategic Marketing supports EDTC, including Grey County Tourism through destination
marketing, industry engagement, visitor experience development, content creation,
partnerships, and data-informed decision-making. Together, these efforts contribute to the



EDTC-PEDAC-10-26                                 3                              September 8, 2026



department's four core KPI areas: Website Engagement, Brand Awareness, Visitor & Business
Support, and Storytelling Impact.
Activities & Accomplishments
      Destination Marketing & Brand Awareness (5.3): Expanded destination visibility
       through earned media, partnerships, and mixed-media marketing initiatives, including
       CTV Morning, Escarpment Magazine, Mountain Life, Mosaic, Global Heroes, RRAMPT,
       regional tourism publications, and social media storytelling.
      Content Development & Storytelling (5.4): Filmed 26 of 27 Gather 'Round That
       videos, completed 41 tourism business visits, published 87 social media posts, and
       developed 10 new blog articles, including seven authored by summer students.
      Business Engagement & Industry Support (3.2): Completed 24 of 50 planned tourism
       BR&E visits for 2026, co-hosted the Grey-Bruce Brochure Swap and hosted a Regional
       Partner Exchange, welcoming approximately 50 tourism operators, municipalities, and
       tourism-supporting organizations to strengthen industry relationships and regional
       collaboration.
      Visitor Experience & Community Activation: Delivered Imagination Station children's
       programming at Grey Roots, supported the Grey County Archival Merchandise
       Collection, the Gather Activation Wall, and the Chef Zach Keeshig Sweetgrass Ice
       Cream Pop-Up, which attracted nearly 200 visitors.
      Data & Decision Support: Continued Data-to-Action initiatives, dashboard
       development, KPI reporting, and analytical support for EDTC, County departments and
       member municipalities to advance performance measurement and evidence-based
       planning.
Year-to-Date KPI Reporting Overview (5.3)
The activities above contribute to measurable outcomes across Grey County Tourism's four
core performance areas:
   1. Website Engagement: VisitGrey.ca: 58,400 visits, 76,800 pageviews, 1.32 pages per
      visit, 1:00 average visit duration, and a 76% bounce rate.
   2. Brand Awareness: All Digital Platforms: 233,378 combined impressions across paid,
      earned, and owned channels.
   3. Visitor & Business Support: 3,479 trip idea views, 2,566 event page views, 1,500 story
      clicks, and 136 active event listings, demonstrating continued interest in local
      experiences, attractions, and operators.
   4. Storytelling Impact: 8,378 YouTube impressions, 1,891 video views, a 62% completion
      rate, 1-minute average itinerary engagement, and 10,224 social interactions, including
      likes, comments, follows, shares, saves, and link clicks.

Grey Roots Museum & Archives



EDTC-PEDAC-10-26                              4                            September 8, 2026



Between May and July, Grey Roots Museum & Archives offered a broad range of programming
and visitor experiences, including school programs, new exhibitions, historical demonstrations,
as well as community-led presentations and art projects. Summer 2026 combined the return of
many well-established favourites with the introduction of new initiatives designed to engage a
wide range of audiences.
Following a particularly strong 2025 season, visitation in 2026 remains ahead of 2024 levels and
on par with 2023. Revenue-generating activities show a similar pattern. While revenues are
currently tracking below the exceptional results achieved in 2025, they remain ahead of 2024
and 2023 levels, reflecting ongoing strength in visitor engagement and earned revenue
opportunities.

      Education Programs, In May and June, Grey Roots welcomed more than 1,200
       students through its doors. To enhance curriculum-based programming, staff partnered
       with the Bluewater District School Board’s SHSM Agriculture Program to offer
       opportunities for students to observe real agricultural learning activities. These
       enhancements complemented popular programs such as Doing the Chores, Time
       Travellers’ Trek, and Wild Weather Wranglers, providing students with hands-on,
       experiential learning.
      Artwork in Grey County Gallery, Following an evaluation process that included
       members of the Grey Roots Indigenous Advisory Circle and support from staff at the
       Tom Thomson Art Gallery, Saugeen First Nation artist, Jeannette Ladd was selected to
       create What We Carry, What We Grow. The proposed artwork consists of three
       interconnected 4' x 6' panels. Grounded in Anishinaabe teachings, the work’s visual
       narrative moves from past to present to future, emphasizing continuity, stewardship, and
       the importance of carrying knowledge forward to support future growth.
      Grey County Archives, As of August 12, 2026, Archives staff responded to 360
       research inquiries from individuals, organizations, and government partners. Archival
       reference and information services were provided to the Township of Chatsworth, Town
       of The Blue Mountains, Township of Georgian Bluffs, Municipality of Meaford, City of
       Owen Sound, and Municipality of West Grey. Staff also supported Grey County
       departments, including Planning, Clerk’s Services, and the CAO’s Office, by providing
       access to archival records, historical information, and research assistance.
      Grey Roots hosted Wild Weather, a hands-on travelling exhibit developed by Science
       North with the Ontario Science Centre, in summer 2026. Local Stories: Changing
       Weather was a complementary exhibit developed in collaboration with the Georgian
       Bluffs Climate Action Team. The exhibit connected extreme weather and climate change
       to Grey County experiences, including agricultural impacts, adaptation strategies, and
       community resilience. The exhibit supported public education, preparedness, and
       dialogue on local climate action.
      Spring into Moreston/Voices for Climate Action Concert, This enhanced our annual
       event welcoming more than 450 attendees for a day of music, community engagement,
       and family activities. A highlight of the event was the Voices for Climate Action Concert,
       featuring performances by Luke Wallace and David Sereda and supported by the
       Community Foundation Grey Bruce. The event also marked the launch of Local Stories:
       Changing Weather by the Georgian Bluffs Climate Action Team and featured community
       partner exhibits, heritage demonstrations, and volunteer-led activities throughout the
       historical village.


EDTC-PEDAC-10-26                               5                             September 8, 2026



   Facing the Flames: A Firefighter’s Story was featured at Moreston Heritage Village
      throughout summer 2026. This condensed version of Grey Roots’ 2019 Ontario Museum
      Association Award winning exhibition explored Grey County’s firefighting history through
      artefacts, equipment, archival photographs, and interpretive displays highlighting the
      evolution of local fire services.
     Northern Terminus: The African-Canadian History Journal, Volume 21, This year’s
      issue developed by Grey County Archives and the Northern Terminus Editorial
      Committee was launched at Grey Roots on June 12. The packed theatre was treated to
      a program that featured a presentation by Naomi Norquay on Priceville’s early Black
      residents, updates from community organizations promoting local Black history,
      refreshments and fellowship.
     Moreston Heritage Village, During July and August, Moreston Heritage Village offered
      visitors an immersive living history experience across its 10-acre site, featuring more
      than a dozen historic buildings, costumed interpreters, and artefacts from the Grey Roots
      collection. Daily programming included guided and self-guided tours, access to key
      heritage structures, audio tours, and hands-on historic demonstrations such as tin
      smithing, archaeology, and natural dyeing.
     Train Days and Wheels Wednesdays, Train Days offered visitors opportunities to ride
      the Bob McDowall Memorial Railway, enjoy G-scale train demonstrations, and connect
      with members of the Bluewater Railroaders. Throughout the summer, Grey Roots’
      vehicle restoration volunteers showcased antique cars, trucks, and tractors, bringing
      automotive history to life through engaging displays and demonstrations.
     KidsCamp, Grey Roots’ well attended summer camp offered a range of themed
      programming that encouraged creativity, skill development, and community connection.
      Neighbours & Nature explored belonging and shared responsibility. Cooking Quest III
      developed practical kitchen skills. Gizmos & Graphics combined art and S.T.E.A.M.
      through hands-on projects, while Dice & Dragons fostered teamwork, storytelling,
      imagination, and problem-solving through roleplay and adventure.
     Old City Hall Clock, Grey Roots has accessioned the City of Owen Sound’s Old City
      Hall Clock which includes 10 pieces. The items will be moved to Grey Roots in October.
      Space is already being made to store and display these impressive artefacts.
     The Emancipation Festival, in partnership with Grey Roots Museum & Archives,
      hosted Speaker’s Corner event in the Thomas Wheildon Theatre, bringing together
      educators, historians, descendants of freedom seekers, and community members for an
      evening of learning and reflection. The event featured live music by Bobby Dean
      Blackburn, presentations by Dorothy Abbott, Lesa Walker, and Carolyn and Sylvia
      Wilson of the Sheffield Park Black History Museum, as well as a performance by the
      Mellish Dancers. The following morning, participants joined the Freedom Walk from
      Grey Roots Museum & Archives to Harrison Park, promoting awareness of local Black
      history and the legacy of freedom seekers.
     Antique and Classic Car Show, Despite being postponed by one day due to inclement
      weather, the annual Car Show attracted approximately 650 attendees. Beautifully
      restored vehicles from the Grey Roots collection were displayed alongside entries from
      the Bluewater Region Antique and Classic Car Club of Canada. Visitors also enjoyed
      train rides, food vendors, Wild Weather exhibits, and Moreston Heritage Village.
     Community Canvas: A Roger Mooking Experience, This large-scale collaborative art
      initiative engaged residents and visitors in creating a shared visual story of Grey County.


EDTC-PEDAC-10-26                               6                             September 8, 2026



The project was conceptualized and led by Grey County Creative Director Roger
       Mooking, with contributions from artists Lonny Doherty and Sarah Rose Irwin. The
       project invited public participation from July 18 to August 16, 2026. The completed
       artwork was unveiled at a public reveal event on August 26.

Upcoming highlights:

      Flat Root Replacement, Guided by the Building Condition Assessment (BCA) and
       approved 2026 capital projects, roof work will begin this September on the final
       remaining section of the flat roof at Grey Roots’ main museum building. The museum will
       be closed to the public while work takes place above the main gallery spaces, with
       reopening anticipated in early October.
      The Wood Symposium 2026, The symposium will be hosted at Grey Roots from
       October 16 to 18, 2026 by Intersections Wood Collaborative. The event will bring
       together beginner and experienced woodworkers and woodturners to explore traditional
       techniques and contemporary innovations through presentations, exhibitions,
       demonstrations, international speakers, vendor displays, and hands-on workshops.
      Fall Lectures, The Fall 2026 Lecture Series will feature four Tuesday afternoon
       presentations exploring winter birding, climate communication in museums,
       remembrance, and Canadian military history. Speakers include David T. Chapman, Dr.
       Soren Brothers, Bonita deMatteis-Johnston, and Dave Alexander.
      Moreston By Candlelight, The signature seasonal event is taking place slightly earlier
       in the holiday season on November 28 and December 5. As always, visitors will enjoy
       horse-drawn wagon rides, live music, heritage building tours, seasonal refreshments,
       and family-friendly activities in the historic village.

Business Development
Business Enterprise Centre as leader in entrepreneurship support (4.1).

From May to July 2026, the Business Enterprise Centre (BEC):

      Responded to 88 inquiries;
      Completed 42 consultations (29 new and 13 existing businesses); which,
      Supported the launch of 19 new businesses;
      Helped sustain 7 businesses; and
      Contributed to 5 business expansions and 1 business purchase.

Summer Company Program. For 2026 program delivery, the BEC received $24,000 in grant
funding, which was distributed among eight program participants. Staff began promoting the
program in early 2026 through high school visits, job fairs, and digital, print, and radio
advertising. The program received 43 initial applications and 26 completed business plan
submissions, almost double the amount received in 2025. Due to the high number of
applications and the overall quality of the submissions, a new evaluation matrix was developed
to support a fair and comprehensive review process. Applicants were assessed based on the
feasibility and level of detail in their business plans, as well as their overall engagement with the
program. The following businesses were selected:


EDTC-PEDAC-10-26                                  7                              September 8, 2026



   Sound Pressure Washing - Pressure washing business in Owen Sound
      Dock2Deck Delivery - Boat delivery service in Georgian Bluffs
      Dylan's Lawn Care & Services - Lawn care business in West Grey
      Pretty & Polished Nail Boutique - Nail salon in Grey Highlands
      Luxury by Mya - Nail artist in Hanover
      GabeBenderFilms - Sports videography and photographer in West Grey
      YourTune - Piano tuner offering in person and online training in West Grey
      Mexican Corn - Mexican corn stand in Owen Sound

Starter Company Plus Program. For the 2026 program year, the BEC received $60,000 in
grant funding to support Starter Company Plus participants. A total of 45 businesses applied to
participate in the training component of the program. Upon completion of the training, 28
business plans were submitted for review by the grant review committee. Following the
committee's evaluation, 16 businesses were awarded grants of up to $5,000 each to assist with
start-up and expansion costs. The following businesses were selected:

      Ash Audio – Voice acting, Georgian Bluffs
      Bafana Bafana Foods – South African inspired catering, Owen Sound
      First Health Counselling – Counselling services, Owen Sound
      Katie Crosby Graham – Health coaching and pilates, Hanover
      Northern Strike Fishing Co. – Fishing tackle, Georgian Bluffs
      On Solid Ground Footcare & Orthotics – Chiropody clinic, Hanover
      Pink Rooster Refreshments – Smoothie shop, The Town of the Blue Mountains
      Radiance Design Studio & Events – Event design and décor rental, Georgian Bluffs
      Rusty Rosco Maple Syrup – Maple syrup producer and on-farm store, West Grey
      SonoScholar – AI learning and research platform, The Town of the Blue Mountains
      Sutton Laser Cleaning – Mobile surface restoration, Georgian Bluffs
      TeeterDesigns – Architectural designs, Grey Highlands
      The Bark and Barrel – Pet supply, Owen Sound
      The Corner Kitchen – Café, West Grey
      THE CORNER Studio Café – Coffee shop, West Grey

Fall Training Schedule. The BEC has three workshop series planned for the fall. The first is a
four-part succession planning series. This series is being offered in support of the broader
Succession Ontario initiative, which promotes succession planning resources for micro and
small businesses across the province. This series will discuss the steps involved in succession
planning, how to estimate the value of a business, exit options, and how to prepare a business
for sale. To strengthen their capacity to support local businesses preparing for succession, BEC
staff have been participating in Queen's University's Succession Planning Micro-Credential
program. The other two workshop series planned for the fall will have a financial focus. The first
will cover tax preparation for small businesses, while the second will focus on financial
forecasting and cash flow management for service and product-based businesses.

EDTC Facilities: Sydenham Campus and Grey Roots
The Facilities team continued to advance remaining 2026 capital projects at both Sydenham
Campus and Grey Roots. At Sydenham Campus, the boiler replacement project has been



EDTC-PEDAC-10-26                                8                             September 8, 2026



completed, the HVAC project has been awarded and is scheduled for completion in late fall, and
a new digital work order system has been implemented. At Grey Roots, the schoolhouse roof,
museum building flat roof, and pressure tank replacement projects are all underway and remain
on track for completion by the end of fall 2026.

Community Transit
The Bruce–Dufferin–Grey–Wellington (BDGW) Regional Transit Study is nearing the end of its
phase one study, to design and assess the feasibility of a unified regional transit network. The
proposed network is intended to provide a seamless passenger experience, identify efficiencies
through inter-county collaboration, and improve service in areas with limited transportation
options. The project team continues to work with Dillon Consulting to finalize the plan, which is
planned to come forward for information this fall.
Following report EDTC-CW-09-26, Council endorsed the pre-approval phase which enabled the
extension of GTR Route 2 and GOST contracts, as well as the reintroduction of GTR Route 5
between Owen Sound and Wiarton until a decision is made on the unified network. These
services are accommodated within the approved 2026 County budget and supported by the
Ontario Transit Investment Fund (OTIF). In addition, staff released a request for information
(RFI) to assess technology solutions and operator interest, and are beginning to explore the
requirements and potential of a unified rideshare bylaw.

Financial and Resource Implications
All items are included in the approved 2026 budget, with staff resources assigned through
departmental workplans.


Relevant Consultation
☒      Internal: EDTC Team

       ☐       AODA Compliance

       ☐       Contribution to Climate Change Action Plan Targets

☐      External


Appendices and Attachments
Economic Development, Tourism & Culture Master Plan




EDTC-PEDAC-10-26                                9                             September 8, 2026

Agenda item 7: Items For Direction and Discussion

Agenda item 7.a: EDTC-CW-12-26 BDGW Regional Transit Study

---

Attachment: BDGW Regional Transit Study Draft - EDTC-CW-12-26.pdf
Source: https://helpos.ca/attachments/27c8c1246f0f69dc8ba371e54dd2c517cd11e14e3b8ad627864405c6285aff69/7-a-1-bdgw-regional-transit-study-draft-edtc-cw-12-26-pdf.pdf

Committee Report
 To:                            Warden Matrosovs and Members of Grey County Council
 Committee Date:                September 24, 2026
 Subject / Report No:           EDTC-CW-12-26
 Title:                         Bruce-Dufferin-Grey-Wellington Unified Regional Transit Study
                                Draft
 Prepared by:                   Savanna Myers, Director EDTC
 Reviewed by:                   Randy Scherzer, CAO
 Lower Tier(s) Affected:        All


Recommendation
   1. That report EDTC-CW-12-26 regarding the Bruce-Dufferin-Grey-Wellington Unified
      Regional Transit Study Draft be received for information.


Executive Summary
The purpose of this report is to present, for information, the draft Bruce-Dufferin-Grey-
Wellington (BDGW) Unified Regional Transit Study. A recommendations report will be brought
forward early in the new term of Council for consideration and direction.


Background and Discussion
Over the past year, project partners, Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, and Wellington counties alongside
Saugeen Mobility and Regional Transit (SMART), have worked with Dillon Consulting to
complete Phase 1 (study) of a potential Unified Regional Transit Network. The study was
intended to design and assess the feasibility of implementing a unified regional transit network
across the four counties.
This work began with report EDTC-CW-09-25 authorizing the Warden and Clerk to sign a
funding agreement of up to $9.495 million through the Ontario Transit Investment Fund (OTIF)
from 2025 to March 31, 2030.
Most recently, Council endorsed a pre-approval phase through report EDTC-CW-09-26,
maintaining Grey Transit Route (GTR) Route 2 (Dundalk to Orangeville) and GOST (Owen
Sound to Guelph) and reintroducing GTR Route 5 (Wiarton to Owen Sound) until a decision can
be made on the Unified Regional Transit Network.
The draft study (the largest of its kind in the province, spanning 12,640 square kilometers, which
is a geography 53% larger than the Greater Toronto Hamilton Area (GTHA)) is now complete


EDTC-CW-12-26                                   1                            September 24, 2026



and being presented through this report and accompanying delegation for information to
Council. Staff will return with a recommendations report for consideration early in the new term
of Council (2027).
Throughout the study phase, it has been clear that long-term sustainability and governance sit
top of mind. The following section highlights key elements of the draft Unified Regional Transit
Network Study.

Study Vision
The vision for the unified system is: “Connecting Communities: Building a better future
through a seamless, multi-modal transit network.” This vision is underpinned by five core
principles:

      Equitable & Accessible;
      Customer Driven;
      Supports Ridership Growth;
      Environmentally Sustainable; and
      Fiscally Responsible.

Why Transit Matters
Reliable inter-community transit is essential to workforce participation, healthcare access,
education, economic development and quality of life across rural Ontario.
Reliable inter-community transportation:
   •   connects employers with workers
   •   improves labour force participation
   •   supports skilled trades
   •   connects residents to healthcare and education
   •   increases housing choice
   •   improves affordability by reducing household transportation costs
This is supported by recent findings from local employment providers, which identify access to
transit as a critical barrier to securing and maintaining employment, with impacts comparable to,
and in some cases greater than, barriers such as homelessness and limited educational
attainment.

Governance Framework
To establish a single regional authority without concentrating legal risk or financial control in one
county, the creation of a Joint Municipal Services Board (MSB) is recommended as the
governance model for a Unified Regional Transit Network.
This model provides a formal mechanism for Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, and Wellington counties to
jointly govern a Unified Regional Transit Network, while retaining appropriate Council oversight
through delegated authority, board appointments, and defined reporting requirements. The
framework is intentionally structured to support scalable growth, allowing additional partners to




EDTC-CW-12-26                                    2                             September 24, 2026



be incorporated over time through standardized by-law and participation mechanisms, without
restructuring the core governance model.

Service Plan
The study outlines a comprehensive set of recommendations and service options to achieve a
Unified Regional Transit Network across the four counties. The proposed network is presented
through a Base Transit Service Plan and Enhanced Service Elements, providing project
partners with a clear understanding of the services required to establish the network, as well as
future opportunities for growth, while maintaining a focus on financial sustainability.
The base plan adopts a "Family of Services" structure, pairing fixed-routes along primary
highways with flexible on-demand feeder services connecting to fixed-route stops. The
proposed combination of fixed-route and on-demand service along major corridors reflects
lessons learned from existing and previous transit models across the region. This approach
addresses service gaps and creates a more complete, efficient, and accessible network
designed to maximize ridership and regional connectivity.
The Base network forms the foundation of the Unified Regional Transit Network and has been
developed with the minimum requirements (i.e. Trips per day, hours of operation, routes, fare
structure, family of services, etc.) to create a valuable and usable system. The base network
would connect to Guelph, Orangeville, Collingwood and Owen Sound, enabling integration with
eight urban transit providers. Given the inter-connected nature of this network, approval is
required from all four County Councils to implement the network.
In addition to the Base Transit Service Plan, the report also identifies a number of Enhanced
Service Elements that each County can decide to add to the Unified Regional Transit Network.
The amount of OTIF funding that was approved by the province will not be fully utilized with the
Base Plan. This was done strategically, understanding the need for fiscal sustainability once
OTIF ends.

Provincial Unified Rideshare Bylaw Engagement
As noted in report EDTC-CW-09-26, staff are beginning to explore the potential for a unified
rideshare bylaw. This is an important step toward enabling the cross-boundary first-mile/last-
mile and on-demand/rideshare opportunities recommended in the Plan. Wellington County
previously undertook similar work to support the introduction of RideWell.
While formal local discussions have not yet begun, the Ministry of Transportation (MTO) is
exploring enhancements and potential expansion of the Provincial Rideshare Framework
currently in place along the Northlander train corridor. Under the proposed expansion, the
Province would assume responsibility for regulating rideshare services across Ontario. MTO is
seeking municipal feedback through a survey open until September 30. With Council’s support,
staff will respond to the survey, informed by the recommendations of the Unified Regional
Transit Study.
Whether a rideshare framework is established locally or provincially, its implementation will
require careful consideration and coordination. AMO has called for greater clarity regarding
provincial oversight and enforcement and has emphasized the need to work with municipalities



EDTC-CW-12-26                                   3                            September 24, 2026



to ensure the framework supports, rather than undermines, existing transportation services such
as public transit and local taxi operators.

Key Considerations - Longterm Sustainability
Project Partners, including all County CAOs and Treasurers, have analyzed these estimates
using a conservative methodology. Revenue assumptions have been developed using current
and recent ridership data, with a conservative ramp-up factor applied to reflect anticipated year
over year growth, while operating and capital costs have been estimated conservatively to
reflect potential cost pressures. This approach provides Council with a realistic range of
potential outcomes and helps ensure financial risks are appropriately considered.
Shared
The Unified Regional Transit Network is a shared approach to investment and governance,
ensuring that no single county bears the full responsibility for funding and administering a transit
service. Both costs and benefits are distributed among participating counties.
Fares
An Integrated Fare Structure that would apply to the Unified Regional Transit Network is
included in the Base Service Recommendations. Inter-community trips would follow a zone-
based structure, with a $10 base fare for trips that cross a single boundary, adding $5 per
each additional boundary crossed (up to a $25 maximum). For passengers that use on-demand
transit to access the inter-community network, a $5 transfer credit would be provided to increase
affordability.
The Plan also incorporates commuter discounts and provides flexibility for additional fare
supports to assist vulnerable populations. This approach seeks to balance affordability with long
term financial sustainability, while recognizing that a range of funding programs offered through
other ministries may be available to offset transportation costs for eligible users. Accordingly,
the full subsidy associated with these supports is not expected to be borne solely through this
budget.
Ontario Transit Investment Fund
OTIF funding supports the start-up and expansion of transit projects like new bus services, on-
demand rideshare services and door-to-door transportation. OTIF is not designed to support
pilot projects in the same way as the former Community Transportation (CT) funding program.
The expectation is that transit services are assessed, amended and can be sustained following
the end of this funding.
Gas Tax
Gas Tax is the provincial funding framework transit operations are directed to for long term
predictable funding. That said, staff are concerned with this option due to recent changes and
overall policy. Staff were informed earlier this year that funding allocations have been capped at
2024–25 levels, with no indication when this cap may be lifted. In addition, allocations continue
to rely on ridership data from two years prior, meaning funding does not reflect current service
expansion, increased demand, or investments being made today. At present, the combined
unclaimed gas tax allocation among the four counties is approximately $269,300. Funding


EDTC-CW-12-26                                    4                             September 24, 2026



allocations are population-based and may only be counted once. Applying Gas Tax funding to
this Unified Regional Transit Network would utilize the remaining local allocation, potentially
restricting lower-tier municipalities' ability to access these funds for future needs. As a result,
staff have excluded Gas Tax allocations from the current financial calculations.

Broader Study Context
Western Ontario Wardens’ Caucus
Regional rural transit has emerged as a top advocacy priority for the Western Ontario Wardens'
Caucus (WOWC), recognizing the critical role inter-community transportation plays in supporting
workforce participation, healthcare access, education, economic development, and quality of
life. The Caucus is advocating for a Regional Rural Transit model that provides equitable
operating and capital funding.
The proposed Bruce-Dufferin-Grey-Wellington (BDGW) Regional Transit Network is well
positioned to serve as a pilot for this approach. Current provincial transit funding demonstrates a
significant disparity, with GTHA residents receiving approximately $191 per capita in operating
subsidies compared to just $13 per capita in the Stratford-Bruce Peninsula region. Unlike the
GTHA, where Metrolinx provides regional planning and service coordination, Western Ontario
lacks a comparable framework to support integrated regional transit. The expiration of the CT
funding further underscores the need for a stable, long-term provincial funding model.
With Western Ontario entering a period of significant population and economic growth, now is
the time to establish coordinated regional transit systems before future infrastructure and
mobility challenges become more complex and costly to address.

Further Analysis and Advocacy
OTIF investment has enabled the completion of this study and established a practical starting
point for a Unified Regional Transit Network. Moving forward with early implementation would
create the foundational network spine necessary to consider further opportunities for integration,
while also allowing partners to test recommendations, evaluate outcomes, and build the
evidence needed to support ongoing advocacy efforts while funding is available, providing
approximately two years for additional analysis and further conversation with transit providers
once there is a base network in place to assess against.
This approach also allows partners to work collectively, alongside the WOWC and other
stakeholders, to advocate for provincial participation, which the study identifies is essential to
the long-term sustainability of the network.

Financial and Resource Implications
There are no financial or resource implications associated with this information report at this
time.
The draft plan shares costs by proportion of service. Under the base plan, Grey County receives
the greatest share of service with Owen Sound planned as the main transit terminal.




EDTC-CW-12-26                                     5                            September 24, 2026



Actual budget impact will depend on the results of a competitive procurement process to select
a provider. The chart illustrates the annual levy required based on hypothetical hourly costs for
the fixed service model. Based on market research through the study and corresponding
requests for information (RFI) and staff’s best estimates, the all-inclusive Grey County levy cost
range is currently believed to be:

                      2026        2027         2028          2029         2030           2031
Grey County
(Lower Limit)       145,000      160,000      207,000      787,900      1,273,900     1,396,000
Grey County
(Higher Limit)      145,000      178,400      267,900      898,500      1,429,400     1,562,400

Future Council may seek to maintain lower year-over-year levy increases by increasing levy
requirements in 2027 through 2029 to proactively address future funding needs required in 2030
onward. This strategy would help smooth annual levy increases and reduce the significant levy
impact anticipated for 2029 and 2030. The proposed 2027 levy allocation included in the
September point-in-time budget for Council consideration is slightly above the range noted
above. Staff will explore further options, and the financials will be updated and included in the
December budget proposal for consideration. Recommendations regarding the Unified
Regional Transit Network will be brought forward for consideration during the new term of
Council in the first quarter of 2027.


Relevant Consultation
☒     Internal: CAO, Interim Director of Finance, Interim Deputy Treasurer, Financial Analyst,
Purchasing Manager, Manager of Community Transportation

       ☐         AODA Compliance

       ☐         Contribution to Climate Change Action Plan Targets

☒      External: BDGW Project Partners Working Group, Bruce County, Dufferin County,
Wellington County – CAO and Treasurer, Ministry of Transportation Staff, Western Ontario
Wardens’ Caucus Executive Director, Dillon Consulting.


Appendices and Attachments
BDGW Consolidated Report - AODA




EDTC-CW-12-26                                   6                            September 24, 2026

---

Attachment: BDGW Consolidated Report - AODA.pdf
Source: https://helpos.ca/attachments/cd5677efe994ea40d46cd5b2c0679b840646d3c9e3ff3b59089c76f52c2acf11/7-a-2-bdgw-consolidated-report-aoda-pdf.pdf

Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties


Unified Regional Transit
         Network Study



Table of Contents i


      Table of Contents
      Definitions

      Acronyms

      Executive Summary

1.0   Introduction                                                                                                               1

2.0   Existing Conditions                                                                                                        2
      2.1      Study Area ....................................................................................................... 2
      2.2      Regional Profile ............................................................................................... 5
      2.2.1    Bruce County ................................................................................................... 5
      2.2.2    Dufferin County ............................................................................................... 7
      2.2.3    Grey County..................................................................................................... 8
      2.2.4    Wellington County .......................................................................................... 9
      2.3      Existing Transit .............................................................................................. 10
      2.3.1    Bruce County ................................................................................................. 12
      2.3.2    Dufferin County ............................................................................................. 13
      2.3.3    Grey County................................................................................................... 14
      2.3.4    Wellington County ........................................................................................ 15

3.0   Peer Review                                                                                                              18

4.0   Policy Framework                                                                                                         21
      4.1      Provincial Context ......................................................................................... 21
      4.1.1    Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Requirements .................... 21
      4.1.2    Connecting the Southwest ............................................................................ 21


      Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
      Unified Regional Transit Network Study
      September 2026 – 25-2330



Table of Contents ii

      4.1.3   Connecting the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH) ....................................... 22
      4.2     Western Ontario Wardens’ Caucus .............................................................. 23
      4.3     Municipal Policy ............................................................................................ 23
      4.3.1   Bruce County ................................................................................................. 24
      4.3.2   Dufferin County ............................................................................................. 24
      4.3.3   Grey County................................................................................................... 25
      4.3.4   Wellington County ........................................................................................ 26
      4.4     Summary of Policy Trends ............................................................................. 26

5.0   Needs Assessment & Gap Analysis                                                                                        28
      5.1     Bruce County ................................................................................................. 29
      5.2     Dufferin County ............................................................................................. 30
      5.3     Grey County................................................................................................... 31
      5.4     Wellington County ........................................................................................ 32

6.0   Community Engagement                                                                                                   35
      6.1     Engagement Approach .................................................................................. 35
      6.2     Challenges and Opportunities ....................................................................... 37
      6.2.1   Challenges ..................................................................................................... 37
      6.2.2   Opportunities ................................................................................................ 38

7.0   Strategic Framework                                                                                                    40
      7.1     Transit Vision ................................................................................................. 40
      7.2     Guiding Principles .......................................................................................... 40
      7.3     Multi-Modal Approach to Service ................................................................. 41

8.0   Governance Strategy                                                                                                    45
      8.1     Recommended Structure: Joint Municipal Services Board (MSB) ................ 47

9.0   Service Design Guidelines                                                                                              48
      9.1     Regional Fixed-Routes ................................................................................... 48


      Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
      Unified Regional Transit Network Study
      September 2026 – 25-2330



Table of Contents iii

       9.2      Commingled On-Demand and Specialized Transit Service Guidelines ......... 51

10.0   Service Plan                                                                                                     54
       10.1     Base Transit Service Plan............................................................................... 54
       10.1.1   Base Service Recommendation 1: Integrated Service Standards ................. 56
       10.1.2   Base Service Recommendation 2: Introduce Primary Inter-Community
                Fixed-Route Corridors ................................................................................... 57
       10.1.3   Base Service Recommendation 3: Introduce Commuter Fixed-Route
                between Grand Valley and Shelburne via Orangeville (Route 4) ................. 67
       10.1.4   Base Service Recommendation 4: Introduce Summer Shuttle Service to
                Tourism Destinations in Bruce County (Route 5) ......................................... 70
       10.1.5   Base Service Recommendation 5: Incentivize Introduction of
                Taxi/Ridesharing Services.............................................................................. 76
       10.1.6   Base Service Recommendation 6: Connect Inter-Community Stops with
                On-Demand Service within the SMART Service Area ................................... 78
       10.1.7   Base Service Recommendation 7: Move Towards a Centralized Trip
                Booking and Scheduling Partnership ............................................................ 87
       10.1.8   Base Service Recommendation 8: Establish an Integrated Fare Structure .. 90
       10.2     Addressing Mobility Gaps and Financial Sustainability ................................ 98
       10.2.1   Base Service Recommendation 1: Integrated Service Standards ................. 98
       10.2.2   Base Service Recommendation 2: Introduce Primary Inter-Community
                Fixed-Route Corridors ................................................................................... 98
       10.2.3   Base Service Recommendation 3: Introduce Commuter Fixed-Route
                Between Grand Valley and Shelburne via Orangeville (Route 4) ................. 99
       10.2.4   Base Service Recommendation 4: Introduce Summer Shuttle Service to
                Tourism Destinations in Bruce County (Route 5) ......................................... 99
       10.2.5   Base Service Recommendation 5: Incentivize Introduction of
                Taxi/Ridesharing Services............................................................................ 100
       10.2.6   Base Service Recommendation 6: Connect Inter-Community Stops with
                On-Demand Service within the SMART Service Area ................................. 100

       Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
       Unified Regional Transit Network Study
       September 2026 – 25-2330



Table of Contents iv

       10.2.7      Base Service Recommendation 7: Centralized Trip Booking and
                   Scheduling ................................................................................................... 100
       10.2.8      Base Service Recommendation 8: Establish an Integrated Fare Structure 101
       10.3        Enhanced Service Options........................................................................... 101
       10.3.1      Enhanced Service Option 1: Supplemental Fixed-Routes........................... 102
       10.3.2      Enhanced Service Option 2: On-Demand Transit in New Areas ................. 112
       10.3.3      Enhanced Service Option 3: Phase 2 of On-demand Expansion within
                   SMART Service Area .................................................................................... 115
       10.3.4      Enhanced Service Option 4: Local Transit Fare Integration ........................ 116
       10.3.5      Enhanced Service Option 5: Introduce Local Transit in Centre Wellington 117

11.0   Financial Framework                                                                                                     123
       11.1        Base Service Plan Operating Costs .............................................................. 123
       11.1.1      Inter-Community Fixed-Routes ................................................................... 123
       11.1.2      Commingled On-demand ............................................................................ 124
       11.1.3      Administrative Costs ................................................................................... 127
       11.1.4      Capital Costs ................................................................................................ 128
       11.1.5      Gross Costs .................................................................................................. 129
       11.1.6      Base Transit Service Plan Revenue ............................................................. 131
       11.1.7      Fare Revenue Projections ........................................................................... 132
       11.1.8      Gas Tax Fund for Public Transportation ...................................................... 133
       11.1.9      OTIF Funding ............................................................................................... 137
       11.1.10 Regional Contribution ................................................................................. 139
       11.2        Enhanced Service Costs............................................................................... 141
       11.2.1      Supplemental Regional Fixed-Routes ......................................................... 141
       11.2.2      Additional Taxi / Ridesharing Vehicles ........................................................ 142
       11.2.3      Dufferin On-Demand Service ...................................................................... 142



       Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
       Unified Regional Transit Network Study
       September 2026 – 25-2330



Table of Contents v

       11.2.4       Phase Two SMART On-Demand Service ..................................................... 144
       11.2.5       Centre Wellington Local Service ................................................................. 144
       11.3         Funding Opportunities ................................................................................ 145
       11.3.1       Rural Transit Solutions Fund ....................................................................... 146
       11.3.2       Rural Ontario Development (ROD) Program .............................................. 147
       11.3.3       Green Municipal Fund ................................................................................. 147
       11.3.4       Development Charges ................................................................................. 149
       11.3.5       Advertising Revenue ................................................................................... 150
       11.3.6       Reserve Fund Strategy ................................................................................ 151

12.0   Implementation Plan                                                                                                     152
       12.1         Performance Metrics .................................................................................. 160



       List of Figures
       Figure 1: Study Area ....................................................................................................... 4

       Figure 2: Existing Transit Across Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, and Wellington Counties ..... 11

       Figure 3: Primary Inter-Community Fixed-Routes ....................................................... 58

       Figure 4: Route 1 - Owen Sound to Guelph ................................................................. 60

       Figure 5: Route 2 - Wiarton to Orangeville .................................................................. 62

       Figure 6: Route 3 - Kincardine to Collingwood ............................................................ 65

       Figure 7: Route 4 - Shelburne to Orangeville to Grand Valley .................................... 69

       Figure 8: Sauble Beach Annual Visitor Demand .......................................................... 71

       Figure 9: Sauble Beach Annual Visitors by Day of the Week ....................................... 72

       Figure 10: Route 5 - Seasonal Summer Route in Bruce County .................................. 75

       Figure 11: Existing SMART Specialized Service Area ................................................... 80



       Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
       Unified Regional Transit Network Study
       September 2026 – 25-2330



Table of Contents vi

Figure 12: On-Demand Service Catchment Areas ....................................................... 82

Figure 13: Primary and Supplemental Inter-Community Fixed-Routes .................... 104

Figure 14: Durham to Listowel ................................................................................... 106

Figure 15: Fergus to Guelph ....................................................................................... 107

Figure 16: Fergus to Elmira ........................................................................................ 109

Figure 17: Guelph to Acton to Orangeville ................................................................ 111

Figure 18: Phase 1 Township of Centre Wellington Local Transit Network Plan ...... 119

Figure 19: Phase 3 Township of Centre Wellington Local Transit Network Plan ...... 121



List of Tables
Table 1: Existing and Future Population Growth by County ......................................... 5

Table 2: Existing Population of Bruce County by Settlement Area ............................... 6

Table 3: Existing Population of Dufferin County by Settlement Area ........................... 7

Table 4: Existing Population of Grey County by Settlement Area ................................. 8

Table 5: Existing Population of Wellington County by Settlement Area ..................... 10

Table 6: Peer Review – Inter-Community Transit ........................................................ 20

Table 7: Summary of Service Coverage ....................................................................... 34

Table 8: Summary of Engagement Activities ............................................................... 35

Table 9: Governance Responsibilities .......................................................................... 46

Table 10: Inter-Community Fixed-Route Service Parameters ..................................... 59

Table 11: Grand Valley to Shelburne Commuter Route Service Parameters .............. 69

Table 12: Summer Seasonal Route Service Parameters (Route 5) .............................. 74

Table 13: Specialized Transit and Community Transportation Service Areas ............. 88


Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study
September 2026 – 25-2330



Table of Contents vii

Table 14: Recommended Route 1 Fare Structure – Owen Sound to Guelph .............. 92

Table 15: Recommended Route 2 Fare Structure – Wiarton to Orangeville .............. 92

Table 16: Recommended Route 3 Fare Structure – Kincardine to Collingwood ......... 92

Table 17: Recommended Route 4 Fare Structure – Shelburne to Grand Valley ......... 93

Table 18: Recommended Route 5 Fare Structure – Bruce County Tourism Route ..... 93

Table 19: Fare Example for Fixed-Route and SMART .................................................. 97

Table 20: Supplemental Inter-Community Fixed-Route Service Parameters............ 103

Table 21: Base Service Plan – Primary Regional Fixed-Route Costs .......................... 124

Table 22: Phase One SMART Operating Costs Grey and Bruce Counties .................. 126

Table 23: Administrative Costs .................................................................................. 128

Table 24: Capital Costs ............................................................................................... 129

Table 25: Gross Operating Costs Per County – Typical Year...................................... 130

Table 26: Gross Annual Costs Per County .................................................................. 131

Table 27: Ridership and Fare Revenue Projections ................................................... 132

Table 28: Base Service Plan - Annual Fare Revenue .................................................. 133

Table 29: Existing (2025-26) Provincial Gas Tax Allocation ....................................... 135

Table 30: OTIF Funding Allocation ............................................................................. 139

Table 31: County Contributions 2027 ........................................................................ 140

Table 32: County Contributions 2028 ........................................................................ 140

Table 33: County Contributions 2029 ........................................................................ 140

Table 34: County Contributions 2030 ........................................................................ 140

Table 35: County Contributions 2031 ........................................................................ 141

Table 36: Enhanced Service Plan – Supplemental Regional Fixed-Route Costs ........ 142


Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study
September 2026 – 25-2330



Table of Contents viii

Table 37: SMART Operating Dufferin County ............................................................ 143

Table 38: Centre Wellington Capital Costs ................................................................ 145

Table 39: Potential Costs per Year for OTIF ............................................................... 145

Table 40: Implementation Plan .................................................................................. 153

Table 41: Equitable and Accessible KPIs .................................................................... 160

Table 42: Customer Driven KPIs ................................................................................. 161

Table 43: Ridership Growth Supportive KPIs ............................................................. 162

Table 44: Environmentally Sustainable KPIs .............................................................. 162

Table 45: Fiscally Responsible KPIs ............................................................................ 163



Appendices
A           Existing Community Context
B           Existing Transit Operations Data
C           Engagement Findings
D           Service Delivery and Governance Report
E           Requirements for On-Demand Software
F           Fixed-Route Provider and Fleet Plan
G           Legislative Compliance Matrix




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study
September 2026 – 25-2330



Definitions ix


Definitions
The following list provides definitions for technical terms to ensure clarity and
consistency:

• Boardings per Hour (BPH) and/or Boardings per Revenue Vehicle Hour (BPRVH): A
  key performance indicator that measures route effectiveness by assessing the
  number of riders against the total revenue service hours.
• Cycle Time: The total time a transit vehicle takes to complete a full circuit of a route,
  combining active running time with terminal recovery time.
• Deadheading: The movement of transit vehicles without passengers, typically
  occurring when vehicles travel to or from service areas.
• Dwell Time: The total amount of time a transit vehicle remains stopped at a
  designated stop or terminal to serve passengers.
• Fare Parity: A regulatory requirement under the Accessibility for Ontarians with
  Disabilities Act (AODA) Integrated Accessibility Standard, which mandates that the
  fare charged for specialized transit service must be the same as the fare charged for
  conventional transit service for a trip of a similar distance.
• Fixed-Route Transit: A service model where vehicles follow a pre-defined path and a
  set schedule with designated stop locations.
• First-Mile/Last-Mile: The connection between a passenger’s starting point or
  destination and a primary transit hub or fixed-route corridor.
• Headway: The scheduled time interval between vehicles traveling in the same
  direction on a specific transit route.
• Municipal Service Board: A local body that may be established by an individual
  municipality, or by two or more municipalities to govern a service.
• On-Demand Transit: A flexible, rideshare-style service that provides curb-to-curb
  transportation based on real-time passenger requests rather than fixed schedules
  and routes.
• Pulse Schedule: A system where multiple transit vehicles from different routes are
  scheduled to arrive at a central hub simultaneously, wait for a short period to allow
  passengers to transfer between any two routes, and then depart together.




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study
September 2026 – 25-2330



Definitions x

• Saugeen Ojibway Nation (SON): Comprised of the Chippewas of Saugeen First
  Nation and the Chippewas of Nawash Unceded First Nation, and including members
  living both on- and off-reserve. It is represented by a Joint Council.
• Regional Transit Authority: A centralized administrative and legal governing body
  established through a shared service agreement among multiple counties or
  municipalities. This entity is responsible for regional transit service planning,
  financial management, asset ownership, and operational oversight.
• Revenue Service Hours: The duration of time a transit vehicle is actively available to
  transport passengers, excluding time spent on maintenance or non-service
  movements.
• Specialized Transit: Door-to-door transportation specifically designed for residents
  with physical or mental challenges who are unable to utilize conventional fixed-route
  systems.
• Transit Deserts: Geographic areas characterized by mobility demand but a total lack
  of existing public transportation options.
• Unified Transit Network: A regionally interconnected system designed to provide
  seamless movement across municipal borders through coordinated schedules,
  technology, and fare structures.




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study
September 2026 – 25-2330



Acronyms xi


Acronyms
The following list defines acronyms used in the report:

AODA         Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act

BEB          Battery Electric Bus

BLINK        Blue Mountains Link

BPC          Boardings Per Capita

BPH          Boardings Per Hour

BPRVH        Boardings Per Revenue Vehicle Hour

CAD/AVL      Computer Aided Dispatch and Automatic Vehicle Location

CAO          Chief Administrative Officer

CMVSS        Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

CPI          Consumer Price Index

CSA          Canadian Standards Association

CUTA         Canadian Urban Transit Association

CRC          Community Resource Centre (e.g. Community Resource Centre of North
             and Centre Wellington)

CVOR         Commercial Vehicle Operators Registration

DC           Development Charge

DCCSS        Dufferin County Community Support Services

DVIR         Driver Vehicle Inspection Reports

EWCS         East Wellington Community Services

FCM          Federation of Canadian Municipalities

GGH          Greater Golden Horseshoe


Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study
September 2026 – 25-2330



Acronyms xii

GHG          Greenhouse Gas

GMF          Green Municipal Fund

GOST         Guelph Owen Sound Transit

GTA          Greater Toronto Area

GTFS         General Transit Feed Specification

GTHA         Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area

GTR          Grey Transit Route

HCSS         Home & Community Support Services (e.g. HCSS Grey-Bruce)

IASR         Integrated Accessibility Standards Regulation

IBBG         In-Service Bus Breakdown Guidelines

KPI          Key Performance Indicator

KM           Kilometre

Km2          Square Kilometre

Km/h         Kilometres per hour

MBDF         Mean Bus Distance to Failure

MCR          Major Component Replacement

MOS          Municipal Own Spending

MSB          Municipal Services Board

MTO          Ministry of Transportation (Ontario)

MTTR         Mean Time to Repair

N/A          Not Applicable

ODSP         Ontario Disability Support Program

OEM          Original Equipment Manufacturer


Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study
September 2026 – 25-2330



Acronyms xiii

OSTC         Owen Sound Transportation Company

OTIF         Ontario Transit Investment Fund

OW           Ontario Works

PM           Preventative Maintenance

PSAB         Public Sector Accounting Board

PSAS         Public Sector Accounting Standards

R/C          Revenue-to-Cost Ratio

RFI          Request for Information

RFP          Request for Proposals

RMAP         Road Master Action Plan

ROD          Rural Ontario Development (Program)

RSH          Revenue Service Hour

SMART        Saugeen Mobility and Regional Transit

SON          Saugeen Ojibway Nation

TNC          Transportation Network Company (e.g. rideshares like Uride, Uber, Lyft)

TST          The Shelburne Transporter

VON          Victorian Order of Nurses

WOWC         Western Ontario Wardens' Caucus

ZEV          Zero-Emission Vehicle




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study
September 2026 – 25-2330



Executive Summary xiv


Executive Summary
The counties of Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, and Wellington, alongside Saugeen Mobility and
Regional Transit (SMART), partnered to assess the feasibility of a Unified Transit
Network across a 12,640 square kilometre region.

A Unified Transit Network enhances community well-being. It supports aging in place by
providing reliable access to preventative and specialized medical appointments,
pharmacies, and grocery stores. It drives economic development by ensuring residents
without personal vehicles can reliably commute and participate in the local workforce.
Furthermore, it fosters social inclusion by providing residents with equitable access to
education, recreation, and social activities.

To support the implementation of transit, Bruce, Dufferin, Grey counties, along with
SMART applied to the Ontario Transit Investment Fund (OTIF) and successfully secured
funding up to 2030. The objective is to design a Unified Transit Network that effectively
utilizes this provincial funding while establishing a financial and operational model that
guarantees long-term sustainability after the initial grant period concludes. On
September 3, 2025, Wellington County was added to the Request for Proposals (RFP)
through a request and mutually beneficial buy-in, specifically examining opportunities to
integrate service along the Highway 6 and the Highway 9 corridor and into neighbouring
border communities.

A Vision for Transit

The vision for transit across the four counties was guided by a comprehensive
engagement process, reaching nearly 4,000 community members, 26 major employers,
local councillors, and key stakeholder groups. The engagement process highlighted key
mobility gaps, including difficultly accessing healthcare, shift work, and regional transit
hubs (e.g. GO Transit).

The vision for the unified system is: “Connecting Communities: Building a better future
through a seamless, multi-modal transit network.” This vision is underpinned by five
core principles:

• Equitable & Accessible;
• Customer Driven;


Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study
September 2026 – 25-2330



Executive Summary xv

• Supports Ridership Growth;
• Environmentally Sustainable; and
• Fiscally Responsible.

Governance Framework

To establish a single regional authority without concentrating legal risk or financial
control in one county, the creation of a Joint Municipal Services Board (MSB) is
recommended prior to launching the core service plan.

This model provides a formal mechanism for Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, and Wellington
counties to jointly govern a unified regional transit network, while retaining appropriate
Council oversight through delegated authority, board appointments, and defined
reporting requirements. The framework is intentionally structured to support scalable
growth, allowing additional partners to be incorporated over time through standardized
by-law and participation mechanisms, without restructuring the core governance model.

Under this model, participating Councils would delegate authority to the Board through
concurrent enabling by-laws and associated participation agreements. The Board’s
mandate would be explicitly defined to support the unified regional network and
associated integration objectives (including service integration, fare integration, and
coordinated customer experience), rather than governance of individual routes in
isolation.

The responsibilities of the Board, individual Councils, and the contractor (who would
operate the service), is highlighted below:

The MSB governance model also identifies a cost and funding allocation model for each
participating county. The model balances fairness, simplicity, and predictability. The
structure identifies how costs are allocated between participating counties, including:

• Overhead Costs: shared between partners;
• Bus infrastructure: Each partner pays for infrastructure and snow removal in their
  own jurisdiction;
• Fixed-route operating costs: based on service hours provided in each county, along
  with an administrative cost that are shared; and
• On-Demand or taxi/rideshare service: based on the allocation within each county.



Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study
September 2026 – 25-2330



Executive Summary xvi

Table E-1: Governance Responsibilities

           Board                         Councils                   Contractor

   Network planning and        Adoption of enabling by-laws    Daily service delivery
     service integration
    Budget and financial          Appointment of Board           Vehicle and asset
           planning                      members                   maintenance
 Cost allocation and funding     Approval of core annual       Legislative and safety
       administration          funding (annual financial and        compliance
                                three-year strategic plans)
     Procurement and           Approval of major structural    Not Applicable (N/A)
         contracting                     changes
   Performance Oversight                   N/A                         N/A
Revenue generated by the Unified Transit Network could include:

• Fare and advertising revenue;
• Ontario Gasoline Tax (Gas Tax) and Ontario Transit Investment Fund (OTIF) revenue;
  and
• Grants and donations.

Council approval is required to form an MSB, which is recommended to be formed and
govern the Unified Transit Network.

Base Transit Service Plan Recommendations

Governed by the MSB, the plan adopts a "Family of Services" structure, pairing fixed-
routes along primary highways with flexible on-demand feeder services connecting to
fixed-route stops. The Base Service Plan forms the foundation of the Unified Transit
Network. Given the inter-connected nature of this network, approval from all four
county councils would be necessary to implement the full network, with a planned start-
date of July 2027.

The proposed Unified Transit Network consists of:

• Three inter-community routes that connect key hubs within the four counties and
  the broader regional network;
• One commuter route in Dufferin County; and



Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study
September 2026 – 25-2330



Executive Summary xvii

• One seasonal tourism route in Bruce County designed to address employment access
  needs during the peak summer months.

This is illustrated in Figure E-1. The Primary Inter-Community Corridors include three
corridors operating four round trips daily, between Monday and Saturday, with each
converging at the Owen Sound Transit Hub to facilitate transfers:

•   Route 1 (Highway 6): Owen Sound to Guelph via Chatsworth, Williamsford,
    Durham, Mount Forest, Arthur, and Fergus. This is an expansion of the existing
    Guelph to Owen Sound (GOST) route. The challenge with this existing route is that it
    only operates twice daily, which limits travel opportunities and the usefulness of the
    service. Providing more travel options and integrating the route with local and on-
    demand transit will expand the use and further increase ridership along this
    important spine. It will also provide more opportunities to connect to the GO Transit
    and VIA Rail network.
•   Route 2 (Highway 10): Wiarton to Orangeville via Hepworth, Shallow Lake, Owen
    Sound, Chatsworth, Markdale, Flesherton, Dundalk, and Shelburne. This route
    builds on a previous Grey Transit Route (GTR) route that previously operated and
    expands service to Wiarton. One of the key attractors of this route is the connection
    to Owen Sound, Orangeville and the GO Bus network.
•   Route 3 (Highways 21/26): Kincardine to Collingwood via Tiverton, Port Elgin,
    Southampton, Allenford, Springmount, Owen Sound, Meaford, Thornbury, and
    Blue Mountain Village. This route provides access to key communities in Bruce
    County to the west, along with an extended connection to Collingwood in Simcoe
    County, with connections to the GO Transit network and the Ontario Northlander in
    Barrie.

In addition to these routes, a Dufferin County Commuter Route is recommended,
operating four weekday trips a day between Shelburne, Orangeville and Grand Valley.
The route increases the number of trips between the growing community of Shelburne
and Orangeville, expanding the travel options provided by Route 2. It also adds a new
connection to the growing community of Grand Valley.




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study
September 2026 – 25-2330



Executive Summary xviii

Figure E-1: Proposed Base Inter-Community Transit Network




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study
September 2026 – 25-2330



Executive Summary xix

In Bruce County, a Bruce Summer Tourism Route is proposed between the May long-
weekend and the Labour Day long-weekend in September. The route would provide
three to four daily trips, seven days a week, connecting Lion’s Head, Wiarton, Sauble
Beach, Southampton, and two First Nations. The route is designed to accommodate
both visitors and a large increase in seasonal employment needs from local residents.

The success of the network will be based on enhancing access to the regional stops by
providing on-demand transit. This type of service is already available in Wellington
County with the RIDE WELL service, and it is recommended that long-distance RIDE
WELL trips be oriented to connect to the proposed inter-community route (Route 1).

To further support on-demand connections to the fixed-route corridors, a key
recommendation is to revisit the existing taxi and ridesharing by-laws across the four
counties, creating one common standard that will open the market to private sector
mobility options. This is necessary if a taxi / ridesharing company is contracted to
provide on-demand service within the region.

In Bruce and Grey counties, it is recommended that an on-demand service be
implemented in communities within the SMART service area that are within a short
radius of each inter-community bus stop. The existence of SMART provides the
opportunity to utilize existing vehicles capacity to expand the reach of transit while still
maintaining accessible vehicles. Within Hanover and the urban settlement areas of
Walkerton and Mildmay (where inter-community fixed-routes are not proposed),
entering into a contract with a taxi / rideshare provider is a short-term solution to
provide mobility to three urban areas within the County that have access to specialized
transit service through SMART.

For municipalities that are not members of SMART, there is an opportunity to contract
the service to SMART or a private taxi / ridesharing service provider to provide on-
demand connections to the inter-community corridors.

A key part of this recommendation involves creating a centralized trip booking platform
that can be used to reserve rides on the fixed-route service and book on-demand rides.
While the long-term goal is to create a single trip booking platform for all transit
services, the complexity of having multiple on-demand transit providers (RIDE WELL and
SMART) makes this difficult.



Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study
September 2026 – 25-2330



Executive Summary xx

Recognizing this, in the short-term, it is recommended that if SMART is selected to
provide on-demand transit, OTIF would be used to support an upgrade of the existing
trip booking software to allow for integrated on-demand trips. This upgrade to the
software should also be used to explore moving to a brokerage model for interested
specialized and community transportation across all four counties. This model would
allow multiple community transportation agencies to join, providing a single number to
call to book a specialized door-to-door trip across the region. Brokerage models have
been implemented elsewhere and have seen significant improvements in the ability to
optimize efficiency, increase rides, without increase resources. The role of the MSB
would be to support this partnership of SMART with similar community agencies by
funding the software upgrade during the OTIF funding period.

The final base transit service plan recommendation is to adopt an integrated fare
structure that would apply to the Unified Transit Network. Inter-community trips would
follow a zone-based structure, with a $10 base fare for trips that cross a single
boundary, adding $5 per each additional boundary crossed (up to a $25 maximum). For
passengers that use on-demand transit travel to/from the inter-community network, a
$5 transfer credit would be provided to increase affordability.

The base transit service plan addresses several of the mobility gaps across all four
counties, and would be operated by the MSB, promoting service and fare integration
across the network to increase ridership.

Operational & Financial Overview

At full rollout, the base transit fixed-route service requires eight peak fixed-route transit
vehicles and operates 20,300 annual revenue service hours. While the capital cost for
vehicles would be provided by a contractor, the full cost to operate the service each
year is identified below. The cost breakdown includes operating and maintenance costs,
administrative costs, technology, bus stops and other infrastructure, marketing and
communications.

The service would be funded through municipal investment, passenger fares and OTIF
funding. For this service, OTIF is expected to contribute up to 70% of the service cost in
2027, reducing usage to a maximum of 30% of OTIF by 2030. In 2029, it is recommended
that the MSB apply for Provincial Gas Tax funding, a dedicated revenue source that can
be used to offset the loss of OTIF funding in March 2030. The estimated cost, including


Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study
September 2026 – 25-2330



Executive Summary xxi

cost per county, is identified in Table E-2 below. It should be noted that the table below
does not reflect Provincial Gas Tax revenue at this time, as well as the potential for
donations, grants and advertising revenue, which would further reduce net operating
costs.

Table E-2: Estimated Cost of the Base Service Plan

 Financial Metric      2027           2028           2029          2030          2031
 Total Gross Cost   $3,016,300     $3,909,000     $4,054,000    $4,205,000 $4,331,000
 Farebox             $345,500       $958,600       $995,600     $1,052,600 $1,052,600
 Revenue
 OTIF Subsidy       $2,262,300     $2,345,500     $1,195,900     $157,700      $0
 Total Net Cost      $408,500       $604,900      $1,862,500    $2,994,700 $3,278,400
 to Counties
 Net Cost –          $102,600       $98,500        $399,500      $690,900      $764,800
 Bruce County
 Net Cost –           $78,100       $140,600       $304,800      $465,900      $507,300
 Dufferin County
 Net Cost – Grey     $178,400       $268,000       $898,500     $1,429,400 $1,562,400
 County
 Net Cost –           $49,500       $97,900        $259,700      $408,400      $443,900
 Wellington
 County
Enhanced Service Options

In additional to the base transit service plan, the plan also identifies a number of
enhanced service options that each county can decide to add to the Unified Transit
Network. The amount of OTIF funding that was approved by the province will not be
fully utilized with the base transit service plan. This was done strategically,
understanding the need for fiscal sustainability once OTIF ends.

If there is a desire to further enhance mobility by certain counties, the plan provides
several enhanced service options that can be funded through OTIF. Each option is seen
as either lower priority over the base transit service plan, or as a service option that
primarily benefits a single county.

These enhanced service options can be added to the base transit service plan, based on
remaining OTIF funding. If a Council elects to incorporate an Enhanced Service Option,

Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study
September 2026 – 25-2330



Executive Summary xxii

the cost of the service would be reduced by roughly 50% during the OTIF period. The
exact increase in municipal investment from a county would be recalculated and
presented to council.

Enhanced service options include:

• New inter-community fixed-route between Fergus and Guelph (supplementing Route
  1 with additional frequency);
• New inter-community fixed-route connecting Hanover and Walkerton to Durham to
  the east (Route 1) and Mildmay, Clifford, Harriston, Palmerston and Listowel to the
  south (including a PC Connect service to the Region of Waterloo);
• New inter-community fixed-route between Guelph and Orangeville (with stops in
  Wellington County, Dufferin County and the Acton GO Station);
• New inter-community fixed-route between Fergus and the Region of Waterloo;
• Expanded on-demand service in key communities to provide service for local travel
  (by expanding SMART or introducing more subsidized taxi or ridesharing services);
  and
• Introduction of a local transit service in Fergus and Elora (Centre Wellington), which
  would feed trips on the proposed inter-community routes.

Next Steps

Moving forward with the Unified Transit Network would require commitment by each
County Council. OTIF provides initial funding to initiate the base transit service plan and
address a number of mobility gaps in this growing and diverse region. The MSB provides
a structure to effectively plan and deliver transit, with a focus on service and fare
integration, as well as efficiencies that are gained through operating together.

If each County Council decides to move forward, the next steps would be to form the
MSB and begin actualizing the plan. This includes hiring a service provider, setting key
performance indicators to monitor the success of the service, working with an on-
demand transit provider such as SMART and/or a private taxi / rideshare partner to
extend the reach of inter-community transit, and communicating the launch to the
community, scheduled to begin in July 2027.




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study
September 2026 – 25-2330



1.0 Introduction 1


1.0   Introduction
      The counties of Bruce, Dufferin, Grey and Wellington, along with Saugeen Mobility and
      Regional Transit (SMART) (the Partnership) have partnered to undertake a study to
      assess the feasibility of implementing a Unified Transit Network.

      An interconnected transit network enhances community well-being. It supports aging in
      place by providing reliable access to preventative and specialized medical appointments,
      pharmacies, and grocery stores. It drives economic development by ensuring residents
      without personal vehicles can reliably commute and participate in the local workforce.
      Furthermore, it fosters social inclusion by providing residents with equitable access to
      education, recreation, and social activities.

      To support the implementation of transit, Bruce, Dufferin, Grey counties, along with
      SMART applied to the Ontario Transit Investment Fund (OTIF) and successfully secured
      funding for a five-year program. The objective is to design a strategic transit network
      that effectively utilizes this provincial funding while establishing a financial and
      operational model that guarantees long-term sustainability after the initial grant period
      concludes. On September 3, 2025, Wellington County was added to the Request for
      Proposals (RFP) through a request and mutually beneficial buy-in, specifically examining
      opportunities to integrate service along the Highway 6 and the Highway 9 corridor and
      into neighbouring border communities.

      The primary objective of this study is to design a well-connected transit network that
      links residents to key destinations, supporting their daily needs and overall well-being.
      To be effective, this system must be intuitive and easy to navigate across municipal
      borders.




      Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
      Unified Regional Transit Network Study
      September 2026 – 25-2330



2.0 Existing Conditions 2


2.0   Existing Conditions
2.1   Study Area
      The study area is composed of the counties of Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, and Wellington.
      Spanning approximately 12,640 square kilometres, this region is characterized by its
      significant rural landscape and network of dispersed settlement areas ranging from
      hamlets to rapidly growing urban centres.

      Collectively, the four counties are home to a population of approximately 338,000
      residents. While the region is predominantly rural in character, with an average
      population density of roughly 26.7 people per square kilometre, mobility demand is
      increasingly concentrated around key urban hubs that are centres for employment,
      healthcare, and commerce.

      A description of the four counties within the study area and the Saugeen Ojibway Nation
      (SON), whose traditional territory encompasses most of the study area, is provided
      below:

      • Saugeen Ojibway Nation (SON): The regional study area falls predominantly within
        the traditional Saukiing Anishnaabekiing territory of the Saugeen Ojibway Nation
        (SON). SON represents a collective of Indigenous rights holders, comprising the
        Chippewas of Saugeen First Nation and the Chippewas of Nawash Unceded First
        Nation (Neyaashiinigmiing). Residents frequently commute from these First Nations
        to neighbouring urban centres to access employment, education, healthcare, and
        connections to the broader regional transportation network.
      • Bruce County: Situated in the northwestern portion of the study area along the
        shores of Lake Huron and Georgian Bay, with a population of approximately 73,396.
        The County is anchored by the communities of Port Elgin, Kincardine, and Walkerton,
        which serve as the primary service hubs for the surrounding rural areas. Local travel
        is centered around internal hubs, while broader regional travel patterns show a
        significant draw toward larger urban centres in Grey County, specifically Owen
        Sound and Hanover.
      • Dufferin County: Positioned at the eastern edge of the study area, bordered by the
        Peel Region to the south and Simcoe County to the east, with a population of


      Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
      Unified Regional Transit Network Study
      September 2026 – 25-2330



2.0 Existing Conditions 3

  approximately 66,257. Population and commercial centres are heavily concentrated
  in the southern tier, primarily anchored by the Town of Orangeville and the Town of
  Shelburne. Beyond localized movement, the county's primary urban hubs function as
  vital inter-regional commuter gateways to the Greater Toronto Area (GTA).
• Grey County: Centrally positioned within the study area—bordered by Bruce,
  Simcoe, Wellington, and Dufferin counties and Georgian Bay to the north—with a
  population of approximately 100,905 supported by an agricultural, manufacturing
  and tourism-driven economy. Owen Sound serves as the primary regional centre and
  central transit hub, supported by secondary settlement anchors including Hanover in
  the south, the Town of The Blue Mountains in the northeast, and the growing
  community of Dundalk which connects Grey and Dufferin counties. Travel patterns
  reflect a high volume of internal trips toward Owen Sound, as well as regular inter-
  county influxes from residents in surrounding jurisdictions seeking regional services.
• Wellington County: Forming the southern boundary of the study area, Wellington
  County has a population of approximately 97,286 (excluding the City of Guelph). Key
  settlement and service hubs include Fergus and Elora (Centre Wellington), Mount
  Forest in the north, and the Town of Erin to the east. Since the county geographically
  surrounds the administratively separate City of Guelph, primary travel patterns are
  characterized by regular commuter flows from county communities into the city
  core.

The four counties are illustrated in Figure 1. Appendix A provides more details on the
key settlement areas and destinations within each County.




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study
September 2026 – 25-2330



2.0 Existing Conditions 4

Figure 1: Study Area




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study
September 2026 – 25-2330



2.0 Existing Conditions 5


2.2     Regional Profile
        Understanding the demographic profile and anticipated growth of the study area is
        essential for designing an effective regional transit network. Across Bruce, Dufferin,
        Grey, and Wellington counties, there are common trends that shape the need for
        transit: steady population growth, an aging demographic, and increasing travel demand
        concentrated around key urban hubs.

        The total population within the four counties is projected to increase by 52% over the
        next 30 years. Population data for the 2021 baseline is derived from the Statistics
        Canada Census, while future population forecasts are based on county planning
        documents and Ontario Ministry of Finance Population Projections. The rate of growth
        for each county is summarized in Table 1 below.

        Table 1: Existing and Future Population Growth by County

         Area                   Existing Population   Future Population         % Growth
                                       (2021)              (2051)
         Bruce County                 73,396               104,463                 42%
         Dufferin County              66,257               100,700                 52%
         Grey County                 100,905               148,600                 47%
         Wellington County            97,286               160,000                 65%
                        Total        337,844               513,747                 52%

2.2.1   Bruce County

        Bruce County consists of eight local municipalities and two First Nations. Within the
        county, the highest population is within Saugeen Shores (23% of the population) and
        Kincardine (16% of the population). The remaining population is distributed evenly
        across the county's 4,048 square kilometres, with 54% residing in urban communities
        and 46% in rural areas. This is illustrated in Table 2.




        Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
        Unified Regional Transit Network Study
        September 2026 – 25-2330



2.0 Existing Conditions 6

Table 2: Existing Population of Bruce County by Settlement Area

 Municipality / First        Existing                        Character
 Nation                  Population (2021)
 Arran-Elderslie               6,913         Predominantly rural and agricultural
                                             municipality anchored by Chesley, Tara,
                                             and Paisley.
 Brockton                      9,784         Rural municipality with approximately
                                             half of its population located in the town
                                             of Walkerton.
 Huron-Kinloss                 7,723         A rural agricultural community. Primary
                                             Settlement areas are Lucknow and Ripley.
 Kincardine                   12,268         Largest population centre in Bruce
                                             County. Employment hub for the area.
 Northern Bruce                4,404         A highly seasonal municipality with
 Peninsula                                   smaller year-round populations.
 Saugeen Shores               15,908         A growing municipality centered around
                                             Port Elgin and Southampton.
 South Bruce                   5,880         An agricultural and rural community.
 South Bruce                   9,137         A mix of rural and seasonal areas.
 Peninsula                                   22% of its population is in Wiarton.
 Chippewas of                   784          A First Nation and Indigenous rights-
 Saugeen First Nation                        holder, part of Saugeen Ojibway Nation,
                                             located along the Saugeen River.
 Chippewas of                   580          A First Nation and Indigenous rights-
 Nawash Unceded                              holder, part of Saugeen Ojibway Nation,
 First Nation                                located on the eastern shore of the Bruce
 (Neyaashiinigmiing)                         Peninsula.
                 Total        73,396                     Not Applicable (N/A)

Bruce County has an older population, with approximately 26.0% of residents over the
age of 65, compared to the current provincial average of 18.5% (Census, 2021). By 2035,
this demographic is expected to grow to 28.6% of the County's total population,
remaining well above the projected 2035 provincial average of 22.1%.

The County also sees significant seasonal residency, particularly within the communities
of Sauble Beach, Tobermory, Wiarton, Southampton, and Port Elgin.


Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study
September 2026 – 25-2330



2.0 Existing Conditions 7

        For permanent residents, employment is heavily tied to the energy sector, specifically
        the operations of the Bruce Power site and Bruce Power Major Component
        Replacement (MCR) Project. The MCR project sustains approximately 5,000 additional
        jobs annually.

        Bruce County is also experiencing steady growth, with the population projected to
        expand by 42.3% to 104,463 by 2051. A large portion of this growth is anticipated to
        occur in Kincardine and Saugeen Shores.

2.2.2   Dufferin County
        Dufferin County consists of eight local municipalities. Within the county, the highest
        population is within the Town of Orangeville (45% of the county’s population) and the
        Town of Shelburne. The remaining population is distributed evenly across the county's
        1,486 square kilometres. This is illustrated in Table 3.

        Table 3: Existing Population of Dufferin County by Settlement Area

         Municipality           Existing Population                    Character
                                       (2021)
         East Garafraxa               2,794           A rural and agricultural municipality with
                                                      dispersed population.
         Amaranth                     4,327           An agricultural community with rural and
                                                      estate residential development.
         Grand Valley                 3,851           A rural community with 70% of its
                                                      population concentrated in the village of
                                                      Grand Valley.
         Mono                         9,421           A mix of rural and affluent commuter
                                                      subdivisions.
         Orangeville                  30,167          An urban, commercial, and densely
                                                      populated settlement area.
         Mulmur                       3,571           A rural and agricultural community.
         Melancthon                   3,132           An agricultural municipality with large-
                                                      scale farming operations.
         Shelburne                    8,994           A growing, primarily urban commuter
                                                      town.
                        Total         66,257                              N/A



        Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
        Unified Regional Transit Network Study
        September 2026 – 25-2330



2.0 Existing Conditions 8

        The county has a younger demographic, with approximately 15.9% of the population
        over 65 (Census, 2021).

        Dufferin County serves as a gateway to the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). Employment is
        heavily tied to agriculture, manufacturing, and commuters to the GTA.

        The County is also experiencing steady growth, with the population projected to expand
        by 52.0% to 100,700 by 2051. Much of this growth is anticipated to occur in Orangeville,
        Shelburne, and Grand Valley.

2.2.3   Grey County
        Grey County consists of nine local municipalities. Within the county, the highest
        populations are within the City of Owen Sound, West Grey, and Meaford. The remaining
        population is dispersed across the county's 4,497 square kilometres, with approximately
        47% residing in urban communities and 53% in rural areas. This is illustrated in Table 4.

        Table 4: Existing Population of Grey County by Settlement Area

         Municipality           Existing Population                   Character
                                       (2021)
         Owen Sound                   21,612          The primary urban regional centre of Grey
                                                      County.
         The Blue Mountains           9,390           A four-season tourism destination,
                                                      welcoming 2.5+ million visitors each year.
         Georgian Bluffs              11,100          A rural municipality that surrounds Owen
                                                      Sound.
         Meaford                      11,485          An urban downtown core surrounded by
                                                      agricultural lands.
         West Grey                    13,131          A rural area with 21% of its population
                                                      clustered in the town of Durham.
         Hanover                      7,967           A compact urban hub.
         Grey Highlands               10,424          A rural, agricultural municipality with 12%
                                                      of its population in Markdale.
         Southgate                    8,716           A rural community with 32% of its
                                                      population concentrated in Dundalk.
         Chatsworth                   7,080           A rural, agricultural community.
                        Total        100,905                               N/A


        Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
        Unified Regional Transit Network Study
        September 2026 – 25-2330



2.0 Existing Conditions 9

        Grey County has an older population, with approximately 26.4% of the population over
        65 (Census, 2021), well above the provincial average. By 2046, it is projected that 26% of
        residents will be over the age of 70.

        The county experiences high seasonal recreational use from cottages and second
        homes. Housing development for this seasonal population currently outpaces
        permanent population growth, creating fluctuating demand patterns.

        Grey County is also experiencing steady growth, with the population projected to
        expand by 47.2% to 148,580 by 2051. Employment is also expected to rise from 43,550
        to 52,230 jobs over the same period. Much of this growth is anticipated to occur in the
        Town of The Blue Mountains, Hanover, Southgate (Dundalk), and Owen Sound.

2.2.4   Wellington County
        Wellington County consists of seven local municipalities. Within the county, the highest
        population is within Centre Wellington (Fergus and Elora) and Wellington North. The
        remaining population is distributed across the county's 2,665 square kilometres, with
        53% residing in urban communities and 47% in rural areas. This is illustrated in Table 5.

        As of 2021, 17.8% of the population was over 65 (Census, 2021), which is just below the
        provincial average.

        The County is experiencing significant growth, with the population projected to expand
        by 64.5% to 160,000 by 2051. The majority of growth is anticipated to occur in Centre
        Wellington and Erin.

        Southern Wellington County forms a geographic doughnut surrounding the City of
        Guelph. Centre Wellington is the largest municipality, with the urban centres of Fergus
        and Elora, the latter having become a major tourist destination. Rural Wellington County
        is rooted in agriculture, with employment closely tied to manufacturing, healthcare,
        agriculture and daily commuter flows into the City of Guelph and the GTA.




        Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
        Unified Regional Transit Network Study
        September 2026 – 25-2330



2.0 Existing Conditions 10

      Table 5: Existing Population of Wellington County by Settlement Area

       Municipality             Existing Population                    Character
                                       (2021)
       Puslinch                         7,944           A rural and estate residential
                                                        community.
       Guelph/Eramosa                  13,904           A rural municipality with 40% of its
                                                        population in Rockwood.
       Erin                            11,981           A rural municipality with 23% of its
                                                        population in the village of Erin.
       Centre Wellington               31,093           A rural and urban municipality with
                                                        approximately 80% of population
                                                        within Fergus and Elora.
       Mapleton                        10,839           An agricultural, rural municipality with
                                                        21% of its population in Drayton.
       Minto                            9,094           A rural community anchored by
                                                        Palmerston, Harriston, and Clifford.
       Wellington North                12,431           A rural municipality with 40% of
                                                        population in Mount Forest and 21% in
                                                        Arthur.
                        Total          97,286                              N/A

2.3   Existing Transit
      The current transit network across the study area includes local an inter-community
      fixed-route systems, county-wide on-demand, specialized transit, and community non-
      profit agencies. While individual services provide connections, they operate
      independently with varying levels of service, eligibility criteria, and geographic coverage.
      The following section provides information on the existing transit landscape within each
      County. The existing transit network across all four counties is illustrated in Figure 2.




      Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
      Unified Regional Transit Network Study
      September 2026 – 25-2330



2.0 Existing Conditions 11

Figure 2: Existing Transit Across Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, and Wellington Counties




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study
September 2026 – 25-2330



2.0 Existing Conditions 12


2.3.1   Bruce County
        There are currently no municipally operated public transit services in place within Bruce
        County. Mobility needs are primarily met through specialized services and limited
        regional connections:

        • Saugeen Mobility and Regional Transit (SMART): Provides door-to-door specialized
          transit service for residents with physical or mental challenges across 11
          municipalities in Bruce and Grey counties. In 2024, the service provided over 29,000
          passenger trips. Funding is provided in part by the participating municipalities
          ($720,000), Provincial Gas Tax ($741,000), passenger fares ($310,000) and other
          donations and grants ($15,000) (Source: 2024 Ontario Transit Fact Book). Within
          Bruce County, the service is funded by and operates within all local municipalities
          except for North Bruce Peninsula and South Bruce Peninsula. Passengers are also
          able to request rides outside of the service area, as long as they are a resident of one
          of the municipalities that fund the service.
        • Home and Community Support Services of Grey-Bruce (HCSS): A Ministry of Health
          funded organization who primarily offers accessible transportation for seniors and
          adults with physical disabilities. HCSS serves both Grey and Bruce counties, but it is
          currently facing significant capacity concerns. HCSS primarily prioritizes medical trips
          due to current capacity restraints but also provides social rides. HCSS is a door-to-
          door service. A rider must be 18 years or older, be a resident of Grey or Bruce
          County, and be experiencing a barrier to transportation, leaving a void for social and
          essential travel. Furthermore, in order to access transportation, one must go through
          an intake process and provide ride details at least 2 business days before an
          appointment, highlighting the need to access same-day travel options
        • Smart Commute Bruce: Launched in 2024, Smart Commute Bruce County is a ride-
          matching app designed to increase local transportation options through carpooling.
          The program connects drivers and riders, with a specific focus on helping seasonal,
          service, and occasional workers in smaller communities access employment.
        • FlixBus: While the operator maintains a year-round route between the GTA and
          Owen Sound in neighbouring Grey County, it extends its route into Bruce County
          during the summer months to accommodate increased seasonal demand. Operating
          once daily, this summer extension links Owen Sound to Wiarton, Sauble Beach, and



        Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
        Unified Regional Transit Network Study
        September 2026 – 25-2330



2.0 Existing Conditions 13

           Port Elgin, additionally connecting these communities onward to Collingwood and
           Toronto.

2.3.2   Dufferin County
        Transit in Dufferin County is heavily concentrated in its urban south, with limited
        options for rural residents:

        • Orangeville Transit: Orangeville operates three conventional transit routes within
          the Town of Orangeville. The service is provided by the municipality and contracted
          to a third-party operator. While all vehicles are accessible, the Town does not
          operate a parallel specialized transit service for persons with disabilities. The service
          is currently fare-free (a pilot initiative), which has significantly increased ridership. In
          2024, over 247,00 rides were delivered on the service. The service is funded by the
          municipality at a cost of $1.2 million in annual operating costs (2024 data). Since the
          Town does not charge passenger fares, this is split between municipal contributions
          ($878,000) and Provincial Gas Tax contribution ($305,000).
        • Grey Transit Route (GTR): This route provides eight roundtrips per weekday,
          providing key connections between Dundalk (Grey County), Shelburne, Orangeville
          and the GO Bus network at the Orangeville transit hub. The service is contracted to a
          private sector provider, Driverseat, and is managed by Grey County. It is evenly
          funded between Grey County and Dufferin County with additional funding from
          provincial grants and passenger fares. In 2024, the service delivered 30,960
          passenger trips. GTR is funded through a combination of municipal contributions
          ($208,700), provincial funding ($675,230) and passenger fares ($111,450).
        • GO Transit: Provides regional connectivity via Route 37, linking Orangeville to the
          Brampton Bus Terminal and the wider GTA. Serving the heavy commuter flow out of
          the county, Route 37 operates weekdays only with seven trips per day, per direction.
        • Dufferin County Community Support Services (DCCSS): DCCSS provides door-to-
          door transportation for seniors and adults over the age of 18 with disabilities living in
          Dufferin County for medical appointments only. The service is funded by Ontario
          Health and operated by Dufferin County. DCCSS is currently piloting a shopping
          program for individuals living in rural areas to access shopping, groceries, and social
          opportunities.




        Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
        Unified Regional Transit Network Study
        September 2026 – 25-2330



2.0 Existing Conditions 14

        • The Shelburne Transporter (TST): A specialized medical transportation service,
          providing door-to-door transit throughout Dufferin County, specifically for non-
          emergency medical needs. The service operates 24/7 for pre-booked trips, with a
          network of paid drivers. It is funded through agencies like Ontario Disability Support
          Program (ODSP), Ontario Works (OW), and Veterans Affairs.

2.3.3   Grey County

        There are several mobility options within Grey County. Grey County has taken a
        leadership role in regional mobility through the GTR; however, the service has recently
        been decreased. Several other local municipal services are also in place:

        • GTR: This route provides key connections between Dundalk (Grey County),
          Shelburne Orangeville and the GO Bus network at the Orangeville transit hub. More
          details about the service are identified above in the Dufferin County section.
        • Owen Sound Transit: The City of Owen Sound operates a four-route conventional
          transit system within the city, along with a parallel door-to-door specialized transit
          service (Owen Sound Mobility Bus) for residents with mobility limitations. The
          mobility bus service is available to applicants who meet specific eligibility criteria.
          Both services are funded by a combination of provincial government grants,
          municipal contributions, and passenger fares. In 2024, over 210,000 trips were
          provided across both systems. Overall, the city contributes over $1.3 million annually
          to operate both the conventional and specialized transit service. Provincial Gas Tax
          ($246,000) and passenger revenue ($414,000) is also used to help fund the service
          (Source: 2024 Ontario Transit Fact Book). In 2025, an additional 246,000 in Provincial
          Gas Tax revenue was received.
        • Meaford Moves+: The Municipality of Meaford provides a specialized door-to-door
          transit service for residents within the municipality, including connections to Owen
          Sound and Collingwood for medical and social needs. The service is provided with a
          wheelchair accessible van, with up to six seats. In 2024, the service delivered 2,583
          passenger trips. Meaford Moves+ is funded through a combination of municipal
          contributions ($63,860), Provincial Gas Tax ($62,543) and passenger fares ($4,537)
          (Source: 2024 Ontario Transit Fact Book).




        Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
        Unified Regional Transit Network Study
        September 2026 – 25-2330



2.0 Existing Conditions 15

        • SMART: As noted above, SMART is a specialized door-to-door transit. Within Grey
          County, SMART is funded by and operates within the municipalities of Hanover,
          West Grey, Chatsworth, Grey Highlands, and Southgate.
        • Guelph Owen Sound Transportation (GOST): GOST is an inter-community transit
          service, that runs between Owen Sound and Guelph. Originally launched via the
          provincial Community Transportation Grant program, the service is currently
          overseen by the City of Owen Sound and operated by private contractor, Voyago.
          The bus runs from the Owen Sound Transit Terminal to the Guelph Transit Terminal
          with stops in Chatsworth, Williamsford, Durham, Mount Forest, Arthur, Fergus and
          Elora. The service operates seven days a week, with two round trips per day. This
          route is currently funded by Grey County, Wellington County, provincial grant
          funding ($249,320), and passenger fares ($149,746). In 2024, the service delivered
          12,624 passenger trips.
        • Blue Mountain Link (BLINK): Through a shared-service agreement, the Town of The
          Blue Mountains contracts Colltrans (Collingwood's public transit system) to operate
          the route. The BLINK route provides cross-border connection between the Town of
          Collingwood in Simcoe County and the Town of The Blue Mountains in Grey County.
          Operating seven days a week with hourly service, the route connects Collingwood's
          main transit terminal directly to the Blue Mountain Village and Resort area.
        • FlixBus: FlixBus operates a regional connection between Grey County, Simcoe
          County and the GTA. Running five days a week (Thursday through Monday), the
          route connects the Owen Sound Transit Terminal with stops in Meaford, Thornbury,
          Blue Mountain Village, Collingwood, Wasaga Beach, and Barrie before continuing to
          Toronto Pearson International Airport and terminating at Union Station Bus
          Terminal.
        • Home and Community Support Services of Grey-Bruce (HCSS): A Ministry of Health
          funded organization who primarily offers accessible transportation for seniors and
          adults with physical disabilities. HCSS serves both Grey and Bruce counties.

2.3.4   Wellington County

        Wellington County operates a distinct model focused on total geographic coverage
        rather than fixed corridors:




        Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
        Unified Regional Transit Network Study
        September 2026 – 25-2330



2.0 Existing Conditions 16

• RIDE WELL: A county-wide rideshare-style on-demand transit service operated by
  Wellington County and supported in part by the provincial government's Provincial
  Gas Tax program. Unlike fixed-route systems, RIDE WELL has no set schedule or
  stops; it provides curb-to-curb service for any resident traveling within the county or
  connecting to/from the neighboring City of Guelph. One of the vehicles is also
  wheelchair accessible and provides cross-boundary trips throughout the county. The
  service operates Monday to Friday from 6:00 AM to 7:00 PM.
• Guelph Owen Sound Transit (GOST): As mentioned in the Grey County section,
  GOST is an inter-community service connecting Owen Sound to the City of Guelph.
  Within Wellington County, this route provides twice-daily coverage to the
  communities of Mount Forest, Arthur, Fergus, and Elora along the Highway 6
  corridor. The service operates seven days a week, with two round trips per day.
  Details about the funding and ridership are included in the Grey County section.
• Guelph Transit: Provides a high-frequency network that facilitates connections for
  inter-community services like RIDE WELL and GOST. The system operates a
  comprehensive network of 28 routes, including 21 conventional city-wide routes,
  five University of Guelph express lines, and specialized late-night and on-demand
  services. A parallel specialized transit service is also provided for persons with
  disabilities. In 2024, the system delivered over 5.9 million passenger trips. The
  service is primarily funded through municipal property taxes ($24.9 million) and user
  fare revenue ($15.8 million). The Provincial Gas Tax received is primarily used to fund
  capital.
• Victorian Order of Nurses (VON): VON provides essential door-to-door
  transportation for seniors (65+) and adults with physical disabilities to attend
  medical appointments, adult day programs, and social outings. Operating Monday to
  Friday (8:00 AM to 4:30 PM), the service relies on both volunteer and paid drivers
  and requires at least three business days' notice.
• Community Resource Centre (CRC): CRC’s Transportation Program services low-
  income individuals of Centre Wellington, Wellington North, Minto, and Mapleton.
  Access to this service is criteria based and provides rides for medical, educational,
  employment, and food access purposes. This service is volunteer operated, and
  county-funded.
• East Wellington Community Services (EWCS): The EWCS services residents of The
  Town of Erin and the Township of Guelph/Eramosa for low-income clients, users


Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study
September 2026 – 25-2330



2.0 Existing Conditions 17

   with mobility needs, and seniors. The agency receives funding from the Ministry of
   Health and the county.

More context about existing transit services in the study area is included in Appendix B.




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study
September 2026 – 25-2330



3.0 Peer Review 18


3.0   Peer Review
      A peer review of other county-wide rural transit systems was completed to set the
      context for the potential Unified Transit Network. The peer municipalities in Table 6
      were selected based on similarities in service area size, population density, and inter-
      community type transit. They also represent primarily rural counties that only operate
      inter-community transit (not local transit). The peer agency service statistics were
      obtained from the 2024 Ontario Conventional Transit Fact Book and supplemented by
      information provided by the municipalities where available.

      Simcoe County stands out as the highest performing peer, investing $5.5 million to
      provide 48,000 revenue service hours. This includes six inter-community routes that
      operate hourly, connecting cities and urban settlement areas, many of which have local
      transit operated by the lower-tier municipality. This results in 0.84 boardings per capita
      (BPC) and 5.4 boardings per hour (BPH), the highest in the group, showing that residents
      will utilize transit when frequency, reliability, and connections to local transit are
      prioritized.

      The performance achieved by Simcoe County can be used as a benchmark for success
      within this study. In rural and inter-community context, boardings per capita typically
      range between 0.05 and 1.00. A metric of 0.84 represents the upper tier of performance
      for peer agencies, while figures below 0.10 generally indicate that a service is failing to
      meet broad community mobility needs.

      Routes exceeding 4.0 BPH are considered high performing, while routes performing
      between 2.0 and 3.0 BPH require optimization or specific justification based on social
      equity and community demand. Routes consistently performing below 2.0 BPH are
      considered at risk for removal due to low cost-effectiveness and insufficient ridership or
      should be converted to an on-demand service covering a larger geographic area.

      Muskoka District operated a single inter-community corridor (Corridor 11 Bus) and
      represents lower-tier investment levels (fewer than 4,000 annual service hours). Many
      of the stops along the route do not have a local transit service, and fares range from $5
      to $20, based on distance. Ridership is low as a result, with fewer than 0.05 BPC and 0.8
      BPRVH. Part of this is also due to limited trips and coverage within the District. The cost



      Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
      Unified Regional Transit Network Study
      September 2026 – 25-2330



3.0 Peer Review 19

recovery ratio is high relative to peers in part due to the high average fare, but this has
also resulted in low ridership.

Norfolk County also invests a minimal amount in its transit service (under 6,000
Revenue Service Hour (RSH) split between inter-community routes and on-demand
service). As a result, BPC (0.5) and boardings per RSH (2.8) are also low.

Brant County demonstrates the highest cost-efficiency in the group with an hourly
operating cost of just $76.44. This efficiency is likely attributed to their low operating
rate. The use of a purely on-demand service means boardings per RSH is low (2.1),
however, the net cost per passenger is also low due to the lower operating rate.




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study
September 2026 – 25-2330



3.0 Peer Review 20



Table 6: Peer Review – Inter-Community Transit

Notes
1
    2024 Conventional Transit Fact Book
2
    2023 Ontario Urban Transit Fact Book

    Metric                          Simcoe County1   Muskoka District2    Norfolk County1      Brant County1
    Population                            307,050         66,674               33,500             146,587
    Service Area (square                   4,841          4,765                1,650               843.2
    kilometre [km2])
    Service Type                      Fixed-route       Fixed-route      Fixed-route and On-    On-demand
                                                                               demand
    Ridership                             295,568         3,114                 21,448            25,334
    Revenue Service Hours                 48,219          3,904                 5,898             12,172
    Boardings per Capita                   0.84            0.05                  0.50              0.17
    Boardings per Revenue                   5.4            0.8                   2.8               2.1
    Vehicle Hour
    Average Fare                         $1.93            $17.71               $3.25              $3.99
    Operating Cost                    $5,451,252         $343,357             $626,458          $1,140,000
    Passenger Revenue                  $570,158          $55,147              $69,644            $101,119
    Net Cost                          $4,881,094         $288,210             $555,943          $1,038,881
    Cost per Hour                      $113.05            $87.95              $101.66             $76.44
    Net Cost per Passenger              $18.44            $92.55               $29.21             $45,00
    Revenue to Cost Ratio                 10%              16%                  11%                 9%

Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study
September 2026 – 25-2330



4.0 Policy Framework 21


4.0     Policy Framework
        A review of the policy framework was conducted to provide the strategic foundation for
        a future Unified Transit Network, ensuring recommendations align with provincial
        mandates and municipal priorities.

4.1     Provincial Context

4.1.1   Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Requirements
        The Integrated Accessibility Standard is in place to create a more inclusive
        transportation system for all residents of Ontario, regardless of their abilities. It applies
        to conventional transportation providers, paratransit providers, schools, vehicles-for-
        hire, and municipalities.

        This regulation aims to create an inclusive transportation system by mandating specific
        policies, practices, and equipment standards. Service providers must establish and
        document accessible transportation measures, handle public feedback and complaints,
        and ensure that accessibility equipment is functioning. They must also provide training
        to front-line staff and policy makers and hold annual public meetings to review and
        gather feedback on their accessibility measures. Additional requirements include fare
        parity, accessible transit stops, and technical design standards for vehicles.

        Specific obligations vary by type of service. Conventional transit providers must offer
        audible and visual stop announcements, clearly marked priority seating, and notify the
        public about service disruptions with alternative arrangements. Paratransit providers
        need to develop eligibility assessment criteria, provide temporary passes if necessary,
        and allow same-day reservations when possible.

4.1.2   Connecting the Southwest
        The "Connecting the Southwest" report is the Ministry of Transportation’s (MTO)
        regional transportation plan for Southwestern Ontario, spanning 88 municipalities,
        including Bruce, Grey, and Wellington counties.




        Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
        Unified Regional Transit Network Study
        September 2026 – 25-2330



4.0 Policy Framework 22

        Key Directions for Public Transit:

        • Regional Integration & Coordination: A primary goal of the plan is to eliminate
          disjointed schedules and fare systems.
        • Expansion of Inter-community Bus Services: The plan prioritizes north-south
          connections through OTIF. This support is vital for sustaining routes like the GTR and
          GOST, which connect rural residents to larger urban hubs for healthcare and
          employment.
        • Multi-Modal Enhancements:
          o Rail (Wellington): The Province continues to work with Metrolinx to increase the
              frequency and speed of two-way, all-day GO Rail service on the Kitchener line.
          o Marine (Grey/Bruce): By bringing the Owen Sound Transportation Company
              (OSTC) under direct MTO oversight, the plan ensures the long-term sustainability
              of seasonal ferry services critical to tourism and the Bruce Peninsula.
        • Future-Readiness & Rural Safety: The plan advocates for "first and last mile"
          technology—such as on-demand ridesharing and e-bikes—to be integrated with
          traditional transit.

4.1.3   Connecting the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH)
        The "Connecting the GGH" plan establishes a 30-year vision for the Greater Golden
        Horseshoe (GGH), Ontario’s most densely populated region which includes Wellington
        and Dufferin counties.

        Key pillars of the GGH plan relevant to our regional study include:

        • Regional Integration & Fare Harmonization: The province is breaking down
          municipal boundaries through the "One Fare" Program and a dedicated integration
          forum. These initiatives aim to align schedules and streamline fare structures (such
          as Mobility-as-a-Service platforms) to ensure that travel across different counties
          and municipal systems is seamless and affordable.
        • Infrastructure & Rail Expansion (Wellington Focus): A core priority is the
          transformation of the Kitchener Line into a two-way, all-day GO rail service.
        • Rural & Tourism Connectivity (Grey/Bruce Focus): The plan recognizes the unique
          challenges of dispersed rural populations and commits to:




        Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
        Unified Regional Transit Network Study
        September 2026 – 25-2330



4.0 Policy Framework 23

         o On-Demand Transit: Utilizing flexible "first-mile/last-mile" solutions to connect
           rural residents to higher-order transit hubs.
         o Tourism Support: Addressing traffic safety and volume on corridors like Highway
           26 in Grey County to better support local mobility and the tourism-heavy Blue
           Mountain area.

4.2   Western Ontario Wardens’ Caucus
      The Western Ontario Wardens’ Caucus (WOWC) is a not-for-profit group representing
      15 upper and single-tier municipalities in Southwestern Ontario. The group is conducting
      advocacy with the province to create a Regional Rural Transit Authority across
      Southwestern Ontario. This advocacy:

      • Acknowledges a growing momentum behind rural transit coordination across
        Southwestern Ontario and the funding inequities to provide service;
      • Acknowledges that there is no provincial regional planning body for rural transit
        (unlike Metrolinx in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area [GTHA]);
      • Seeks to confirm provincial interest for a regional transit model and explore a
        regional governance structure; and
      • Builds off existing work, including the Unified Transit Network and governance
        model being developed for Bruce, Dufferin, Grey and Wellington counties.

      This work demonstrates the importance of the work being conducted as part of this
      study and the broader support in Southwestern Ontario to create a regional transit
      authority. The role of the WOWC in creating this authority will need to be considered.

4.3   Municipal Policy
      A review of the policy frameworks across Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, and Wellington counties
      reveals that all counties anticipate substantial growth in the future, and an aging
      population. The traditional car-centric model of rural mobility may no longer be
      sufficient to support projected growth and future demographics. While each county
      operates within a unique context, they collectively point toward a regional mandate
      where improved public transit is viewed as important for economic vitality, social
      equity, and environmental health.




      Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
      Unified Regional Transit Network Study
      September 2026 – 25-2330



4.0 Policy Framework 24

        The following sections summarize the key strategic directions for each partner
        municipality.

4.3.1   Bruce County
        Bruce County’s policy framework acts as a "map for growth," overlaying infrastructure
        requirements with social and environmental necessities.

        Documents Reviewed:

        •   Master Transportation Plan (2021);
        •   Transit Demand and Feasibility Study (2023);
        •   Official Plan (2026); and
        •   Strategic Plan (2023-2026).

        Key Directions:

        • Sustainable Development: The Official Plan balances economic expansion with
          environmental stewardship, while the Strategic Plan is built on pillars of "Growth and
          Innovation" and "Environment and Climate Change" to ensure responsible
          development.
        • Enhanced Connectivity: The Master Transportation Plan prioritizes direct county
          involvement in transit to address service gaps, particularly connecting rural towns to
          larger urban centres.
        • Social Equity: Policies mandate that community building initiatives must serve
          vulnerable populations. This includes adhering to AODA standards for an aging
          demographic, ensuring 30% of new housing is affordable, and engaging meaningfully
          with Indigenous communities, specifically the SON.
        • Regional Transit Integration: The Official Plan includes a commitment to work
          collaboratively with the province, local municipalities, neighbouring jurisdictions, and
          the SON to improve inter-municipal and inter-regional transit connections.

4.3.2   Dufferin County
        Dufferin County’s framework focuses on managing rapid population growth through
        2051 while transitioning toward a sustainable, multimodal community.




        Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
        Unified Regional Transit Network Study
        September 2026 – 25-2330



4.0 Policy Framework 25

        Documents Reviewed:

        • Corporate Strategic Plan (2023-2026);
        • Official Plan (2025); and
        • Transportation Master Plan (2023).

        Key Directions:

        • Managed Growth: To prevent sprawl, the Official Plan encourages intensification
          within the three primary settlement areas (Orangeville, Shelburne, Grand Valley),
          setting a minimum intensification target of 40% for new residential development.
        • Climate & Equity: The county applies both a "Climate Lens" (targeting net-zero by
          2050) and an "Equity Lens" to all decisions. This includes an affordable housing
          target of 20% for new developments and a focus on "aging-in-place" infrastructure.
        • Integrated Mobility: The 2023 Transportation Master Plan advocates for reduced
          auto-dependence through a holistic network. Priorities include enhanced GO Transit
          services (increased frequency to Orangeville, extension to Shelburne) and
          investigating funding for a county-wide on-demand service.

4.3.3   Grey County
        Grey County focuses on managing sustainable growth within a large rural geography,
        treating coordinated transit as a tool for both social connection and economic vitality.

        Documents Reviewed:

        •   Strategic Plan (2024–2027);
        •   Official Plan (2019);
        •   Transportation Master Plan (2014); and
        •   Growth Management Strategy (2025).

        Key Directions:

        • Inclusive Growth: The Strategic Plan anchors all initiatives in equity and
          sustainability. The Official Plan targets 30% affordable housing and emphasizes
          dynamic transportation options that serve youth and newcomers to support
          workforce retention.




        Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
        Unified Regional Transit Network Study
        September 2026 – 25-2330



4.0 Policy Framework 26

        • Official Plan "Move Grey" Strategy: The county aims to facilitate rather than just
          operate transit, focusing on coordinating disparate services to realize efficiencies.
        • Regional Connections: A key goal is to explore connections with Simcoe and Dufferin
          counties, specifically the potential extension of GO Transit bus services from
          Orangeville into Grey.

4.3.4   Wellington County

        Wellington County prioritizes the creation of "complete communities" to navigate the
        transition from a predominantly rural landscape to one containing dense urban
        settlement areas.

        Documents Reviewed:

        • Corporate Strategic Action Plan (2023);
        • Official Plan (2025); and
        • Road Master Action Plan (RMAP) (2022).

        Key Directions:

        • Directed Growth: The strategy directs growth to urban centres, mandating that 20%
          of residential development occur within built-up areas. Strict land categorization
          protects natural heritage and prime agricultural resources.
        • Transit Goals: The Road Master Action Plan aims to sustain the RIDE WELL on-
          demand service long-term. Future plans focus on integrating on-demand service with
          fixed-route corridors (e.g. GOST on Highway 6) to support residents without private
          vehicles.
        • Sustainability: Transportation accounts for 70% of local Greenhouse Gas (GHG)
          emissions; consequently, the county is targeting a fleet transition to Zero-Emission
          Vehicles (ZEV) for its operations.

4.4     Summary of Policy Trends
        Collectively, the policies define a Regional Mobility Mandate characterized by four
        shared themes:




        Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
        Unified Regional Transit Network Study
        September 2026 – 25-2330



4.0 Policy Framework 27

• Directed Urbanization: All partners are directing significant growth toward
  designated settlement areas (e.g. Orangeville, Owen Sound, Kincardine, Fergus),
  creating the density required to make public transit viable.
• Mobility as Social Equity: There is a focus on "Aging in Place" and serving the
  transportation disadvantaged. Policies identify transit solutions that solve the "last
  mile" problem and provide access to healthcare and affordable housing.
• Multimodal Integration: The focus has shifted from building road capacity to
  optimizing movement. The shared goal is a mixed-model ecosystem integrating on-
  demand services with fixed-route corridors and active transportation networks.
• Climate Action: Transit is identified as a primary method for decarbonization, driving
  a shift from single-occupancy vehicles to shared modes and the transition of
  municipal fleets toward ZEV.




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study
September 2026 – 25-2330



5.0 Needs Assessment & Gap Analysis 28


5.0   Needs Assessment & Gap Analysis
      Access to reliable transportation is not merely a convenience; it is a determinant of
      health, economic opportunity, and social inclusion across Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, and
      Wellington counties, especially for vulnerable populations. In a predominantly rural
      region, the absence of a personal vehicle can effectively cut residents off from their
      communities.

      The need for a Unified Transit Network is driven by the unique requirements of diverse
      population groups, each facing unique barriers.

                           Youth: For young people, particularly those living outside urban
                           settlement areas, the lack of transit is a significant barrier to
                           independence. Access to part-time employment, education, and
                           social activities is often contingent on a parent or caregiver’s ability
                           to provide a ride. A transit network can provide youth with
                           autonomy without tethering them to a family vehicle.

                           Adults: For working-age adults, reliable transit is a prerequisite for
                           stable employment. In a region with dispersed employment hubs,
                           the lack of transit restricts the labour pool for local businesses and
                           limits job opportunities for residents who cannot afford the high
                           costs of vehicle ownership and rising fuel prices.

                           Seniors: As the region’s population ages, mobility becomes the
                           cornerstone of "aging in place." Seniors require consistent access to
                           specialized medical appointments, pharmacies, and grocery stores
                           to maintain their health and independence. Beyond essentials,
                           transit facilitates social interaction, which is important for mental
                           well-being. However, many seniors face barriers due to strict
                           eligibility criteria and limited availability for existing specialized
                           services.




      Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
      Unified Regional Transit Network Study
      September 2026 – 25-2330



5.0 Needs Assessment & Gap Analysis 29

                           Visitors: While the region is home to several tourism destinations,
                           a fragmented transit network creates a barrier for visitors. Tourists
                           arriving in one hub often find it difficult to explore neighbouring
                           attractions or towns without a car, limiting the economic spread of
                           tourism spending across the region. Tourism destinations without
                           convenient transit access can limit the number of trips for visitors
                           that do not have access to a vehicle and increase seasonal
                           congestion and parking issues.

      Ultimately, the goal of this study is to bridge these gaps, ensuring that whether for
      work, care, or community, every resident has the freedom to move.

5.1   Bruce County
      There is currently no local public transit service in Bruce County, and no permanent,
      county-wide inter-regional transit for the general public. While 46% of the population
      resides in rural areas, mobility for those without a private vehicle is restricted to a
      patchwork of specialized services, seasonal private buses, and a newly adopted carpool
      matching program.

      The primary service gaps include:

                     Youth & Workforce Exclusion: Since there is no public transit, youth
                     have virtually no options for independent travel. Similarly, there are no
                     dedicated transit options for daily work trips, leaving low-income
                     workers and those without vehicles reliant on unpredictable carpooling.

      While the county launched the Smart Commute ride-matching app to
      bridge gaps, it has seen limited uptake due to the county’s low
      population density, which makes consistent ride-matching difficult for
      daily commuters.

                     Seniors: SMART does not provide coverage to the Municipality of
                     Northern Bruce Peninsula or the Town of South Bruce Peninsula. HCSS
                     helps bridge geographic gaps but is facing significant capacity concerns.
                     Furthermore, the service primarily focuses on medical rides, leaving a
                     void for social and essential travel.



      Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
      Unified Regional Transit Network Study
      September 2026 – 25-2330



5.0 Needs Assessment & Gap Analysis 30

      Tourism: While FlixBus provides an inter-community link during the
      summer to Sauble Beach and Port Elgin, the service only runs one to two
      trips per day, limiting travel options and requiring overnight stay (based
      on the schedule). There is also no tourism-specific transit in Northern
      Bruce Peninsula to manage the high volume of visitors to Lion’s Head and Tobermory.
      This lack of a seasonal transit option contributes to congestion and parking challenges in
      the harbor area.

      A lack of transit also impacts the ability to hire students and adults for seasonal
      employment to support the tourism industry.

5.2   Dufferin County
      Dufferin County is defined by a high volume of residents commuting outside the region
      for work and education, primarily toward the GTA. The population is concentrated in
      three primary hubs—Orangeville, Shelburne, and Grand Valley. Local transit is available
      within Orangeville, and GTR Route 2 provides connectivity between Orangeville and
      Shelburne, but many rural residents are left without any transit options.

                         Youth: Outside of Orangeville, there is no local transit for youth to
                         access part-time jobs, social activities, or education. While youth in
                         Orangeville benefit from the local system, and those in Shelburne can
                         utilize GTR when timing permits, residents in Grand Valley and rural
                         townships are entirely dependent on private vehicle transport from
      parents or guardians. This lack of mobility limits the independence of young residents
      and restricts their access to regional youth services and employment.

      Workforce: Inter-community transit is limited to the Highway 10
      corridor (GTR Route 2). While this serves commuters between Dundalk,
      Shelburne, and the GO Bus hub in Orangeville, it leaves the rest of the
      county disconnected.

      Fast-growing areas like Grand Valley have no transit link to the rest of the county,
      creating a major barrier for low-income workers.




      Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
      Unified Regional Transit Network Study
      September 2026 – 25-2330



5.0 Needs Assessment & Gap Analysis 31

                       Seniors: Specialized transit in Dufferin is currently limited. DCCSS
                       provides county-wide coverage but is limited almost exclusively to
                       medical appointments. The Shelburne Transporter (TST) provides
                       dedicated service within Shelburne but is also exclusively for medical
                       trips with strict eligibility requirements.

      There is a lack of options for social and essential trips (e.g. groceries, banking, social
      programs). This leads to increased social isolation for seniors who can no longer drive,
      particularly those living outside the Orangeville core.

      Tourism: While Dufferin County is not a primary "destination hub" like
      the Bruce Peninsula, it has growing tourism assets in its rural landscapes
      and hiking trails. Currently, there is no transit connectivity for visitors
      looking to travel between the Orangeville GO Transit hub and local
      attractions in the rural townships.

5.3   Grey County
      Grey County has 53% of residents living in rural communities and an older-than-average
      population. Grey County benefits from some north-south connectivity. The GTR links
      Dundalk to Shelburne and Orangeville (connecting to GO Transit), while GOST connects
      Owen Sound to Guelph with stops in Chatsworth, Williamsford, and Durham.

      The primary service gaps include:

                      Youth: Outside of the City of Owen Sound and The Blue Mountains,
                      there is no local transit. Youth in rural Grey County are entirely
                      dependent on parents or guardians for transportation to
                      extracurriculars, part-time jobs, and social services, severely limiting
                      their independence and economic participation.

      Workforce: While residents can travel between towns, moving within
      them and traveling to them from other rural areas is a challenge.
      Outside of the City of Owen Sound and the Town of The Blue
      Mountains, local public transit is not available to the public. A resident
      in Durham or Markdale may be able to catch a bus to Guelph, but they
      cannot take a bus to the grocery store or a local job.



      Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
      Unified Regional Transit Network Study
      September 2026 – 25-2330



5.0 Needs Assessment & Gap Analysis 32

                     Seniors: While Grey County has several specialized providers, the service
                     landscape is fragmented, leaving gaps for the aging population.
                     Specialized Transit is provided by SMART, Meaford Moves+, The Town of
                     The Blue Mountains, and Owen Sound, however, no service is available
      in Georgian Bluffs and the rural areas of The Blue Mountains.

      HCSS helps bridge geographic gaps by serving the entire county, but it is currently facing
      significant capacity concerns. Furthermore, HCSS primarily prioritizes medical trips,
      leaving a void for social and essential travel.

      Tourism: FlixBus provides a connection between the GTA and The Blue
      Mountains/Owen Sound, as well as Sauble Beach and Port Eglin in the
      summer. However, as the service only operates once daily, the timing
      may be prohibitive for some users.

      While the GOST route currently provides a link for visitors along Highway 6, its funding is
      temporary (extended to August 2026). Without a permanent solution, the county lacks a
      stable, high-capacity link to move tourists between the Guelph/GTA corridor and the
      Georgian Bay shoreline. Additionally, as the service only operates two roundtrips daily,
      the limited frequency may be a barrier for some users.

5.4   Wellington County
      Wellington County has established a progressive foundation with its county-wide RIDE
      WELL on-demand model. However, while the service is conceptually ideal for rural
      geography, it currently faces operational and structural gaps that prevent it from being a
      reliable primary transit option for all residents.

      While RIDE WELL offers an on-demand transit service within the entire geographic area,
      it is currently constrained by its own success. Due to high demand and a limited fleet,
      residents can encounter unavailability during peak times, making the service difficult to
      depend on for time-sensitive needs. Furthermore, inter-community transit remains
      strictly limited to two trips per day, operating along the Highway 6 corridor (GOST). This
      creates both a "first-mile/last-mile" problem for those living away from the main
      highway and limits the use of the service to residents that require transit at the two
      times the service is offered.



      Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
      Unified Regional Transit Network Study
      September 2026 – 25-2330



5.0 Needs Assessment & Gap Analysis 33

The primary service gaps include:

Youth: Outside of the school bus system, youth are restricted by a lack of
evening and weekend options for jobs and social activities. The current
twice-daily GOST schedule is particularly poorly suited to student
schedules or extracurricular travel, and there is no coordination between
RIDE WELL and the GO Train to help youth access the wider GTA.

               Workforce: The lack of weekend and late-evening service, combined
               with peak-hour unreliability, makes RIDE WELL a difficult option for the
               manufacturing and service sectors.

                  Seniors: While seniors are the primary users of
community care transportation, these services are not coordinated with
RIDE WELL. This creates a fragmented experience where seniors who do
not meet strict "medical-only" eligibility often struggle to find reliable
rides for social inclusion or essential errands like groceries and banking.

               Tourism: The historic cores of Elora and Fergus suffer from intense
               seasonal parking congestion. The lack of a high-frequency coordinated
               transit link connecting these tourism hubs to the Guelph Transit terminal
               or GO Station prevents the county from capturing the growing market of
               "car-free" tourists visiting from the GTA.




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study
September 2026 – 25-2330



5.0 Needs Assessment & Gap Analysis 34


Table 7: Summary of Service Coverage
County         Local Urban      Inter-Community             Rural General         Specialized / Community Transit
               Fixed-Route      Connector                   Public Transit
Bruce          None             FlixBus: Wiarton, Sauble    Smart Commute:        SMART: Eligible only, not all
County                          Beach, Port Elgin. Only 4   Not traditional       municipalities
                                months a year               public transit, low   HCSS: 18+ only, eligible only, high
                                                            uptake                fare (variable), serves entire
                                                                                  county
Dufferin       Orangeville   GTR: Dundalk, Shelburne        None                  DCCSS: Medical only, county-
County         Transit       Orangeville                                          wide
                             GO Transit: Orangeville to                           TST: Volunteer-based & medical
                             Brampton                                             only, Shelburne
Grey County    Owen Sound    GTR: Dundalk, Shelburne        None                  Owen Sound Mobility Bus:
               Transit       Orangeville                                          Eligible only, Owen Sound.
               Blue Mountain GOST: Owen Sound,                                    SMART: Eligible only, not all
               Link          Chatsworth, Williamsford,                            municipalities.
                             Durham, Guelph                                       HCSS: 18+ only, eligible only, high
                                                                                  fare (variable), serves entire
                                                                                  county
                                                                                  Meaford Moves: Medical/ social
                                                                                  trips, eligible users, Meaford
Wellington     None             GOST: Fergus, Elora,        RIDE WELL:            RIDE WELL: Provides accessible
County                          Arthur, Mount Forest,       County-wide but       vehicles, county wide
                                Guelph, Owen Sound          capacity              VON: Eligible only, requires 3
                                                            constrained           days notice
                                                                                  EWCS: Eligible only
                                                                                  CRC: Eligible only

Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study
September 2026 – 25-2330



6.0 Community Engagement 35


6.0   Community Engagement
      To ensure the proposed transit strategy is rooted in the lived experiences of the region,
      a comprehensive engagement process was conducted. This phase aimed to understand
      the real-world barriers residents and businesses face daily.

6.1   Engagement Approach
      Engagement with community members across the four counties was an essential aspect
      of the project. It was used to inform the understanding of issues and opportunities and
      in the development of recommendations for a Unified Transit Network. The approach
      included in-person, virtual, and online opportunities for input, as noted in Table 8.

      Table 8: Summary of Engagement Activities

       Engagement                                    Description
       Tactic
       Focus Groups     Eleven focus group sessions/interviews were held to gather more
                        detailed input from Indigenous rights-holders and communities as
                        well as key stakeholders across the four counties, as follows:
                        •   Indigenous rights-holders and communities;
                        •   Transit Operators – Driver Seat (GTR), Voyago (GOST), RideCo
                            (RIDE WELL), municipal transit operators, community
                            transportation agencies, Uride, Uber, Metrolinx;
                        •   Accessibility Advisory Committee members;
                        •   Economic Development staff;
                        •   Major employers;
                        •   Seniors;
                        •   Social services and poverty-focused organizations;
                        •   Amish and Mennonite communities; and
                        •   Youth and students.




      Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
      Unified Regional Transit Network Study
      September 2026 – 25-2330



6.0 Community Engagement 36

 Engagement                                   Description
 Tactic
 Public Open      The project team hosted an in-person and a virtual public open
 House            house on the following dates:
                  • In-person open house was held on January 10, 2026 at the
                    Orangeville Arena from 11:30 AM to 3:30 PM; and
                  • A virtual open house was held on Zoom on January 14, 2026
                    between 6:30 PM and 8:00 PM.
 Public Drop-in   County staff also held drop-in sessions at several community events
 Sessions         where attendees were provided an opportunity to discuss the
                  project and fill out the community survey. These included:
                  •   Flesherton & District Farmers Market – December 13, 2025;
                  •   Owen Sound Attack Game, Arthur Arena – January 4, 2026; and
                  •   Grey Bruce Farmers Week – January 7, 2026.
 Surveys          Three surveys were developed on Survey Monkey to gather input
                  from different groups to inform the Study:
                  •   Community survey;
                  •   Employer survey; and
                  •   Councillor survey.
 Rural Transit    Two Regional Councillor Information Sessions were held to share
 101:             information on transit planning, gather input and answer questions
 Councillor       from County Council members:
 Workshops
                  •   Session #1: January 15, 2026 - 6:00 PM to 7:30PM; and
                  •   Session #2: January 29, 2026 – 1:00 PM to 2:30 PM.
 Preliminary      Preliminary options that were developed were presented to each
 Options          County Council and the Board of Directors for SMART to get their
 Presentations    initial feedback. This occurred on the following dates:
 to Council
                  •   Grey County: March 12, 2026;
                  •   Dufferin County: March 12, 2026;
                  •   Bruce County: March 19, 2026;
                  •   SMART Board of Directors: March 19, 2026; and
                  •   Wellington County: March 26, 2026.




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study
September 2026 – 25-2330



6.0 Community Engagement 37


6.2     Challenges and Opportunities
        The detailed feedback gatherer from residents, employers, and community leaders will
        inform the development of a future transit network. This is documented in Appendix D.

        The challenges and opportunities listed below were extracted from the responses
        provided through engagement. These insights reflect the diverse lived experiences and
        perspectives of close to 4,000 participants regarding questions on transit priorities, fare
        structures, and individual needs. By categorizing this feedback, the spectrum of public
        opinion from strong support for regional connectivity to specific concerns such as
        accessibility and transit options is captured.

6.2.1   Challenges

        • Lack of Service in Rural Areas: The majority of respondents (66%) reported using
          "None of the above" when asked about current transit options. Consequently, when
          asked to rate specific service elements, such as fare price, fare payment options,
          frequency, and reliability, for transit the participants have used a service over six
          months, approximately 60% of respondents selected "I don’t know".
        • Reliability & Scheduling: Users of services like RIDE WELL noted they are "rarely
          available at the times I need" or the service is "booked well in advance", and there is
          a lack of transportation options for non-drivers. Others cited a lack of
          communication regarding cancellations due to weather.
        • Vehicle Preference: While the majority of total respondents (67%) own or lease a
          personal vehicle, 14% specifically identified reliable vehicle access as their primary
          reason for not using or intending to use transit services.
        • Shift Work Incompatibility: Traditional transit hours do not align with 12-hour shifts
          (e.g. 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM) or factory work, forcing reliance on personal vehicles.
        • Specialized Needs: Policies that do not allow pets, lack of storage for shopping /
          laundry, and difficulty coordinating travel across multiple organizations prevent use.
        • Priorities: When asked to select their top priorities for a future transit network the
          most selected option was ‘frequent and reliable service to key destinations’ (67%),
          ‘connection to other transit networks’ was the second most selected option (56%),
          and ‘coverage for rural residents’ was third (50%). These priorities show that
          generally geographic coverage is prioritized over service hours or costs.



        Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
        Unified Regional Transit Network Study
        September 2026 – 25-2330



6.0 Community Engagement 38

        • The "Last Mile" Problem: A recurring concern in open comments is the difficulty of
          accessing a bus stop from a rural home as there are not many bus stop options,
          which limits the effectiveness of increased coverage.
        • Accessibility: A need for accessible transit that is inclusive of all ages and disabilities,
          and more transit options as currently options are severely limited.
        • Mennonite/Amish Community Needs: Specific feedback from Mennonite and Amish
          communities requested stops at hubs like Holyrood or Wingham to connect to Barrie
          (Ontario Northland) or Washago (VIA Rail) for travel to northern settlements. They
          emphasized the need for luggage space and non-digital payment options.

6.2.2   Opportunities

        • Schedule Expansion (Evenings & Weekends): Many respondents stated they cannot
          use current services because the hours are too limited. There is a clear opportunity
          to capture shift workers and social riders by extending service into the evenings and
          weekends. Some comments mentioned that current 9-to-5 schedules do not work
          for retail staff, factory shifts, or weekend outings. More frequent and reliable service
          to key destinations is needed.
        • Airport & Hub Connections: Many respondents expressed demand for reliable
          connections to Pearson Airport and GO Train stations (Barrie, Guelph, Kitchener) to
          replace expensive private shuttles or taxis.
        • Restoration & Expansion of Proven Routes: There is some praise for the former GTR
          and the GOST service, suggesting a willing and loyal customer base exists for these
          specific inter-community corridors if they are maintained and optimized. However, a
          few also expressed inconveniences in using GOST which suggests an opportunity to
          improve.
        • Social & Environmental Motivation: Beyond necessity, residents expressed a desire
          to use transit for "excursions, trips, adventures", for environmental reasons such as
          "pollution, traffic congestion", and for travelling to other towns/cities.
        • Youth & Senior Independence: Transit is seen as a vital tool for allowing seniors to
          age in place after losing their licenses and for youth to access jobs / sports without
          relying on parents.
        • Implementation of a Distance-Based or Zone Fare Structure: There is an
          opportunity to move away from a flat fare to a model based on the length of the trip.
          Suggestions include charging "$10 for local under 40 kilometres (km)", using "Zone


        Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
        Unified Regional Transit Network Study
        September 2026 – 25-2330



6.0 Community Engagement 39

  fares", or a structure where "the further the destination, understandably, the more it
  would cost".
• Seamless Integration: Some respondents suggested having one tap card that can be
  used everywhere in the region and a convenient method to refill it.




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study
September 2026 – 25-2330



7.0 Strategic Framework 40


7.0   Strategic Framework
7.1   Transit Vision
      The Vision and Guiding Principles for the Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, and Wellington Unified
      Transit Network were informed by existing municipal policy, direct feedback from
      community engagement, and an analysis of industry best practices.

      The policy review revealed a shared "Regional Mobility Mandate" across the four
      counties, characterized by a focus on growth areas, treating mobility as a form of social
      equity, and multi-modal integration. Engagement with residents and stakeholders also
      highlighted a clear priority; the network must provide reliable connections to key
      destinations, including the GTA, while solving the "first mile/last mile" challenge within
      local communities.

      Based on these foundational findings, the following Vision and Guiding Principles have
      been established. These will serve as the blueprint for the study, directly informing the
      physical design of the route network and the selection of the operational service model.

         Transit Vision: "Connecting Communities: Building a better future
                 through a seamless, multi-modal transit network.”

7.2   Guiding Principles
      To bridge the gap between this vision and actionable strategy, the following guiding
      principles serve as the framework for every decision, ensuring the network remains
      reliable, inclusive, and responsive to the needs of residents within the four counties.

      Equitable and Accessible

                          • Provide residents with greater opportunity to reasonably access
                            transit options
                          • Provide equitable service levels to vulnerable members of the
                            community
                          • Promote accessibility for persons with disabilities
                          • Promote fare equity for low-income households


      Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
      Unified Regional Transit Network Study
      September 2026 – 25-2330



7.0 Strategic Framework 41

      Customer-Driven

                          • Focus on the passenger experience
                          • Create a reliable service
                          • Make it easy to plan trips and pay fares
                          • Provide seamless connections to each county and to
                            interregional services (e.g. GO Transit)
                          • Minimize travel time to key destinations

      Support Ridership Growth and Community Development

                          • Promote ridership growth and reduced reliance on personal auto
                            travel
                          • Integrate with land use and growth plans
                          • Promote economic development and the ability to attract and
                            support visitors

      Environmental Sustainability

                          • Reduce duplication of services that would contribute to
                            additional GHG emissions
                          • Promote eventual transition to hybrid/zero-emission vehicles
                          • Minimize deadheading and increase boardings per RSH

      Fiscal Responsibility

                          • Balance financial cost with ridership and other benefits
                          • Take advantage of unused capacity to reduce duplication of
                            services, infrastructure, facilities, etc.
                          • Equitable contributions of municipal investment, so each
                            municipality is paying their share based on the level of service
                          • Take advantage of future funding sources for long-term
                            operations

7.3   Multi-Modal Approach to Service
      Based on these principles, the plan proposes a multi-modal approach that provides a
      high-level of geographical coverage while also providing services that encourage


      Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
      Unified Regional Transit Network Study
      September 2026 – 25-2330



7.0 Strategic Framework 42

grouped trips to maintain low costs and reduce carbon emissions per passenger. For
most passengers, this is delivered through various types of services, including:

Public Transit Services

• Fixed-Route Inter-Community Service: These routes function as the "spine" of the
  network, providing higher capacity fixed-route services that operate on set
  schedules and established routes between major settlement areas and urban
  municipalities for long-distance commuters and inter-county travelers.
• Fixed-Route Commuter Service: These are more frequent, but shorter, inter-
  community routes that connect one-to-two settlement areas to a larger urban
  centre to allow passengers to access work, education, and other opportunities for
  daily travel. In some cases, these routes use the same stops and routes as the inter-
  community service but operate along only a short portion of the corridor to increase
  the number of trips per day.
• Local Fixed-Route Transit: In dense urban areas, fixed-route transit moves high
  volumes of passengers between designated bus stops along local corridors. These
  routes act as local connections to the inter-community service, allowing riders to
  easily reach the stops, completing the first or last portion of their journey. A journey
  is all the segments involved in their trip, such as walking to a stop, riding a local
  fixed-route bus, transferring to inter-community service, and any final travel to reach
  their end location. While these types of services may be independent of the Unified
  Transit Network, they are an important part of the broader transit network and
  efforts should be made to integrate fares and services.
• On-Demand Transit: On-demand service provides a more flexible alternative in low-
  density areas by only operating when and where a trip is requested within a defined
  zone. This model offers first-mile/last-mile connectivity directly from local doorsteps
  to the inter-community network without the high municipal cost of maintaining
  fixed-routes that do not see consistent use. There are typically service zones that
  focus on connecting passengers to the closest fixed-route or to a local destination.
  To maintain a high level of efficiency on-demand transit is often limited to small
  zones to reduce the distance required to travel between passengers. Long-distance
  trips are therefore not permitted. These can also be provided as co-mingled service,
  which combines the local on-demand and specialized services, by using the same



Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study
September 2026 – 25-2330



7.0 Strategic Framework 43

  vehicle to provide door-to-door trips to all passengers or using private operators
  such as taxis or ridesharing companies in partnership with local municipalities.
• Specialized Service: The AODA mandates that all passengers, regardless of their
  abilities, must have equal access to services. Therefore, for passengers who are
  unable to utilize these conventional services due to a disability, specialized services
  are provided. Registration is typically required to use the service, demonstrating that
  a customer’s disability prevents them from using conventional transit. Specialized
  services offer door-to-door trips using accessible vehicles, reducing the barriers to
  access.

Non-Profit and Private Sector Integration Opportunities

• Community Transportation / Medical Transportation: This type of service is
  typically provided by non-profit agencies that are funded through the Ministry of
  Health. Agencies provide door-to-door transportation, primarily focused on medical
  rides or access to adult day programs for persons with disabilities and/or seniors
  (similar to specialized transit service). This is delivered through a combination of paid
  and volunteer drivers.
• Taxi and Ridesharing: These services typically provide individual curb-to-curb rides
  where passengers pay a fare based on the kilometres travelled. Unfortunately, these
  vehicles are typically not accessible and are not always available in rural areas
  because there is not enough demand to make them viable. However, where there is
  high demand for transit, these types of transportation can supplement the transit
  service. This allows people to choose an option that works for them. If passengers
  find that the high demand for any of the above services results in long wait times, or
  if the ride is not direct enough to meet their needs, they can elect to take a more
  personalized trip using these private sector alternatives.
• Private Inter-Community Coach Service (FlixBus): These for-profit inter-community
  services typically operate between urban centres. The schedules are based on higher
  population demand and fares are typically higher to off-set costs. As such, these
  services are typically taken by passengers for infrequent discretionary trips. Within
  the Unified Transit Network, FlixBus operates long-distance, inter-city routes,
  connecting major hubs such as Port Elgin, Owen Sound, Meaford, and Collingwood
  to larger urban centres such as Barrie and Toronto. There is an opportunity to
  coordinate with existing private-sector carriers that operate through the study area.


Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study
September 2026 – 25-2330



7.0 Strategic Framework 44

   This could involve scheduling publicly funded routes around inter-city carriers (to
   create more options), investigating a fare-subsidy partnership to allow the route to
   be used for more frequent trips, or coordinating on-demand services to connect to
   stops within the Unified Transit Network. This type of public-private partnership
   would allow the counties to expand regional connectivity and preserve private
   business without incurring the significant capital and operating costs of running
   duplicate municipal buses.

It is recommended that the MSB use a family of services approach when combining the
above services into a single unified network to transport residents of all ages and
abilities from their homes to jobs, education, healthcare, etc. Family of services systems
encourage passengers to transfer, when possible, to fixed-route services to maximize
the number of people using a vehicle for longer distance trips, reducing the
environmental impact and costs. The two elements of this family of services approach
are regional fixed-routes (inter-community and commuter) and commingled on-demand
transit.




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study
September 2026 – 25-2330



8.0 Governance Strategy 45


8.0   Governance Strategy
      Appendix D includes a detailed governance report which assesses the potential
      governance models that were considered to create a Unified Transit Network across
      Bruce, Dufferin, Grey and Wellington counties. The governance structure is intended to
      best support implementation of the recommended service strategy, the inclusion of
      SMART as well as the role of other transit services within the Region.

      The goal of a regional governance structure is to eliminate the burden on the rider, so
      passengers perceive the network as a single regional service. It also ensures decisions
      are made in a centralized manner, while still maintaining local input and accountability
      in decision-making. Key integration considerations include:

      • Integrated fare schedules and systems so that passengers can use the same
        technology across transportation services to pay their fare, and that there are free
        transfers or co-fares between providers.
      • Integrated wayfinding so passengers can easily find information on schedules,
        service bulletins, or trip planning.
      • Integrated brand so passengers recognize they are part of a unified network, even
        when transferring between different service providers.
      • Integrated schedules so passengers are not left waiting for connecting buses for
        unreasonable amounts of time.
      • Integrated booking technology for on-demand and/or specialized trips, allowing for
        seamless usage across the entire region.
      • Integrated urban and rural connections allowing for centralized, walkable, well-
        connected transfer points with adequate amenities.
      • Integrated passenger and operator expectations so that there are uniform
        standards for behaviours, customer service, and respect across all services in the
        region.
      • Integrated service planning so transit services provide access to destinations of
        regional significance, including the City of Owen Sound, the Town of Orangeville, the
        Town of Collingwood, the City of Guelph, and the GTHA.

      Integration from the service operator perspective ensures resources and efforts are
      optimized across all coordinated service types, including:


      Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
      Unified Regional Transit Network Study
      September 2026 – 25-2330



8.0 Governance Strategy 46

• Integrated planning processes working towards one cohesive vision and goal,
  minimizing the duplication of work, analysis, and efforts.
• Integrated accountability and monitoring processes, ensuring each component of
  the services being provided is meeting established benchmarks for service delivery.
• Integrated standards for transportation service, including accessibility, on-time
  performance, passenger experience, fleet maintenance, etc., which all allow for cost
  savings through efficiencies and shared resources.

The responsibilities of the Board, individual Councils, and the contractor (who would
operate the service), is highlighted in Table 9 below:

Table 9: Governance Responsibilities

           Board                         Councils                    Contractor
   Network planning and        Adoption of enabling by-laws     Daily service delivery
     service integration
    Budget and financial          Appointment of Board            Vehicle and asset
           planning                      members                    maintenance
 Cost allocation and funding     Approval of core annual        Legislative and safety
       administration          funding (annual financial and         compliance
                                three-year strategic plans)
     Procurement and           Approval of major structural              N/A
         contracting                     changes
   Performance Oversight                   N/A                           N/A

The MSB governance model also identifies a cost and funding allocation model for each
participating county. The model balances fairness, simplicity, and predictability. The
structure identifies how costs are allocated between participating counties, including:

• Overhead Costs: shared between partners;
• Bus infrastructure: Each partner pays for infrastructure and snow removal in their
  own jurisdiction;
• Fixed-route operating costs: based on service hours provided in each county, along
  with an administrative cost that is shared; and
• On-demand or taxi/rideshare service: based on the allocation within each county.




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study
September 2026 – 25-2330



8.0 Governance Strategy 47

      Revenue generated by the Unified Transit Network could include:

      • Fare and advertising revenue;
      • Provincial Gas Tax and Ontario Transit Investment Fund revenue; and
      • Grants and donations.

8.1   Recommended Structure: Joint Municipal Services Board (MSB)
      Several governance models were assessed. Based on the evaluation of governance
      options, the recommended governance structure for the Unified Transit Network is the
      establishment of a Four-County Regional Transit Services Board in the form of a Joint
      Municipal Services Board. This model provides a formal mechanism for Grey, Bruce,
      Dufferin, and Wellington counties to jointly govern a Unified Transit Network, while
      retaining appropriate council oversight through delegated authority, board
      appointments, and defined reporting requirements. The framework is intentionally
      structured to support scalable growth, allowing additional partners to be incorporated
      over time through standardized by-law and participation mechanisms, without
      restructuring the core governance model.




      Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
      Unified Regional Transit Network Study
      September 2026 – 25-2330



9.0 Service Design Guidelines 48


9.0   Service Design Guidelines
      Building on the vision and guiding principles established in the strategic framework,
      service design guidelines were developed for the Unified Transit Network. Since the
      family of services approach is recommended the design guidelines focus on the two
      main service types; regional fixed-routes and commingled on-demand transit.

      These guidelines provide structure and transparency to the decision-making process by
      translating the guiding principles into actions.

9.1   Regional Fixed-Routes
      The role of the regional fixed-routes (both inter-community and commuter) is to
      connect municipalities within the service area to a direct and convenient service, while
      focusing resources on corridors that will yield the highest ridership (return on
      investment). The guidelines below focus on maintaining the directness of service,
      connecting to transit services in adjacent municipalities that further extend the regional
      network, and providing a level of service that is both aligned with the existing demand
      and encourages future growth.

      Route Selection

      Routes should be designed to be as direct as possible between two or more urban
      municipalities or large settlement areas. To minimize delays and trip cancellations,
      routes are therefore prioritized along provincial highways and primary county roads,
      which perform as arterial roads and benefit from higher standards of maintenance
      ensuring a dependable, direct service for daily commuters.

      Deviation from a direct path should only be made to accommodate connectivity to
      another settlement area, if this deviation does not increase travel time by more than
      20% from a direct path.

      Route selection and stop placement should be designed to provide connection to
      external transit systems (such as GO Transit, Simcoe LINX, and local municipal
      networks).




      Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
      Unified Regional Transit Network Study
      September 2026 – 25-2330



9.0 Service Design Guidelines 49

Routing Deviations within Settlement/Urban Areas

Routing deviations within urban settlement areas apply only for regional destination
hubs such as hospitals, post secondary campuses, GO Transit transfer hubs, or major
employment centres. Proposed deviations should consider the impact on safety,
ridership, and schedule.

Frequency

Inter-community routes should operate a minimum of four trips a day. Commuter
routes can operate more frequently to accommodate the higher travel demand for
these routes. These should target a trip every 60 minutes (min), during high-demand
periods, which can be integrated with an inter-community route if they operate on the
same corridor.

Hours of Service

Routes should operate, at minimum, on weekdays between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM,
excluding on statutory holidays. A longer service window can also better accommodate
long distance trips. Expansion of these service hours could be considered for each route
to:

• Provide improved connections to GO Transit or local transit services.
• Connect with major employers where the existing service hours cannot
  accommodate access to a shift time that is just outside of the core hours of service
  and demand is expected to be high.
• Provide service to a post-secondary or secondary school where the existing service
  hours do not allow students to connect to a class or after school activity that is just
  outside of the core service hours and is expected to have a high demand for transit.
• Connect visitors in the region to common tourist areas (e.g. expand to weekend
  service).

Connectivity and Bus Stop Location Selection

Bus stops should be located such that they:

• Create a congruous connection to a network of sidewalks or accessible trails that
  connect areas of the community to the proposed bus stop.



Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study
September 2026 – 25-2330



9.0 Service Design Guidelines 50

• Are adjacent to active transportation facilities if possible.
• Are shared with or adjacent to a local transit service stop to facilitate connections
  between the services.
• Are spaced at least 1 kilometre apart and in general, no more than three bus stops
  per direction should be in each settlement area to maintain the regional role of the
  route.

Bus Stop Amenities

Bus stops should:

• Include a bus stop sign with appropriate passenger information, such as the route
  name and/or number, stop identification, system branding, and accessibility
  information.
• Where on-demand connections are available to complete a passenger's journey,
  booking information should also be provided at the stop.

Where feasible, and focused on high demand stops, bus stops should also:

• Prioritize locations that are compliant with the AODA, including the use of an
  unobstructed hard surface landing pad, that connects to the aforementioned
  pathways in a barrier-free way.
• Include comfortable waiting areas; including a bench, shelter (based on design
  guidelines), and/or trees and other natural features to create comfortable, shaded,
  and aesthetically pleasing waiting areas for transit riders where shelters are not
  viable.

Accessibility

Accessibility is a key guiding principle. As such all inter-community fixed-route vehicles
should be fully accessible, allowing for persons to travel in their wheelchairs.

The family of services approach requires that all passengers can complete connected
trips without experiencing barriers related to their accessibility mid-trip. Therefore, the
level of accessibility should remain consistent across services.




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study
September 2026 – 25-2330



9.0 Service Design Guidelines 51


9.2   Commingled On-Demand and Specialized Transit Service Guidelines
      The primary function of the commingled service within the Unified Transit Network is to
      provide first mile/last mile connection that allows residents to access the fixed-routes.
      The guidelines below focus on creating a commingled network that can accommodate
      the necessary trips to make the fixed-route effective, while efficiently utilizing available
      resources. This only applies to trips that connect to fixed-route services or local travel
      (should the MSB decide to provide local on-demand transit services).

      Service Area

      • On-demand transit zones restrict travel to a certain area to reduce deadheading. On-
        demand zones should be small enough to not duplicate trips provided by the fixed-
        route service. Passengers should only be allowed to travel curb-to-curb within the
        zone or else travel to the nearest fixed-route stop to continue their journey outside
        of the zone. This serves to encourage grouped trips for long distance travel, reducing
        deadheading, while maintaining the local travel functionality. It is recommended in
        this case that these zones be defined by the local municipal boundaries.
      • Specialized transit passengers who are unable to transfer to the fixed-route service
        to complete their trip would continue to use the specialized transit service. This trip
        would be limited to the larger specialized transit service area.
      • Travel outside of the region is not considered to be part of this service. It can
        continue to be operated for specialized clients but would be considered a separate
        service level with guidelines not defined by this plan.

      Booking Window

      • On-demand passengers should have the ability to book a ride within 3 days of their
        desired trip time (recommend at least 3 hours prior to desired pick-up).
      • Specialized bookings should be permitted 14 days in advance to ensure that
        residents with non-discretionary, life-sustaining medical needs have prioritized
        access to essential services.

      Hours of Service

      • On-demand transit should be provided within the same hours as the specialized
        transit service.



      Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
      Unified Regional Transit Network Study
      September 2026 – 25-2330



9.0 Service Design Guidelines 52

• On-demand/ specialized trips connected to fixed-routes should be available up to
  one hour before the first fixed-route trip and one-hour after the fixed-route trip,
  based on passenger trip requests.
• Consideration should be made to extending hours if required to connect to an inter-
  community or commuter fixed-route service.

Stop Locations

• The on-demand service would operate curb-to-curb within a rural area. This means
  that passengers would be dropped off at the curb or roadside adjacent to their
  destination. Exceptions would be made where the vehicle has no safe place to stop
  on the road (e.g. on a highway or road with speed limits over 60 kilometres per hour
  [km/h]).
• Where there is no reasonable place to stop at the curb of the road, alternative stops
  can be considered that are on assumed roads/laneways, are well lit, accessible,
  cleared from snow and ice, and have space for a vehicle to safely accesses and egress
  without requiring a vehicle to back-up.
• Permanent on-demand stops should be placed at key destinations, including inter-
  community bus route stops, grocery stores, hospitals, major employers, etc., to both
  group passengers at these large facilities and highlight connectivity to the inter-
  community routes.

Bus Stop Amenities

• Where possible, permanent on-demand stops should be placed in areas with a hard
  surface and access to a sidewalk to improve accessibility.

Accessibility

• As noted above, the family of services approach requires that passengers are not
  inhibited mid-journey due to their disability, therefore, to provide a barrier free
  journey, accessible vehicle options should be available in all areas with on-demand
  service.

Expected Wait Time

• Passengers requesting a trip should be able to receive a trip within 3 hours of their
  desired travel time. This aligns with the frequency onthe fixed-route services. While


Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study
September 2026 – 25-2330



9.0 Service Design Guidelines 53

  the operator will work towards achieving this standard, this does not guarantee a
  trip will be available.
• Once the trip time is confirmed, on-demand vehicles should arrive to pick up
  passengers within 10 minutes of the provided pick-up time.
• On-demand vehicles should wait 5 minutes for a passenger to arrive before deeming
  the trip a no-show.




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study
September 2026 – 25-2330



10.0 Service Plan 54


10.0   Service Plan
       The recommended transit service plan utilizes a tiered approach to delivering a Unified
       Transit Network, balancing immediate mobility needs with long-term scalability. The
       two tiers include a base service plan and enhanced service options, each made up of
       fixed-route, commingled on-demand, and specialized transit elements.

       The base service plan includes the fundamental elements required to establish a
       functional Unified Transit Network. This focuses on meeting the primary mobility needs
       of residents, achieving reasonable cost recovery, and addressing the requirements of
       the AODA. The base service plan aims to meet these needs at a minimal cost.
       Implementation of this level of service requires consensus and approval from the four
       counties that form the MSB and the SMART Board (who will be a key operator of the
       commingled on-demand service).

       Enhanced service options provide additional elements that individual county partners
       can add to the regional network to improve mobility options. These options introduce
       services that primarily benefit a specific county, or address localized mobility gaps,
       without requiring universal adoption across the entire study area.

       Since the base service is designed with long-term sustainability in mind, the cost of this
       level of service does not maximize the funding provided through OTIF. Elements of the
       enhanced plan can be added using OTIF funding, however there should be a long-term
       commitment to these elements beyond the remaining funding horizon.

       The following sections describe the recommended base service plan and enhanced
       service elements.

10.1   Base Transit Service Plan
       The base transit service plan establishes the foundational requirements for the delivery
       of a unified regional transit network across Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, and Wellington
       counties. This plan prioritizes cross-boundary connectivity and operational integration
       to provide long-term sustainability of the regional system. Elements that primarily serve
       a single municipality are excluded from the initial scope to maintain a regional focus.




       Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
       Unified Regional Transit Network Study
       September 2026 – 25-2330



10.0 Service Plan 55

The base transit service plan includes eight primary recommendations:

1. Develop Integrated Service Standards: Establish regional expectations for
   performance, accessibility, and service design to ensure transparent decision-making
   and consistent service quality across the four-county area.
2. Introduce Primary Inter-Community Fixed-Routes: Implement a spine network of
   inter-community routes operated by a single contractor to connect key settlement
   areas and major destinations.
3. Introduce a Supplemental Commuter Fixed-Route in Dufferin County: Implement a
   shorter commuter route that would add frequency between Shelburne and
   Orangeville and introduce an important connection to Grand Valley.
4. Introduce a Seasonal Summer Service in Bruce County: Implement a summer
   seasonal route to key tourism destinations such as Sauble Beach and Lion’s head,
   also providing access to First Nations.
5. Provide On-Demand Service Connected to Fixed-Routes: Explore the potential to
   contract Saugeen Mobility and Regional Transit (SMART) to provide commingled on-
   demand service within their service area, utilizing any extra capacity to connect
   passengers to the fixed-route spine. This would require the SMART Board to modify
   their mandate to deliver commingled on-demand transit trips. Explore the potential
   to supplement service with contracted taxi / rideshare as required.
6. Centralize Trip Booking and Scheduling: Support SMART to upgrade its scheduling
   software platform to support commingled and integrated trips within Bruce, Grey
   and Dufferin. This includes working with specialized transit and community
   transportation providers in the region (including Wellington County) to assess
   participation in a centralized dispatch and booking partnership.
7. Integrate Fare Structure: Standardize fares and payment technology across all
   participating counties for ease of use for passengers.
8. Incentivize Introduction of Taxi/Ridesharing Services: Develop a standardized
   regional ridesharing and taxi by-law. This framework allows for the introduction of
   private-sector mobility providers and ensures they can operate across municipal
   boundaries to increase overall transportation options for residents. It will also
   support the use of taxis / ridesharing companies to provide on-demand service
   connected to fixed-route stops.




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study
September 2026 – 25-2330



10.0 Service Plan 56

10.1.1   Base Service Recommendation 1: Integrated Service Standards
         One of the first steps in moving towards a Unified Transit Network is to create standards
         that structure how each service will operate and how they will connect. Building on the
         initial service design guidelines discussed in Section 9.0 to draft this network, the MSB
         must develop a formal service standard and bus stop design document that includes all
         services under its jurisdiction.

         Service standards provide measurable benchmarks that guide planning, performance
         monitoring, and resource allocation. They also lead to transparent decision-making,
         ensuring all decisions to modify or expand transit fits within a MSB-approved, public
         document rather than relying solely on high-level guidelines.

         Recommendation

         It is recommended that the MSB develop service standards and accompanying
         performance measures that:

         • Define the role and function of each type of service, minimize overlaps, and ensure
           effective use of resources.
         • Establish minimum requirements for accessibility features, service hours, and
           passenger amenities to ensure equitable and accessible services.
         • Create consistency in how passengers experience their entire transit journey by
           reducing fragmentation and improving coordination of transfers, fares, information
           and operating hours.
         • Identify common triggers for service modification and consolidate knowledge and
           best practice sharing between all municipalities providing transit.
         • Set clear metrics to monitor performance, including on-time performance of routes,
           productivity, and vehicle crowding.
         • Function as an approved policy that allows for service modifications and adjustments
           without requiring subsequent approval from each member county, enabling the MSB
           to make changes that do not have significant funding implications.




         Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
         Unified Regional Transit Network Study
         September 2026 – 25-2330



10.0 Service Plan 57

10.1.2   Base Service Recommendation 2: Introduce Primary Inter-Community Fixed-Route
         Corridors

         There are four provincial highways that traverse the study area: Highways 6, 10, 21, and
         26. These highways already act as geographic and economic spines, naturally connecting
         many of the region's key urban centres and settlement areas. Because these highways
         historically link populations to employment centres, healthcare, and education, they
         provide the most practical and intuitive framework for a regional transit network.

         These corridors also maximize connectivity with both local and inter-regional transit
         systems. By linking directly to the GO Transit network, Orangeville Transit, Guelph
         Transit, Owen Sound Transit, Simcoe LINX, and Colltrans, the plan ensures residents
         have access to destinations within and beyond the four counties.

         Using these corridors and the service design guidelines established in Section 9.0, three
         primary routes were developed. These routes serve as the foundation for the regional
         network:

         • Owen Sound to Guelph;
         • Wiarton to Orangeville; and
         • Kincardine to Collingwood.

         The three primary inter-community fixed-routes are depicted in Figure 3.

         Since the three routes converge in Owen Sound, the Owen Sound Transit Hub serves as
         a natural connection point between routes, creating a centralized location for
         passengers to transfer. This allows for seamless travel between the counties of Bruce,
         Dufferin, Grey and Wellington. In general, it is not expected that passengers will
         regularly travel long distances across an entire route but rather will travel on shorter
         segments of a given route. However, the service plan must consider connectivity
         between services when longer distance travel is required.




         Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
         Unified Regional Transit Network Study
         September 2026 – 25-2330



10.0 Service Plan 58

Figure 3: Primary Inter-Community Fixed-Routes




In low frequency services such as these (four trips per day), disconnected schedules can
result in passengers waiting for several hours to continue their journey, reducing the
usefulness of the service. Transit agencies operating this kind of service will often create
a pulse schedule where all routes are scheduled to arrive and depart from the central



Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study
September 2026 – 25-2330



10.0 Service Plan 59

           connection point at the same time, with a slight delay to allow passengers time to
           transfer between the routes. Because operator wages are the most expensive part of
           providing transit, it is more cost-effective to keep a vehicle in active service than to pay
           for unproductive layover time. Designing routes to have a similar overall travel time
           optimizes this model by reducing the amount of time a given route spends sitting idle
           out of service. As shown in Table 10, the expected trip times for all three routes are
           closely aligned, which is essential for maintaining this synchronized pulse.

           Recommendation

           It is recommended that the three inter-community fixed-routes identified in Figure 3 be
           implemented, replacing the existing GOST and GTR routes. The operating parameters
           for these three routes are summarized in Table 10.

           Table 10: Inter-Community Fixed-Route Service Parameters

            Service Parameter          Route 1 -                Route 2 -              Route 3 -
                                     Owen Sound to             Wiarton to            Kincardine to
                                        Guelph                 Orangeville           Collingwood
            Vehicles                    2 vehicles         2 vehicles         2 vehicles
            One Way Trip Time        140 to 150 min     145 to 160 min     150 to 165 min
            Service Days                Monday to          Monday to          Monday to
                                         Saturday           Saturday           Saturday
            Hours of Service       7:00 AM to 7:00 PM 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM
            Frequency                 2.5 to 3 hours,    2.5 to 3 hours,    2.5 to 3 hours,
                                       with 2 buses       with 2 buses       with 2 buses
            Daily Trips                       4                  4                  4
            Expected BPH                   3 to 7             4 to 6             3 to 5

10.1.2.1   Route 1 - Owen Sound to Guelph
           This regional route serves as a primary north-south spine for the Unified Transit
           Network, connecting the City of Owen Sound and the City of Guelph. As the two largest
           urban centres in the study area, these cities generate significant travel demand.
           Operating along the Highway 6 corridor, this route provides connectivity between Grey
           County and Wellington County, servicing key settlement areas such as Durham, Mount
           Forest, and Fergus. The full proposed route is illustrated in Figure 4.




           Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
           Unified Regional Transit Network Study
           September 2026 – 25-2330



10.0 Service Plan 60

Figure 4: Route 1 - Owen Sound to Guelph




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study
September 2026 – 25-2330



10.0 Service Plan 61

           The proposed route replaces the existing GOST route, enhancing the level of service by
           doubling the frequency from two to four daily round trips. By allocating two vehicles to
           this corridor, the time between trips is reduced, providing a more attractive transit
           service. These shorter headways allow passengers making short local or long-distance
           regional trips to complete their journeys in a timelier fashion, reducing the need to
           spend the entire day at their destination awaiting a return trip.

           To follow the service design guidelines established in Section 9.0, a route adjustment
           has also been made between Fergus and Guelph. While the existing GOST service
           includes a stop in Elora, this has been removed from the primary inter-community
           route. The Township of Centre Wellington recently completed a transit feasibility study
           which includes a recommended central terminal in downtown Fergus where all
           proposed local routes will connect. If the local hub and transit service are implemented,
           this change will reduce the travel time on the inter-community route and allow the
           spine network to remain focused on direct travel between major urban centres.

           The southern terminus of this route is located at Guelph Central Station, providing riders
           with direct connections to Guelph Transit, the GO Transit network, and VIA Rail
           passenger services.

           While the service should be designed to connect with GO Transit trips where possible,
           synchronization with specific rail departures is not the primary priority of the schedule.
           GO Transit currently operates at high frequencies, with trains running every 30 to 60
           minutes in the peak direction during peak periods, with less frequent service during the
           off-peak and reverse peak direction. This service is planned to increase over the long-
           term, with a goal of two-way all-day service. VIA Rail offers regional, long-distance
           options along the Sarnia-to-Toronto corridor.

           Because external rail networks adjust their schedules independently and frequently, the
           regional route will focus on maintaining its own reliable, consistent timing, allowing
           passengers to dependably leverage the broader rail network for seamless onward travel
           to the Greater Toronto Area, the Region of Waterloo, and beyond.

10.1.2.2   Route 2 - Wiarton to Orangeville

           This route follows the Highway 10 corridor, facilitating regional mobility between the
           City of Owen Sound and the Town of Orangeville while also connecting Wiarton to the


           Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
           Unified Regional Transit Network Study
           September 2026 – 25-2330



10.0 Service Plan 62

wider network. By integrating the service areas of the legacy GTR Route 1 (Owen Sound
to Dundalk), existing Route 2 (Dundalk to Orangeville), and legacy Route 5 (Wiarton to
Owen Sound), this route eliminates the requirement for passengers to transfer at
Dundalk or Owen Sound. The proposed route is illustrated in Figure 5.

Figure 5: Route 2 - Wiarton to Orangeville




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study
September 2026 – 25-2330



10.0 Service Plan 63

It should be noted that this route change would reduce the level of service between
Dundalk and Orangeville compared to the previous service. While this change aligns
with the travel demand between Dundalk and Shelburne, where passenger boardings
are about 25% lower than the Shelburne to Orangeville section, additional trips may be
required between Shelburne and Orangeville. To accommodate this, the addition of a
commuter route between Shelburne and Grand Valley is recommended as a
supplemental service (Section 10.1.3).

While the segment between Wiarton and Owen Sound historically experienced low
ridership demand, extending the route beyond Owen Sound to Wiarton is a strategic
choice. This extension optimizes vehicle use by aligning the travel time of this corridor
with the other primary routes in the regional network. This creates a reliable transfer at
the Owen Sound hub and provides residents on the Bruce Peninsula with a direct, one-
seat ride to destinations south of Owen Sound. This convenience makes the transit
system more attractive, encouraging increased ridership.

As the route travels through the Owen Sound transit hub, it provides a centralized
connection point to local Owen Sound Transit services and the other inter-regional
corridors. To maximize the utility of the transfer, the schedule of this route should be
designed to prioritize the connection between Orangeville and the Kincardine to
Collingwood route. This coordination ensures that passengers traveling along the
primary east-west and north-south spines of the network have a reliable and efficient
transfer point. A potential deviation to service Georgian College could also be
considered to support post-secondary student mobility, provided the additional travel
time does not compromise the primary connections at the hub or the ability to maintain
the headway.

In Orangeville, the route is designed to maximize regional connectivity by stopping in
the commercial area near the Orangeville Shopping Centre, and the downtown transit
hub. This configuration provides direct access to a major employment and retail
destination while facilitating a vital link to the inter-regional GO Bus network. Since GO
Transit operates at a lower frequency in Orangeville, the regional schedule should
prioritize alignment with GO Bus departures and arrival windows where feasible. This
coordination is essential to facilitating onward travel to Brampton and the broader
Greater Toronto Area (GTA).



Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study
September 2026 – 25-2330



10.0 Service Plan 64

10.1.2.3   Route 3 - Kincardine to Collingwood
           This inter-community corridor follows Highway 21 and Highway 26 corridors, connecting
           the major urban hubs of Bruce County —Kincardine, Port Elgin, and Southampton —
           directly to Owen Sound and continues east through Meaford and The Blue Mountains to
           the Town of Collingwood. The route serves as a link between Bruce, Grey, and Simcoe
           counties, providing access to regional employment, tourism destinations, and inter-
           regional transit hubs.

           A primary strategic function of this route is establishing access to major regional
           employment hubs. To facilitate this, the service includes a potential stop at the Bruce
           Power Visitor Centre to serve as a logical transfer point to Bruce Power. Access to the
           secure facility itself would require further discussions with this employer. By providing a
           reliable transit connection between Kincardine and surrounding settlement areas, the
           service supports workforce mobility for one of the region's largest employers. The
           proposed Bruce C Project will create significant employment growth in the area, which
           may see a growth in ridership for new residents or to access the site.

           Within The Blue Mountains, the route should also deviate and include a stop near Blue
           Mountain Village to provide direct access to both employment and visitor activities.

           This route also addresses specific demographic requirements identified during the
           engagement phase. In particular, the Mennonite and Amish communities in Bruce
           County expressed a desire for transit access to the City of Barrie. By providing a direct
           connection to the eastern terminus in Collingwood, these residents can complete their
           journey via a transfer in Collingwood to Simcoe LINX.




           Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
           Unified Regional Transit Network Study
           September 2026 – 25-2330



10.0 Service Plan 65



Figure 6: Route 3 - Kincardine to Collingwood




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study
September 2026 – 25-2330



10.0 Service Plan 66

           The Kincardine to Collingwood route is proposed to provide four daily round trips. This
           frequency is intended to address localized travel demand, such as commutes from
           Meaford to Owen Sound and the high-volume transit corridor between The Blue
           Mountains and Collingwood. To ensure regional efficiency, the service should be
           scheduled to complement, rather than conflict with existing FlixBus operations.

           The eastern terminus at the Collingwood transit terminal is intended to facilitate further
           inter-regional connectivity. By providing a direct link to local Colltrans and the Simcoe
           County LINX system, the network provides connections to Wasaga Beach, Barrie, and
           the broader Simcoe County region.

10.1.2.4   Coordination with FlixBus
           Currently, FlixBus operates a service between Owen Sound and Toronto with stops in
           Meaford, Thornbury, Blue Mountain Village, and Collingwood. The service operates one
           trip a day, with westbound run departing from Collingwood at 9:50 AM and an
           eastbound run departing from Owen Sound at 8:15 AM on select days of the week, and
           2:15 PM most days. The service also extends to Port Elgin, Southampton, Sauble Beach,
           and Hepworth during the summer months.

           The fare for this service between Collingwood and Owen Sound varies by day of the
           week, when the trip is booked, and the options selected (e.g. the seat selected). Fares
           range between $10.00 and $20.00 and is subject to seat availability.

           Since this route duplicates a portion of Route 3 (Kincardine to Collingwood), there is an
           opportunity to explore integration with FlixBus, increasing the number of trips operating
           along the eastern portion of the proposed route, thereby adding capacity without
           adding cost.

           There is potential to explore reducing the number of trips on Route 3 by beginning
           discussions with FlixBus to replace one of the four proposed trips with a FlixBus trip.
           However, this would add additional complexities as these trips may not align with the
           pulse schedule planned for Owen Sound and would therefore add transfer delays for
           passengers between routes. Since the western portion of the route (west of Owen
           Sound) is also not served by FlixBus, a long layover would be required to maintain four
           daily round trips between Kincardine and Owen Sound, making it difficult for staff
           drivers to operate the service.


           Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
           Unified Regional Transit Network Study
           September 2026 – 25-2330



10.0 Service Plan 67

         To integrate the FlixBus trips into the regional service, it is recommended that the MSB
         explore opportunities for the FlixBus trip(s) to be added to the Route 3 schedule. This
         would provide five to six trip options between Port Elgin and Collingwood during the
         summer (via Sauble Beach) and between Owen Sound and Collingwood the rest of the
         year. If Flixbus agrees, it is recommended that the service be evaluated at an increased
         frequency for two years to assess the ridership on both the FlixBus route and Route 3 to
         identify the best utilized trips. If ridership is found to not meet minimum thresholds on
         Route 3, the MSB should begin discussions with FlixBus to explore the opportunity to
         reduce the number of trips on Route 3 between Owen Sound and Collingwood by either
         operating the portion to Kincardine as a stand-alone route, or working with FlixBus to
         assess their ability to extend their route to Kincardine (effectively replicating Route 3).

         For this to occur, the MSB and FlixBus would need to enter into an agreement to
         discuss:

         1. Ridership data for trips between Collingwood and Port Elgin;
         2. Make the FlixBus trips visible to passengers via trip planning applications by
            providing Google Transit Feed Specification schedule data to Google (allowing
            customers to plan a trip using FlixBus as part of the overall network)
         3. Explore a joint opportunity with FlixBus to subsidize fares for trips within Grey and
            Bruce County so the passenger portion does not exceed the recommended inter-
            community transit fare (see Section 10.1.8); and
         4. Jointly draft a communication plan to ensure passengers using FlixBus receive
            adequate notice of any change in schedule and communication of missed trips or trip
            cancellations.

         Exploring the option for a two-year trial would allow the MSB to understand how
         effective this partnership could be while maintaining a consistent and reliable schedule
         of four daily trips provided on Route 3. The potential for cost savings would then be
         carried over in 2030, when OTIF funding is no longer available.

10.1.3   Base Service Recommendation 3: Introduce Commuter Fixed-Route between Grand
         Valley and Shelburne via Orangeville (Route 4)

         This connector route would operate entirely within Dufferin County to serve the rapidly
         growing communities of Shelburne and Grand Valley, both of which demonstrate strong
         travel demand toward Orangeville and the GTHA.

         Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
         Unified Regional Transit Network Study
         September 2026 – 25-2330



10.0 Service Plan 68

The existing GTR route that operates between Dundalk and Orangeville provides eight
daily roundtrips, with a higher travel demand between Shelburne to Orangeville rather
than Dundalk to Orangeville (25% higher boardings occur in Shelburne over Dundalk).
Since the proposed cross-boundary inter-community route between Owen Sound and
Orangeville (Route 2) is only recommended to operate four times daily, a service
reduction would occur on the Shelburne to Orangeville segment.

This commuter route bridges that gap, ensuring frequency is maintained where demand
is highest and extends the service to Grand Valley to support the expected travel
demand.

Recommendation

The proposed commuter route is illustrated in Figure 7. This map does not illustrate the
specific localized stops within each community. While this map depicts the primary
regional corridor and key timing points, the service is designed to include five to six
stops in Shelburne and three to four stops in Grand Valley to maximize coverage and
minimize walking distances for residents. An additional stop can be considered in Mono
just north of Orangeville.

The route is strategically designed to pick up residents via local stops in Shelburne
before traveling south to Orangeville. Within Orangeville, stops should be located near
major commercial centers and the downtown transit hub (which will have a future
connection to the GO Bus route). To support regional economic health, the service also
includes the flexibility to provide direct connections to major employers in the industrial
areas, provided the timing aligns with work shift requirements.

The one-way travel time for this proposed service is approximately 45 to 55 minutes,
depending on the number of stops and required dwell times. While operating with a
single dedicated vehicle could achieve a headway of 2 to 2.5 hours from Grand Valley,
this specific frequency would not allow for evenly spaced trips when integrated with the
three-hour frequency of the primary inter-regional route between Owen Sound and
Orangeville. The service parameters for this route are illustrated in Table 11 below.




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study
September 2026 – 25-2330



10.0 Service Plan 69

Figure 7: Route 4 - Shelburne to Orangeville to Grand Valley




Table 11: Grand Valley to Shelburne Commuter Route Service Parameters

 Service Parameter                           Grand Valley to Shelburne
 Vehicles                                    1 vehicle
 One Way Trip Time                           45 to 55 minutes
 Service Days                                Monday to Friday
 Approximate Hours of Service                7:00 AM to 7:00 PM
 Headway                                     1.5 to 3 hours
 Daily Trips                                 4
 Expected BPH                                5 to 6




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study
September 2026 – 25-2330



10.0 Service Plan 70

         To ensure a more predictable and user-friendly experience, two alternative scheduling
         models are recommended.

         The first option is to operate the supplemental service at a matching three-hour
         headway. This would create a synchronized 90-minute combined frequency between
         Shelburne and Orangeville, while allowing the dedicated vehicle to supplement
         on-demand transit in adjacent municipalities during its scheduled idle time.

         Alternatively, the route could be structured so that the Shelburne to Orangeville
         segment operates twice for everyone (1) full trip to Grand Valley. This short-turn
         strategy would maximize the utility of the vehicle, providing nearly hourly service on the
         highest-demand segment between Shelburne and Orangeville and a consistent
         90-minute frequency for Grand Valley.

         Regardless of the chosen scheduling model, the service should be prioritize connecting
         residents with GO Bus departures and arrivals in Orangeville, if possible, to facilitate
         seamless onward travel across the broader regional network.

10.1.4   Base Service Recommendation 4: Introduce Summer Shuttle Service to Tourism
         Destinations in Bruce County (Route 5)
         Sauble Beach attracts thousands of tourists annually; however, the majority of this
         demand occurs during the summer months, and daily travel varies significantly based on
         the weather. Annual visitor demand to Sauble Beach is depicted in Figure 8.

         The South Bruce Geofence Project (Environics Analytics, 2024) identified that “when
         looking at all of Ontario, the majority of daily visits [to Sauble Beach], 32% of visitors
         came from South Bruce Peninsula and surrounding areas (Georgian Bluffs, Owen Sound,
         Saugeen First Nation, Saugeen Shores)”. An additional 11.95% of trips originated in
         Toronto. Residents and visitors travelling from Toronto currently have FlixBus service
         providing a direct trip. This could be further supplemented by any of the inter-
         community routes which provide a connection from parts of the GTHA to Owen Sound
         (Guelph, Orangeville) as well as Barrie (via Simcoe LINX transit from Collingwood).

         Based on typical travel demand patterns shown in Figure 9 (Environics Analytics, 2024),
         it is expected that the demand for this service will be highest on the weekends.




         Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
         Unified Regional Transit Network Study
         September 2026 – 25-2330



10.0 Service Plan 71



Figure 8: Sauble Beach Annual Visitor Demand




In addition to this, Lion’s Head is another major tourism destination in Northern Bruce Peninsula, which includes key
destinations such as Lion’s Head Lookout Trail, Lion’s Head Harbour Lighthouse, and Lion’s Head Beach Park
Campground. The local area near Lion’s Head experiences heavy seasonal congestion.


Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study
September 2026 – 25-2330



10.0 Service Plan 72



Figure 9: Sauble Beach Annual Visitors by Day of the Week




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study
September 2026 – 25-2330



10.0 Service Plan 73

There are seasonal employment demands in the area for residents of Bruce and Grey
counties. Currently, there is no transit option in this area.

The GTR used to run a fixed-route service between the Victoria Day long weekend and
Labour Day between Owen Sound, Hepworth, Wiarton, and Suable Beach. This route
was put in place to primarily address challenges of getting employees to Sauble Beach
during the high visitor season. It was discontinued due to lower ridership, however, this
was done shortly following the COVID-19 pandemic, when ridership on most transit
systems was lower than pre-pandemic levels.

This same data showed that a very small portion (approximately 5%) of visitors,
including those from the transit-dense communities, used transit to travel to work. This
suggests that a similar or smaller portion of total daily residents would use transit to
commute to the beach for leisure. Assuming approximately 1% to 2% would take transit
to the beach results in a daily demand of approximately 60 to 120 trips. This demand
could be accommodated by one vehicle operating over a twelve-hour period, in addition
to the FlixBus service already in operation.

Recommendation

Recognizing the importance of connecting key tourism destinations in Bruce County, as
well as providing additional access to two First Nations, it is recommended that a
seasonal route is put in place between the Victoria Day long weekend in May and the
Labour Day long weekend in September, operation seven days a week, for
approximately 10.5 to 12 hours a day (e.g. 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM). A draft of the proposed
route is illustrated in Figure 10, with service parameters outlined in Table 12. The exact
routing would need to be refined in consultation with each of the First Nations and local
municipalities along the serviced routes.

The route will include stops in Wiarton and Hepworth (with a connection to Route 2)
and Southampton (with a connection to Route 3). This will help further expand the
reach of the route.

The route would operate approximately three trips a day, with a 3.5 to 4 hour roundtrip
travel time. This would require the use of one bus operating between 7:00 AM and
7:00 PM.




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study
September 2026 – 25-2330



10.0 Service Plan 74

Table 12: Summer Seasonal Route Service Parameters (Route 5)

Service Parameter                             Summer Seasonal Route
Vehicles                                      1 vehicle
One Way Trip Time                             100 to 115 minutes
Service Days                                  Monday - Sunday
Approximate Hours of Service                  7:00 AM to 7:00 PM
Headway                                       3.5 to 4 hours
Daily Trips                                   3
Expected BPH                                  5 to 6




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study
September 2026 – 25-2330



10.0 Service Plan 75

Figure 10: Route 5 - Seasonal Summer Route in Bruce County




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study
September 2026 – 25-2330



10.0 Service Plan 76

 10.1.5    Base Service Recommendation 5: Incentivize Introduction of Taxi/Ridesharing Services
           A key aspect of improving mobility it to increase options available to connect to inter-
           community corridors and local destinations. This recommendation involves facilitating
           the introduction of private-sector rideshare/taxi service through updated regulatory
           frameworks. This would involve two potential steps:

10.1.5.1   1. Update By-Laws

           The availability of ridesharing and taxi services throughout the four counties is widely
           variable. While many of the larger urban municipalities have taxis (e.g. Owen Sound and
           Orangeville), these can be limited. Rideshare companies are also limited, focused
           around Orangeville and Guelph. As the population becomes more dispersed further
           north, the ability to book a ride decreases.

           Having rideshare and taxi options available can increase mobility options and provide
           connections to the inter-community fixed-route networks. They are not seen as
           competition to transit, but rather as complementary services.

           There are a few challenges to expanding these services in large rural areas:

           1. Limited demand and long deadheading mean drivers do not earn enough to maintain
              a steady income.
           2. The regulatory environment is typically at the municipal level and not consistent
              across all four counties. This creates barriers to introducing taxis and ridesharing.

           Recommendation

           It is recommended that the MSB work with each of the counties and local municipalities
           to review and harmonize Vehicle for Hire by-laws to allow private transportation
           network companies (TNCs), such as Uber or Uride, and taxi providers to operate within
           and across jurisdictional boundaries. A consistent regulatory framework across borders
           ensures uniform operating standards, simplifies recruitment for private providers, and
           prevents service fragmentation between municipalities. This can be completed as part
           of the base transit service plan, as it does not require any significant funding or
           resources.




           Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
           Unified Regional Transit Network Study
           September 2026 – 25-2330



10.0 Service Plan 77

10.1.5.2   2. Subsidize the Introduction of Service
           Once a rideshare provider is in place, a decision can be made for the MSB or individual
           municipalities to incentivize private sector providers to enter the market to address
           mobility gaps. This would be in areas where the population and density are not high
           enough to attract drivers, or the demand is too low to generate enough fares for
           full-time employment. Within the SMART service area, this is recommended to provide
           additional capacity to support commingled on-demand trips and to add service that is
           far removed from the inter-community transit network (Base Service Recommendation
           6).

           One option that has been successfully used in other jurisdictions is for the municipality
           to partially subsidize the hourly rate of the service over a defined period and within a
           defined service area where mobility gaps exist. This was the model employed by Prince
           Edward County, where they subsidized a certain number of rideshare drivers an hourly
           rate, which was off set by any passenger fares collected. As an example, if the hourly
           subsidy was $20.00, and a $8.00 payment was provided to the driver during this time
           (the passenger fare minus any fees collected by the TNC), the hourly subsidy provided
           by the county would be reduced to $12.00.

           For the rideshare or taxi service provider, they would continue to charge their standard
           fare and agree to accept all trips that they are able to, within the pre-defined period
           they are being subsidized. The provider would also be able to operate outside of the
           service hours that they are being subsidized, if there is a market for trips.

           Within the four-county area, this could also be an alternative to increasing the number
           of SMART vehicles to provide connections to an inter-community fixed-route. This
           provides the added benefit of allowing passengers to travel locally at a minimum cost.
           However, this does not negate the need for an accessible option for passengers that
           cannot access these vehicles or with cognitive impairment that may require a higher
           level of support when making the trip.

           Recommendation

           It is recommended that the MSB issue an RFP for various taxi and rideshare vendors to
           respond to. The RFP should define the vendors ability to:




           Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
           Unified Regional Transit Network Study
           September 2026 – 25-2330



10.0 Service Plan 78

         1. Limit the number of vehicles in a market (to minimize the subsidy provided by the
            MSB).
         2. Confirm driver’s ability to accept all trips requests within the period they are being
            subsidized.
         3. Confirm that drivers pass minimum safety requirements, including vulnerable sector
            screening and criminal background checks.
         4. Identify how data from trips taken will be shared, including trips not accommodated.
         5. Identify ability to utilize an accessible vehicle should it be requested by the MSB.
         6. Identify the ability to integrate with the fixed-route service, including the ability to
            book rides that connect to a scheduled fixed-route stop.
         7. Identify the ability to create a user account that can be used by an organization to
            book rides on behalf of their clients. This could be used by SMART or one of the
            other on-demand providers to provide ambulatory trips when their drivers cannot
            accommodate the trip request.

         Once a provider has been selected, the MSB should identify options to provide a
         dedicated taxi / rideshare solution that connect to the fixed-route inter-community
         network. This would be part of Base Service Recommendation 6 (within the SMART
         service area) and a potential enhanced service option (Section 10.3.2).

10.1.6   Base Service Recommendation 6: Connect Inter-Community Stops with On-Demand
         Service within the SMART Service Area
         To support the primary fixed-route spines within Grey and Bruce counties, it is
         recommended that the base transit service plan utilize a hybrid on-demand service
         delivery model that combines the existing SMART infrastructure with supplemental taxi
         or rideshare (TNC) (Base Service Recommendation 5).

         The base service recommendation focuses on the SMART service area, leveraging the
         existing specialized transit service in place, while options to expand this to other areas
         within Grey and Bruce counties are identified in the enhanced service options
         (Section 10.3.3).

         SMART already operates in several local municipalities that overlap the proposed inter-
         community transit network. Within this service area (Figure 11), SMART has vehicles,
         software, and staff providing specialized transit service. While the existing SMART
         service is fairly utilized, approximately 50% of the total vehicle hours are spent

         Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
         Unified Regional Transit Network Study
         September 2026 – 25-2330



10.0 Service Plan 79

deadheading and updates to how trips are booked and scheduled can create further
efficiencies better utilizing existing vehicle capacity.




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study
September 2026 – 25-2330



10.0 Service Plan 80

Figure 11: Existing SMART Specialized Service Area




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study
September 2026 – 25-2330



10.0 Service Plan 81

           Under this model, SMART would be contracted to deliver commingled on-demand
           transit to connect residents up to a 17 km radius of an inter-community transit stop
           within the jurisdiction of its active member municipalities. This would provide residents
           of low-density rural areas where there is no existing transit service the opportunity to
           connect to the inter-community fixed-route corridors.

10.1.6.1   On-Demand Service Model

           Moving to a commingled service is proposed to be completed in two phases.

           •   Phase 1 would focus on connecting residents to the inter-community fixed-routes
               only within a 17 km radius of a fixed-route stop. This would limit the demand for trips
               and reduce potential strain on the existing SMART service to accommodate all trip
               requests.
           •   Phase 2 adds the ability to also provide local trips within the same 17 km service area
               as Phase 1. As this adds demand, this is not included in this recommendation but
               included as part of an enhanced service option (Section 11.2.5).

           Phase 1, included in the base transit service plan, would implement commingled on-
           demand transit in local municipalities that already have SMART and would only be
           scheduled to connect passengers to/from an inter-community fixed-route service. This
           ensures the primary transit spines are accessible from a larger catchment area, thereby
           increasing ridership. This also helps limit the number of rides provided by SMART to
           reduce the risk of on-demand ridership exceeding specialized transit ridership, which
           may have an impact on SMART keeping its charitable status as an organization. This was
           reviewed as part of a separate specialized transit study to assess the risk and identify
           mitigation measures. The on-demand catchment areas within each of these
           municipalities illustrated in Figure 12.

           Part of this phase includes the introduction of two dedicated taxi / rideshare vehicles
           focused on urban settlement areas of Hanover, Walkerton (Brockton) and Mildmay
           (South Bruce), based on the partnership model proposed in Base Service
           Recommendation 5. These areas are beyond the 17 km radius of a proposed fixed-route
           corridor identified in the base transit service plan, making it difficult for SMART to
           provide these trips in a cost-effective manner while utilizing existing vehicle capacity.
           The plan recognizes the potential demand in larger settlement areas and the potential



           Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
           Unified Regional Transit Network Study
           September 2026 – 25-2330



10.0 Service Plan 82

to provide residents with a mobility option to book local trips, trips between the three
municipalities, and trips to connect to Route 1 (in Durham). Passenger fares would be
set by the private operators based on distance of travel. Since these settlement areas
are in municipalities that are members of SMART, an accessible option would also be
available, with fares for specialized trips continued to be set by SMART.

The use of the taxi / rideshare partnership would also provide options for SMART to use
these vehicles to accommodate higher trip requests within the other on-demand zones,
if these vehicles are not used locally.

Outside of the SMART service area, the opportunity to expand the taxi / rideshare
partnership is identified as an enhanced service option (Section 10.3.2).

The recommended taxi / rideshare partnership service area is illustrated in Figure 12.

Figure 12: On-Demand Service Catchment Areas




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study
September 2026 – 25-2330



10.0 Service Plan 83

10.1.6.2   Phase 1 On-Demand SMART Ridership Impact
           To understand the impact on existing SMART service, a conservative ridership estimate
           of one to two on-demand boardings connecting to/from each inter-community bus stop
           per trip was assumed. While the on-demand service area reflects up to a 17 km radius
           from each stop, it is anticipated that the majority of passengers using the service would
           live in the urban settlement areas around each stop, which would reflect an average
           travel distance of approximately 5 km. This ridership projection is based on other rural
           on-demand services in place, including RIDE WELL in Wellington County.

           A simulation was conducted to assess the impact of adding Phase 1 on-demand
           ridership to the existing SMART specialized transit ridership using the existing
           scheduling software. Based on this analysis, it was felt that the Phase 1 demand could
           be accommodated with the addition of two SMART vehicles during peak ridership
           periods and an upgrade to the schedule software and trip booking practices.

10.1.6.3   Upgrade of Scheduling Software and Practices
           Moving in this direction would require some initial set-up resources and cost, including
           the cost of a software upgrade and the need from SMART to accept on-demand trips for
           persons that do not meet their existing eligibility criteria.

           The upgraded software would:

           1. Make on-demand/specialized trip requests be visible by a single software.
           2. Allow for commingled on-demand trips to be booked such that passengers are
              connected directly to the inter-community fixed-route network (allowing passengers
              to book an end-to-end trip).
           3. Provide a mobile app solution that reduces time required to book rides for booking
              agents.
           4. Provide data that can be used to continuously improve the convenience and
              affordability of multi-leg trips. Increased ridership levels contribute to higher fare-
              box recovery and a greater share of provincial gas tax allocations, offsetting initial
              capital investments in the software.

           Currently, there are two software platforms in use across the four counties for transit
           scheduling and booking; Wellington County utilizes RideCo for its RIDE WELL service and
           SMART uses TripSpark. The software used by SMART is focused on specialized transit


           Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
           Unified Regional Transit Network Study
           September 2026 – 25-2330



10.0 Service Plan 84

           customers, with the majority of customers calling in to a dispatch office to book their
           ride and schedule the trip. This is a manual process which does not optimize trips in
           real-time.

           While RIDE WELL also has a phone-in option to book rides, the service is based on an on-
           demand application which optimized trips in real-time. Most passengers that use the
           platform use the mobile app platform.

           There are software solutions in place, including by the existing vendors (TripSpark and
           RideCo), that provide both real-time optimization for on-demand and specialized transit,
           while also providing staff an ability to make adjustments or take calls to book real-time
           trips for customers that are not comfortable with mobile app technology.

           To accommodate the expected demand from moving to a commingled on-demand
           service, an updated software solution will be required to reduce the impact on booking
           agents and create efficient trips to limit the impact on vehicle capacity.

           The use of a single platform across the MSB would be ideal, recognizing it may not be
           possible in the short-term due to existing agreements with local municipalities or
           contractual constraints. In instances where a single system is not possible, each system
           in place should have similar requirements and passenger experience, with the goal of
           allowing integrated trips between on-demand and inter-community and commuter
           fixed-route corridors.

           With a new software solution in place and a move to more automated trip booking, the
           additional trip requests could be accommodated by existing booking staff as the
           upgraded software would result in more passengers booking trips online, and
           scheduling trips is moved to a more automated process.

10.1.6.4   Integration with SMART Customers
           Under both phases, eligible SMART specialized transit users can choose whether they
           would like to take the accessible inter-community fixed-route service or continue to
           have door-to-door service within the SMART service area. No change to SMART’s
           eligibility criteria would be required and SMART registrants would be provided a choice
           on which type of trip they would like to take, based on their ability to use an integrated
           on-demand / fixed-route service.



           Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
           Unified Regional Transit Network Study
           September 2026 – 25-2330



10.0 Service Plan 85

           Direct door-to-door specialized transit trips provided by SMART would not need to be
           provided at the same passenger fare as the inter-community fixed-route service. The
           AODA requirement for fare parity would only apply to local trips within a single
           municipality for those who are unable to use the provided on-demand transit service.
           This would only apply to SMART customers that choose to take the on-demand service,
           and not to door-to-door community transportation services provided by other
           organizations.

10.1.6.5   Expanding Vehicle Capacity
           While the focus of this recommendation would be to utilize existing vehicle capacity to
           provide an efficient service, two additional SMART vehicles would need to be brought
           into peak service, operating up to eight hours per day. This can be added to the fleet
           following a three-to-six-month trial to assess trip requests and accommodation rates by
           time of day. SMART currently owns five vehicles that require approximately $7,000 in
           maintenance per vehicle to put them back into service. OTIF funding could be used to
           add capacity where the existing vehicle complement is not sufficient to achieve key trip
           accommodation and on-time performance metrics for both specialized and on-demand
           service.

10.1.6.6   Recommendations

           It is recommended that the MSB contract SMART to introduce Phase 1 commingled on-
           demand transit service within its service area and introduce a taxi / ridesharing
           partnership to provide service focused on Hanover, Walkerton and Mildmay (with a
           connection to the inter-community transit stop in Durham).

           SMART On-Demand Service
           The SMART on-demand service would be limited to trips that occur within a local
           municipality that is currently funding the SMART service, for trips that connect to the
           nearest inter-community or commuter fixed-route. The catchment area of each on-
           demand zone would be up to 17 km from the inter-community bus stop, with the
           potential to expand this zone in the future.

           To address additional capacity concerns with commingled service, it is recommended
           that SMART move forward with the following actions to implement a commingled on-
           demand service (based on the requirements set by the MSB):

           Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
           Unified Regional Transit Network Study
           September 2026 – 25-2330



10.0 Service Plan 86

1. Issue an RFP or request the existing contractor to provide a quote to upgrade the
   existing booking and scheduling software utilized by SMART to allow for commingled
   and integrated trips (where a passenger can book a complete trip that includes the
   fixed-route portion). The software requirements are outlined in Appendix E. This
   should also help increase opportunities to share rides and optimize trips within
   existing resources. While the MSB would have to identify specific requirements for a
   software solution, the software would be purchased and owned by SMART, with any
   cost impacts of the software upgrade included in the operating contract between the
   MSB and SMART.
2. Work with the existing scheduling software provider to move towards a more
   automated process of trip booking and scheduling. This would require more reliance
   on the software to book rides over existing practices.
3. Update policies and procedures to create different booking windows for specialized
   transit customers (e.g. up to 14 days in advance of a trip), while limiting on-demand
   customers to a shorter booking window (e.g. up to 2 to 3 days in advance of a trip
   departure). This will help ensure that specialized transit customers are prioritized for
   important pre-planned trips.
4. Move towards the integrated service delivery model outlined, where specialized
   transit passengers whose trip duplicates part of an inter-community fixed-route
   would be asked to use SMART to connect to the inter-community corridor and utilize
   the fixed-route accessible bus for the long-distance portion of their trip. This would
   be based on the passenger’s functional ability to use an accessible fixed-route bus
   for all or part of this trip (e.g. physical ability to board and transfer and/or cognitive
   ability to plan the trip or share a ride with other passengers). This would be a
   voluntary process for SMART passengers and not a requirement based on
   conditional eligibility.
5. Test the on-demand service, for up to three months, once the fixed-route corridors
   are introduced and the on-demand software upgrade is in place. This ‘soft launch’
   would be completed at a few local municipalities to start, before launching the
   program system-wide. After the three-month pilot is complete, decide whether to
   add additional vehicles to add driver capacity to the system.




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study
September 2026 – 25-2330



10.0 Service Plan 87

         Taxi / Rideshare Partnership
         At the same time, it is recommended that the MSB implement a taxi / rideshare
         partnership using two vehicles to start within Hanover, Walkerton and Mildmay (with a
         connection to the inter-community transit stop in Durham). This would occur following
         the harmonization of the Vehicle for Hire by-laws as recommended in Section 10.1.5.

         Service would be supported by the MSB for up to 13 hours a day, six days a week,
         aligned with the fixed-route schedules of the inter-community transit corridors. The
         availability of these services would also allow SMART to utilize these vehicles to address
         peak demands for on-demand service in other parts of its service area.

10.1.7   Base Service Recommendation 7: Move Towards a Centralized Trip Booking and
         Scheduling Partnership
         One of the challenges in the area is that there are several specialized transit and
         community transportation services that provide trips that overlap with other agencies.
         While each organization has a defined service area (primary service area), they often
         provide medical trips outside of their service boundary (secondary service area), with
         drivers being asked to wait for the passenger to complete the home trip. Table 13
         illustrates this overlap. With the potential expansion of SMART service into Dufferin
         County (see Enhanced Service Option 2), this duplication could further increase.

         To increase the efficiency of the network, it is recommended that a centralized trip
         planning and booking partnership model be introduced where one software solution
         could be in place for participating agencies within the MSB or other agencies outside of
         the MSB that wish to join the partnership.

         In this scenario, SMART would be the primary administrator and would be able to
         extend licenses for the software to other agencies that operate demand-responsive
         service to create a centralized trip booking platform. Each agency would be able to
         employ its own staff to book rides or contract this to SMART. The introduction of the
         upgraded software would reduce time to book and schedule trips, which would increase
         the ability to add more trip requests under the existing staff compliment. All
         participating organizations would be able to see the vehicles of participating agencies
         and book trips on those vehicles should it be more cost effective, however, client data
         would remain private and separated.


         Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
         Unified Regional Transit Network Study
         September 2026 – 25-2330



10.0 Service Plan 88

Table 13: Specialized Transit and Community Transportation Service Areas

 Organization          Primary Service       Secondary Service Area
                       Area
 SMART                 Arran-Elderslie       Dufferin County (Orangeville)
                       Brockton              Wellington County (north)
                       Hanover               Kitchener
                       Huron-Kinloss         Peel Region (Brampton)
                       Chatsworth            Simcoe County (Collingwood and Barrie)
                       Kincardine            Guelph
                       Saugeen Shores        London
                       Southgate             Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area
                       West Grey
                       Grey Highlands
                       South Bruce
 Dufferin County       Dufferin County       Toronto, Barrie, Brampton
 Community
 Support Services
 RIDE WELL           Wellington County       Guelph
 Home and            Grey County             Toronto
 Community           Bruce County            Brampton
 Support Services of                         Barrie
 Grey-Bruce                                  Kitchener
                                             Guelph
 Wellington County     Centre Wellington     N/A
 Community             Wellington North
 Resource Centre       Minto Mapleton
 East Wellington       Erin                  N/A
 Community             Guelph/Eramosa
 Services
 Victorian Order of    Wellington County     N/A
 Nurses (VON)          Guelph
As an example, if DCCSS were to join the partnership with SMART, it would be able to
see SMART’s vehicles in real-time. In this scenario, if a SMART vehicle is in Orangeville
waiting for a passenger at the Headwaters Health Care Centre Hospital, and there is a
trip request for a local specialized or on-demand service in Orangeville, DCCSS staff
would see the availability of all vehicles in the vicinity (including the SMART vehicle).
This would allow them to select the most cost-effective vehicle to deliver the trip. This

Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study
September 2026 – 25-2330



10.0 Service Plan 89

would involve some level of standardization of practices, an agreement on the cost of
providing the service and how fees are transferred between agencies, and a software
solution that ensures that private customer information cannot be shared between
agencies.

Beyond improving the passenger experience, consolidating trip planning into a single
regional interface provides several advantages:

• Seamless Navigation: Users can input an origin, destination, and preferred travel
  window to receive an itinerary. The application calculates the most effective route
  by analyzing real-time data from all available services and provides turn-by-turn
  instructions to drivers.
• Ease of Access: Consolidating trip planning removes the requirement for passengers
  to navigate multiple schedules, separate booking systems, or various municipal /
  community transportation websites.
• Integrated Payment: The platform can allow for a single payment for travel using
  different services and reducing the amount of cash which must be managed.
• Administrative Efficiency: A unified platform reduces the burden on staff by
  centralizing data management, reporting, and customer support functions into a
  single administrative hub.
• Data-Driven Planning: The software generates datasets on travel patterns and
  demand heatmaps.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the MSB support SMART to further review a partnership model
with other specialized and community transportation agencies. This would mean
ensuring the upgraded trip booking and scheduling software includes the ability to:

• Add multiple specialized and community transportation providers on a single
  platform to allow users to plan trips across all services.
• Ensure private information about clients cannot be shared between participating
  agencies without rider consent. This should include a requirement in the RFP for a
  Privacy Impact Statement.
• Include visibly of all vehicles in the network, allowing for the most available and cost-
  effective trip to be booked subject to the service guidelines.



Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study
September 2026 – 25-2330



10.0 Service Plan 90

         Since specialized transit continues to be a contracted service (and not part of the MSB),
         the software and centralized booking platform (including in Base Service
         Recommendation 6), should be owned and managed by SMART. The MSB’s role would
         be to set specific requirements to deliver the partnership model and to support upfront
         software upgrade costs with funding from OTIF.

         Based on this, the MSB should work with SMART, as well as other participating agencies,
         on a joint agreement framework to establish rules around vehicle tracking by other
         agencies and financial reconciliation principles prior to moving forward with an RFP. This
         would be a separate stream of work focused on specialized and on-demand transit, to
         be completed prior to issuing an RFP. This should establish a flexible framework that
         would allow for other agencies to join after being established.

10.1.8   Base Service Recommendation 8: Establish an Integrated Fare Structure
         It is recommended that an integrated fare structure be developed that creates
         consistency in service costs across the region and supports seamless travel across the
         four counties. Creating a common and integrated fare structure is particularly important
         for inter-community routes that cross municipal boundaries because it eliminates the
         transfer penalty; the financial and administrative barrier where riders pay separate full
         fares for a single journey. By focusing on affordability and ease of use, the MSB can
         create a consistent and predictable cost for the passenger, removing the confusion of
         navigating different payment models and increasing ridership.

         Currently, there are several fare structures in place across the four counties:

         • GOST charges a zone fare structure with a base fare of $5.00 and an additional $5.00
           for every zone crossed;
         • GTR charges a flat fare of $5.00 on Route 2 between Dundalk and Orangeville; and
         • RIDE WELL and SMART charge a minimum fare of $5.00 and $12.00 respectively,
           then add a per kilometre charge based on distance for trips that exceed the
           minimum.

         The integrated fare structure must be designed to balance affordability with the need to
         recover costs. If fares are set too low, then the revenue required to off-set operating
         costs may not be enough to sustain the service. If fares are too high, it may impact the
         affordability of the service, which would limit ridership and revenue.


         Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
         Unified Regional Transit Network Study
         September 2026 – 25-2330



10.0 Service Plan 91

10.1.8.1   Fixed-Routes
           Based on the above, as well as input received from the first round of engagement
           (Appendix C), it is recommended that the fares for the inter-community transit routes
           be a zone-based fare model similar to that of the existing GOST service, with zones
           defined by municipal boundaries

           In this structure, passengers would be charged a $10.00 minimum fare, allowing them to
           travel between stops within their municipality or to an adjacent municipality. An
           additional $5.00 fare is added for each additional municipal boundary crossed along
           their journey. To support the family of services approach and encourage regional
           connectivity, passengers transferring between inter-regional fixed-routes will receive a
           $5.00 discount on their second leg, reflective of a continuous journey. These $10.00 and
           $5.00 fares reduce the need for passengers to carry exact change, simplifying their on-
           board experience.

           To maintain the affordability of long-distance travel, any single trip is capped at a
           maximum fare of $25.00. Specific fare breakdowns for the primary inter-community
           fixed-routes are illustrated in Table 14 to Table 18 below.

           With these proposed zones, the longest primary route will travel through five zones,
           reaching the $25.00 fare limit and allowing the MSB to optimize revenue on these
           routes.




           Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
           Unified Regional Transit Network Study
           September 2026 – 25-2330



10.0 Service Plan 92



Table 14: Recommended Route 1 Fare Structure – Owen Sound to Guelph

Origin / Destination                                Owen Sound                Chatsworth / Williamsford          Durham             Arthur / Mount Forest             Fergus        Guelph


Owen Sound                                             N/A                                $10                      $15                        $20                      $25            $25
Chatsworth / Williamsford                              $10                                $10                      $10                        $15                      $20            $25
Durham                                                 $15                                $10                      N/A                        $10                      $15            $20
Arthur / Mount Forest                                  $20                                $15                      $10                        $10                      $10            $15
Fergus                                                 $25                                $20                      $15                        $10                      N/A            $10
Guelph                                                 $25                                $25                      $20                        $15                      $10            N/A

Table 15: Recommended Route 2 Fare Structure – Wiarton to Orangeville
Origin / Destination               Wiarton / Hepworth            Shallow Lake / Springmount     Owen Sound    Chatsworth     Markdale / Flesherton   Dundalk        Shelburne     Orangeville

Wiarton / Hepworth                            $10                           $10                     $15          $20                 $25                $25           $25             $25
Shallow Lake / Springmount                    $10                           N/A                     $10          $15                 $20                $25           $25             $25
Owen Sound                                    $15                           $10                     N/A          $10                 $15                $20           $25             $25
Chatsworth                                    $20                           $15                     $10          N/A                 $10                $15           $20             $25
Markdale / Flesherton                         $25                           $20                     $15          $10                 $10                $10           $15            $20
Dundalk                                       $25                           $25                     $20          $15                 $10                N/A           $10            $15
Shelburne                                     $25                           $25                     $25          $20                 $15                $10           $10            $10
Orangeville                                   $25                           $25                     $25          $25                 $20                $15           $10            N/A

Table 16: Recommended Route 3 Fare Structure – Kincardine to Collingwood
Origin / Destination                 Kincardine /        Southampton /            Allenford     Springmount      Owen Sound          Meaford         Thornbury / The            Collingwood
                                       Tiverton            Port Elgin                                                                                 Blue Mountain
Kincardine / Tiverton                        $10                 $10                $15              $20               $25              $25                   $25                  $25
Southampton / Port Elgin                     $10                 $10                $10              $15               $20              $25                   $25                  $25
Allenford                                    $15                 $10                N/A              $10               $15              $20                   $25                  $25
Springmount                                  $20                 $15                $10              $10               $10              $15                   $20                  $25
Owen Sound                                   $25                 $20                $15              $10               N/A              $10                   $15                  $20
Meaford                                      $25                 $25                $20              $15               $10              N/A                   $10                  $15
Thornbury / The Blue Mountain                $25                 $25                $25              $20               $15              $10                   $10                  $10
Collingwood                                  $25                 $25                $25              $25               $20              $15                   $10                  N/A
Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study
September 2026 – 25-2330



10.0 Service Plan 93



Table 17: Recommended Route 4 Fare Structure – Shelburne to Grand Valley

Origin/Destination                                    Shelburne                          Orangeville                  Grand Valley

Shelburne                                                 $10                                $10                             $10
Orangeville                                               $10                                N/A                             $10
Grand Valley                                              $10                                $10                             $10

Table 18: Recommended Route 5 Fare Structure – Bruce County Tourism Route
Origin/Destination                           Lions Head         Neyaashiinigmiing   Colpoys Bay        Wiarton /   Sauble Beach      Southampton        Saugeen FN
                                                                  First Nation                         Hepworth
Lion’s Head                                     N/A                   $10              $15               $15           $20              $25                $25
Neyaashiinigmiing First Nation                  $10                   N/A              $10               $10           $20              $25                $25
Colpoys Bay Village                             $15                   $10              N/A               $10           $15              $20                $20
Wiarton / Hepworth                              $20                   $15              $10               $10           $10              $15                $15
Sauble Beach                                    $20                   $15              $10               $10           $10              $10                $10
Southampton                                     $25                   $20              $15               $15           $10              N/A                $10
Saugeen First Nation                            $25                   $20              $15               $15           $10              $10                N/A




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study
September 2026 – 25-2330



10.0 Service Plan 94


10.1.8.2   On-Demand Transit

           To maintain consistency across the network, the fare structure for on-demand transit
           should be integrated within the regional fixed-route network.

           For on-demand transit provided by SMART, it is recommended that a base fare of
           $10.00 be charged for an on-demand trip that is integrated with a fixed-route service.
           Currently, SMART utilizes a distance-based pricing model of $0.70 per kilometre with a
           minimum base fare of $12.00 (up to 17 km). Under this model, SMART registrants that
           are using on-demand to connect to an inter-community fixed-route would also pay $10,
           with the MSB covering the net operating cost of the service.

           For services provided by a taxi / ridesharing partnership, residents would pay the
           standard taxi / ridesharing fare. While there is an opportunity to reduce this fare to
           match the SMART on-demand transit fare, this would also need to be done for
           specialized transit trips, which may add considerable cost to the MSB, and is not
           recommended in the short term.

           To promote connections to the broader fixed-route network, a transfer discount should
           be implemented for passengers moving between services. Specifically, if an on-demand
           passenger uses the service to connect directly to a fixed-route corridor, the subsequent
           fixed-route fare should be reduced by $5.00. In this way the on-demand service acts as
           the first leg of the journey. This should be done for both services provided by SMART
           and a taxi / ridesharing partner.

           For RIDE WELL, a similar concept should apply. Since the minimum RIDE WELL fare is
           $5.00, the fixed-route portion of the trip can be reduced by $5.00 if using RIDE WELL to
           connect to the service. This would encourage passengers to use RIDE WELL to connect
           to the fixed-route corridor instead of completing their entire trip using the on-demand
           service.

10.1.8.3   Specialized Transit
           Fares for specialized transit must match the fares of on-demand transit to ensure
           equitable access.




           Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
           Unified Regional Transit Network Study
           September 2026 – 25-2330



10.0 Service Plan 95

           The reduction of the minimum fare to $10.00 will impact only those trips within 17 km
           that use SMART to connect to the fixed-route corridor; a very small portion of the
           overall trips (less than 20%).

           For specialized trips exceeding the 17-km threshold, the fare will remain unchanged at
           the current rate of $0.70 per kilometre within the SMART service area.

           Since no change is proposed for the RIDE WELL fare, the same fare applies.

10.1.8.4   Farebox Technology

           As the region establishes its inter-community transit network, there will be a need to set
           up a fare collection system. Procurement decisions should consider future provincial
           directives. Following the passing of Ontario's Bill 98 (Building Homes and Improving
           Transportation Infrastructure Act, 2026), the province is mandating full fare
           harmonization and service integration across municipal boundaries, starting in the
           GTHA. Once implemented, the province may implement a similar directive to the larger
           Metrolinx service area, which includes Wellington County, Dufferin County, the City of
           Guelph, and Simcoe County (Collingwood).

           Because this provincial framework will likely require an expansion of the PRESTO system
           or a unified provincial ticketing platform, it is recommended that the MSB does not
           invest in local smartcard or electronic validation technologies at this time. To avoid
           unnecessary costs, the network should deploy basic, reliable mechanical fareboxes for
           immediate cash and ticket collection on fixed-route services. This approach keeps the
           network flexible for a transition into the mandated provincial fare structure once
           regulations are finalized.

           For the on-demand service, payment through the application should still be allowed,
           and would require customers transferring onto a fixed-route service to show the driver
           proof of payment before boarding.

           For RIDE WELL, the existing operating model is not set up to allow cash payment on
           board. Therefore, RIDE WELL will continue to be a mobile ticketing platform, with the
           option to pay for a fixed-route portion of the trip by showing the fixed-route operator
           proof of payment when boarding the vehicle.




           Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
           Unified Regional Transit Network Study
           September 2026 – 25-2330



10.0 Service Plan 96

10.1.8.5   Fare Concessions

           Without the immediate implementation of a smart card system, dynamic features like
           automated fare capping or electronic tracking are operationally unfeasible. To
           encourage frequent riders and support daily commuters while maintaining a simple,
           driver-validated system, a simple ‘ticketing system’ is proposed. Tickets would be sold in
           ‘blocks’ to mimic monthly passes but help address the complication of having different
           fare zones. For example, customers could purchase a block of 20 $5.00 tickets for $4.00
           each and a block of 40 $5.00 tickets for $3.50 each. The face value of each ticket would
           remain the same, therefore, customers making a trip within a single zone would need to
           deposit two tickets. The cost of the trip to the customer would then be reduced by 20%
           to 30%, depending on the block of tickets purchased. This system mimics a monthly pass
           by providing discounts when tickets are purchased in bulk. This would benefit riders that
           use the system frequently, reducing the overall cost of travel.

           Tickets could be sold at individual municipal offices or facilities or can be pre-purchased
           by pre-loading money into the on-demand service provider.

10.1.8.6   Low-Income Fare
           Under existing systems, clients enrolled in Ontario Works (OW), the Ontario Disability
           Support Program (ODSP), and local Employment Services are eligible for travel expenses
           meeting specific criteria. These programs are operated by county staff (OW), the
           Ministry of Children Community and Social Services (ODSP), and internal or external
           service providers (Employment Services). These programs are provincially funded and
           may utilize existing transit on a case-by-case basis (e.g. taxis).

           To ensure equity and accessibility across the network, a subsidized transit pass program
           could be integrated within each county’s Social Services and Employment Services
           framework. This is a common practice for urban transit systems (Toronto, York, Peel,
           Halton). These programs offer discounted fares (e.g. 50%) to clients enrolled in Ontario
           Works (OW), the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP), and those that meet low-
           income thresholds. Huron Shores Area Transit offers a similar program and offers a rural
           example.

           Ultimately these programs are funded by municipalities, but standard fares may be set
           to maintain higher cost recovery, while ensuring affordability to those that have


           Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
           Unified Regional Transit Network Study
           September 2026 – 25-2330



10.0 Service Plan 97

           financial barriers. Many municipalities see this as a way to mitigate other service costs
           and community challenges (e.g. missed doctor’s appointments contributing to more
           emergency room visits, difficulty getting to work resulting in dismissal).

10.1.8.7   Fare Example

           To illustrate the consistency of the family of services model, Table 19 compares the total
           cost of a journey traveling from a rural residence (less than 17 km from an inter-
           community fixed-route transit stop) to a destination two municipalities into the SMART
           service area. In each scenario, the passenger pays the same total fare, highlighting that
           the system remains equitable regardless of the service type available to them.

           Table 19: Fare Example for Fixed-Route and SMART

            Situation                   Example          Service Used          Fare           Total
                                                                            Calculation       Cost
            Passenger within          Chatsworth             Inter-       $10.00 (Base) +    $15.00
            Walking Distance of    resident traveling     Community          $5.00 (1
            the Inter-regional        to Dundalk          Fixed-Route       Boundary)
            Fixed-Route                                       Only
            Passenger 10 km          Resident 10 km      On-Demand +       $10.00 (On-       $20.00
            from the                from Chatsworth          Inter-        Demand) +
            Inter-regional             traveling to       Community       $10.00 (Fixed-
                                         Dundalk
            Fixed-Route                                   Fixed-Route      Route after
                                                                          $5.00 Transfer
                                                                            Discount)
            Eligible Specialized     Resident 10 km      Specialized +     $10.00 (On-       $20.00
            Transit Passenger       from Chatsworth         Inter-         Demand) +
            used SMART to              traveling to       Community       $10.00 (Fixed-
                                         Dundalk
            transfer to a                                Fixed-Route       Route after
            fixed-route                                                   $5.00 Transfer
                                                                            Discount)




           Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
           Unified Regional Transit Network Study
           September 2026 – 25-2330



10.0 Service Plan 98


10.2     Addressing Mobility Gaps and Financial Sustainability
         One of the key objectives of OTIF is that funding be used for new services that address
         mobility gaps. While some of the elements of the plan noted above are currently or
         have previously been delivered, these operated as a ‘patchwork’ of unconnected routes
         and not as a system through a unified governance model. What is new in this system is a
         network approach that fills in geographic mobility gaps, adds frequency to make the
         service usable, and connect passengers outside of corridors to create a more financially
         sustainable solution once OTIF ends. Highlights of how each Base Transit Service
         Recommendation fits within these principles are described below:

10.2.1   Base Service Recommendation 1: Integrated Service Standards

         1. Creates a consolidated service and bus stop guideline document to move to a
            seamless network that is consistent across all four counties. The previous routes all
            operated independently and had little coordination or standard between them,
            which led to minimal transfers between systems. Integrated service standards will
            create a seamless experience, attract ridership, and improve the financial
            sustainability of the service.

10.2.2   Base Service Recommendation 2: Introduce Primary Inter-Community Fixed-Route
         Corridors

         1. Route 1 expands the GOST route to operate from two daily trips to four daily trips.
            This added frequency addresses a significant mobility gap, as the existing service
            requires passengers to stay at their destination for over eight hours. Long wait
            periods for a return trip limits the types of trips that are realistic (e.g. shopping,
            medical appointments). Increasing the frequency makes the service more functional
            for seniors and discretionary trips.
         2. Route 2 combines the existing GTR route between Dundalk and Orangeville with the
            cancelled GTR route between Owen Sound and Dundalk and extends it to Wiarton.
            This creates a one-seat ride that promotes ridership and addresses a current mobility
            gap between Wiarton and Dundalk. It should be noted that ridership on the GTR
            route between Dundalk and Orangeville reduced significantly when the connection
            between Owen Sound and Dundalk was removed. Adding this back as a continuous




         Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
         Unified Regional Transit Network Study
         September 2026 – 25-2330



10.0 Service Plan 99

            trip and right sizing the service to four trips a day will address existing mobility gaps
            and make the service more financially sustainable.
         3. Route 3 adds the previous GTR route between Owen Sound and The Blue Mountains
            and extends it to Kincardine to the west and Collingwood to the east. This addresses
            previously unserved areas and creates a more sustainable route by providing a one-
            seat ride, including a new connection to the South Simcoe Growth Area via Simcoe
            LINX.
         4. The potential coordination with FlixBus adds additional service between The Blue
            Mountains and Owen Sound, utilizing the private sector to reduce public subsidy into
            transit. This will further address mobility gaps and increase the sustainability of the
            network.
         5. Connecting and scheduling all three routes at the Owen Sound terminal adds to the
            sustainability of the service, as it increases travel options to different destinations
            across and beyond the four counties.
         6. The new governance structure creates a sustainable service model that places the
            routes at the county-level (GOST was previously run by a local municipality), with
            each municipality paying their fair share of the service.
         7. Consolidating separate operations into a single coordinated system allows the
            Unified Transit Network to achieve greater efficiency through shared resources and a
            more consistent passenger experience. This will help maintain the sustainability of
            the service once OTIF is no longer available.

10.2.3   Base Service Recommendation 3: Introduce Commuter Fixed-Route Between Grand
         Valley and Shelburne via Orangeville (Route 4)
         1. Route 4 adds additional runs between Shelburne and Orangeville to address the
            growing population and demand to Orangeville and the GTA (via GO Bus).
         2. Addresses a mobility gap in Grand Valley, a growing community that does not have
            access to transit.

10.2.4   Base Service Recommendation 4: Introduce Summer Shuttle Service to Tourism
         Destinations in Bruce County (Route 5)
         1. Provides access to seasonal employment opportunities for local residents.
         2. Provides access to transit to two First Nations.



         Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
         Unified Regional Transit Network Study
         September 2026 – 25-2330



10.0 Service Plan 100

         3. Provides access to visitors who travel by bus to the region (e.g. FlixBus or proposed
            inter-community routes).

10.2.5   Base Service Recommendation 5: Incentivize Introduction of Taxi/Ridesharing Services

         1. The strategy creates an opportunity for the private sector to fill in some of the
            demand for on-demand trips, including areas where SMART does not operate. This
            will help address mobility deserts that exist and ensure SMART has enough capacity
            to continue to deliver specialized transit service.
         2. Affordability is maintained by providing fare integration for passengers that use
            taxi/ridesharing to access an inter-community transit route.
         3. Taxi/rideshare vehicles can be used at other times of the day, other days of the
            week, or for local trips, expanding local mobility options.

10.2.6   Base Service Recommendation 6: Connect Inter-Community Stops with On-Demand
         Service within the SMART Service Area
         1. The previous fixed-route models were limited to residents that lived within walking
            distance to a stop or could arrange a drop-off/pick-up to the stop. This
            recommendation expands the catchment area of the fixed-route service by providing
            an on-demand service for passengers to the inter-community fixed-routes within the
            SMART service area. This will increase the ability to access the fixed-route service.
         2. Utilizing SMART to provide the on-demand service also ensures an accessible option
            to connect passengers to accessible fixed-routes.
         3. A software upgrade adds a new feature to the existing fixed-routes by allowing
            passengers to plan and book a coordinated ride from an on-demand zone to the
            fixed-route. This improves the ease and reliability of the on-demand/fixed-route
            connection.
         4. The use of a taxi / rideshare option in Hanover, Walkerton and Mildmay provides a
            mobility option to residents in urban settlement areas that are not within a close
            proximity to one of the fixed-route corridors. It will also allow these residents to
            connect to the inter-community transit corridor in Durham.

10.2.7   Base Service Recommendation 7: Centralized Trip Booking and Scheduling

         1. Increases the capacity of specialized transit services across all four counties,
            addressing mobility gaps for persons with disabilities.


         Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
         Unified Regional Transit Network Study
         September 2026 – 25-2330



10.0 Service Plan 101

         2. Improves financial sustainability of specialized transit by making an investment in
            software. Other systems such as EasyRide in Perth and Huron counties have seen a
            significant increase in passenger trips without expanding capacity by moving to a
            centralized booking platform.

10.2.8   Base Service Recommendation 8: Establish an Integrated Fare Structure
         1. Creates a consistent the fare structure and technology, which increases the ease of
            use of the system.
         2. Integration with on-demand reduces the cost for individuals that live outside of a
            reasonable walking distance to a fixed-route corridor.
         3. Increasing fare to $10.00 reflects the long-distance nature of trips and high cost of
            service. This will improve cost recovery, while discounted tickets for frequent users
            and fare assistance programs will help ensure the service is affordable.

10.3     Enhanced Service Options
         While the base service recommendations described in Section 10.1 establish central
         parts of the service, the following enhanced service elements represent expansions that
         improve the coverage, accessibility, and convenience of the network.

         The enhanced service elements are independent of each other and are intended to be
         assessed individually. Elements include:

         1. Supplemental Fixed-Routes: The implementation of additional inter-community and
            commuter fixed-route services that provide connectivity to smaller urban centres
            and settlement areas not located along the primary corridors.
         2. Introduction of On-Demand in New Areas: The expansion of on-demand services
            into the municipalities that currently lack such options. This initiative prioritizes
            regional equity by extending on-demand services to connect to the inter-community
            fixed-route corridors to municipalities that are not within the SMART service area.
         3. Introduce Phase 2 On-Demand Expansion: This would increase the role of on-
            demand transit to provide local trips within a single municipality within the SMART
            service area, not just trips that connect to the fixed-route inter-community network.
         4. Local Transit Fare Integration: The establishment of collaborative agreements with
            local municipal transit providers to create a seamless experience. This element
            prioritizes standardized fare concessions across all counties and implements transfer


         Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
         Unified Regional Transit Network Study
         September 2026 – 25-2330



10.0 Service Plan 102

            credits to eliminate the financial penalty of moving between local and regional
            systems.
         5. Integration with Local Transit in Centre Wellington: Provides initial funding for
            Centre Wellington’s proposed transit service in Fergus and Elora. This will allow for
            improved integration with the inter-community and potential commuter routes, as
            well as the potential to achieve greater efficiencies to manage and operate the
            service.

10.3.1   Enhanced Service Option 1: Supplemental Fixed-Routes
         While the primary corridors focus on the region’s main travel arteries, it is
         recommended that the MSB consider the implementation of additional fixed-routes to
         extend the reach of the fixed-route network. The implementation of this secondary tier
         allows the MSB to transition from flexible, on-demand service to scheduled, higher-
         capacity fixed-route service in the specific areas where ridership is expected to be
         highest. By reinforcing these localized segments, the MSB can offer a more predictable
         and frequent service for riders while optimizing the use of its vehicle fleet.

         The supplemental routes serve three strategic functions:

         • External Connectivity: They create links to transit services outside of the study area,
           further expanding the reach of the service and allowing residents to access the
           broader provincial transit system.
         • High-Volume Demand Management: These routes are deployed in areas where on-
           demand ridership is expected to be highest, based on the major travel pairs
           identified in Appendix A. Moving these high-volume trips from on-demand vehicles
           to scheduled fixed-route buses improves operational efficiency and maintains the
           availability of on-demand resources in more remote, low-density areas.
         • Targeted Frequency: Where these corridors overlap with primary inter-regional
           fixed-routes, they are designed to provide an increased frequency of service. This
           adds capacity to high-demand segments without the operational expense of
           increasing frequency across the entire length of a long-distance corridor.

         The proposed supplemental fixed-routes include:

         • Durham to Listowel;
         • Fergus to Guelph;


         Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
         Unified Regional Transit Network Study
         September 2026 – 25-2330



10.0 Service Plan 103

• Fergus to Elmira; and
• Orangeville to Guelph.

The supplemental inter-community fixed-routes are depicted in Figure 13, while the
route service parameters are summarized in Table 20.

Table 20: Supplemental Inter-Community Fixed-Route Service Parameters

Service Parameter     Durham to        Fergus to        Fergus to       Guelph to
                       Listowel         Elmira           Guelph         Orangeville
Vehicles               2 vehicles       1 vehicle       1 vehicle        2 vehicles
One Way Trip
                      85 to 95 min    30 to 40 min     25 to 30 min    100 to 110 min
Time
Service Days           Monday -         Monday -        Monday -         Monday -
                         Friday         Saturday         Saturday          Friday
Approximate           7:00 AM to       7:00 AM to       7:00 AM o       7:00 AM to
Hours of Service       7:00 PM          7:00 PM          7:00 PM         7:00 PM
Headway                 3 hours          2 hours      1 to 1.5 hours      2 hours
Daily Trips                 4                6               6                6
Expected BPH             2 to 4           3 to 4          5 to 8           2 to 4




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study
September 2026 – 25-2330



10.0 Service Plan 104

Figure 13: Primary and Supplemental Inter-Community Fixed-Routes




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study
September 2026 – 25-2330



10.0 Service Plan 105


10.3.1.1   Durham to Listowel
           This regional connector route facilitates inter-county travel across Grey, Bruce, and
           Wellington counties, ultimately providing a gateway to Perth County. Research and
           community engagement findings identified high travel demand between the
           communities of Durham, Hanover, and Walkerton, which serve as key origin-destination
           pairs. Additionally, there was observed travel demand between Palmerston and
           Listowel. These two segments were combined into one service so the communities of
           Harriston and Palmerston are provided with connections to the regional network.

           The proposed route is illustrated in Figure 14. In Durham, the route provides a direct
           connection to the Owen Sound to Guelph primary inter-community route. At the
           southern terminus in Listowel, passengers can access the PC Connect system, facilitating
           further travel to Stratford, St. Mary’s and London, as well as Kitchener-Waterloo.

           While this service is designed to connect into the primary corridor in Durham, its
           location in the middle of the primary route limits the options to effectively schedule
           connections in all directions. This means that a connection in one direction or the other
           would result in a longer wait time. Therefore, it is recommended that the stop in
           Durham be located such that passengers have a safe and comfortable waiting space,
           such as the public library. The current GOST bus stop does not have these features.

           Ridership on this route is anticipated to be lower than several of the other corridors due
           to the lower population centres it connects to. In the short term, the introduction of the
           taxi / rideshare service in Mildmay, Walkerton and Hanover (with a connection to
           Durham) as recommended in Base Service Recommendation 6 will help to assess the
           potential demand and future feasibility of a fixed-route corridor. This may result in a
           short route focused on these settlement areas if the demand to extend to Listowel is
           not required, reducing the cost and vehicle requirement from 2 vehicles to 1.




           Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
           Unified Regional Transit Network Study
           September 2026 – 25-2330



10.0 Service Plan 106

Figure 14: Durham to Listowel




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study
September 2026 – 25-2330



10.0 Service Plan 107

10.3.1.2   Fergus to Guelph
           This route serves as a direct connection between Fergus and Guelph. Fergus and Elora
           are located approximately 30 minutes north of Guelph, which is a frequent commuter
           destination for this growing community. This represents just over 6,300 daily commuter
           trips based on the most recent Transportation Tomorrow Survey1. With significant
           population growth planned for Fergus and Elora, this travel demand is expected to
           continue to grow.

           Though this connection is already proposed with the Owen Sound to Guelph inter-
           community route, this route would only provide four daily trips, many of which would
           not arrive during peak commuting hours. This commuter route would complement the
           inter-community route to provide additional frequency focused on peak hours. The
           proposed route is illustrated in Figure 15.

           Figure 15: Fergus to Guelph




           1
               http://www.transportationtomorrow.on.ca/publications.html

           Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
           Unified Regional Transit Network Study
           September 2026 – 25-2330



10.0 Service Plan 108

           This route has a 25 to 30 minute one way travel time, which one vehicle could serve
           with a 1 to 1.5 hour frequency, including the required transfer delays and recovery time.
           This would operate during the times when the Owen Sound to Guelph inter-community
           service is not in operation, including the early morning and mid-afternoon period,
           creating a combined peak headway of every 45 minutes to 1.5 hours during most of the
           day.

           The service would begin in the proposed downtown terminal in Fergus, which would
           provide connections to the proposed local transit service in Fergus, Elora, and Salem.
           This is currently being recommended as part of the Centre Wellington Transit Feasibility
           Study. It would also provide a connection opportunity to RIDE WELL services, connecting
           residents in the rural areas of the county to this fixed-route connection. This would help
           reduce the length of RIDE WELL trips from the north, while providing frequent
           connections to Guelph.

           One of the challenges with this route is that during certain times of the day, the
           combined headway may be more frequent than necessary (every 45 minutes) when
           combined with the Owen Sound to Guelph inter-community route. This is due the
           challenges of scheduling two routes together and avoiding duplication between the two
           services. One way to mitigate this is to combine this route with the Fergus to Elmira
           route (see below), which would reduce the frequency between Fergus and Guelph.

10.3.1.3   Fergus to Elmira
           This direct route provides connection between Wellington County and the Region of
           Waterloo via Elmira.

           This route would begin in Fergus in the downtown transit terminal proposed as part of
           the ongoing Centre Wellington Transit Feasibility Study. The terminal would provide
           connections to the proposed local transit service in Fergus, Elora and Salem, as well as
           the proposed Owen Sound to Guelph inter-community route, allowing passengers to
           transfer from other communities along the Highway 6 corridor. A second stop would
           occur in downtown Elora, which provides connection to a significant visitor attraction
           from Waterloo and the GTHA.




           Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
           Unified Regional Transit Network Study
           September 2026 – 25-2330



10.0 Service Plan 109

Within the Region of Waterloo, the service would connect to Elmira, which provides
frequent connections to key destinations in the Region, including St. Jacobs market and
Conestoga Mall using Grand River Transit.

The proposed route is illustrated in Figure 16. While the primary routing is intended to
utilize Wellington Road 18 and Waterloo Regional Road 22 to ensure a direct
connection, there remains a strategic opportunity to adjust the path to include
Wellington Road 21 and Waterloo Regional Road 23 if the MSB determines that serving
the community of Inverhaugh in Centre Wellington is a priority. This would also provide
a logical transfer point for RIDE WELL trips in the western part of the county, without
having to backtrack to Elora to facilitate a transfer.

Figure 16: Fergus to Elmira




If this route were to be added in isolation of other routes, one vehicle would be
required to operate up to 6 daily trips, resulting in a frequency of approximately every
two hours. Since the travel demand between Centre Wellington and the Region of


Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study
September 2026 – 25-2330



10.0 Service Plan 110

           Waterloo is about one-third of the demand to Guelph, this level of service may not be
           warranted.

           Instead, it is recommended that the RIDE WELL service be extended to provide a stop in
           Elmira. If the Township of Centre Wellington implements a local transit service in
           Fergus, Elora, and Salem, the number of trips within Centre Wellington on RIDE WELL
           would decrease, which may increase the ability to extend the service area to Elmira.

           A second option would be to combine this route with the Fergus to Guelph route, which
           would allow both segments to be completed with one vehicle operating four trips per
           day (approximately every two hours). This would reduce the combined headway
           between Fergus and Guelph to every 1.5 hours and headway to Elmira to every 2.5 to 3
           hours (similar to the other inter-community routes). Trips would be continuous,
           meaning that passengers travelling between the two sections would not have to
           transfer and wait at a stop in downtown Fergus.

           If there is a desire by Wellington County to implement both routes, it would be more
           cost effective and create a more seamless customer experience if the two routes were
           implemented simultaneously, with the one vehicle used for the combined route.

10.3.1.4   Guelph to Acton to Orangeville
           This route would serve as a bridge between the two southern population centres,
           Orangeville and Guelph, serving Acton along the route. While each of these
           communities have connections to the GO network, the only way to travel between
           these would be to travel through Brampton, resulting in backtracking for passengers.
           This route provides a connection between these centres while also connecting the
           smaller communities in Wellington County to these communities and the broader
           provincial transit network. It also provides a second connection to the GO Train network
           in Acton, primarily benefiting residents in Rockwood and Erin. The proposed route is
           illustrated in Figure 17.

           This route is considered a lower priority as the travel demand between these
           communities is not as high as other corridors in the Unified Transit Network area. Based
           on the Transportation Tomorrow Survey, the travel demand between Centre Wellington
           and Orangeville is less than 600 daily person trips (primarily auto at this point), while the
           travel demand between Guelph and Orangeville is approximately 400 trips.


           Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
           Unified Regional Transit Network Study
           September 2026 – 25-2330



10.0 Service Plan 111

Figure 17: Guelph to Acton to Orangeville




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study
September 2026 – 25-2330



10.0 Service Plan 112

         The one-way travel time would be 100 to 110 minutes, which would require two
         vehicles to service this corridor to provide reasonable service in each direction with
         access to the GO Train in Acton (approximately a two-hour frequency). Based on the
         review of demand, this would not be warranted in the short-term and is not
         recommended to be prioritized over other inter-community corridors.

10.3.2   Enhanced Service Option 2: On-Demand Transit in New Areas

         A separate Specialized Transit Study report was completed to assess the potential to
         expand commingled on-demand service to municipalities within Bruce, Grey and
         Dufferin counties that area not members of SMART. One of the challenges identified
         was the potential loss of SMART’s charitable status if on-demand transit ridership grows
         significantly, changing the purpose of the organization from one whose primary function
         is to provide specialized transit service to one that provides public transit.

         For this reason, it is recommended that any expansion of on-demand transit service
         outside of the SMART service area be completed using one of two options:

         1. Expand Comingled Specialized and On-Demand Provided by SMART: This option
            would involve expanding SMART specialized transit service along with the
            commingled on-demand service. Within Bruce and Grey counties where SMART
            operates, the existing service is funded at the local municipal level. Since the
            recommendations of the Governance Report (Appendix D) maintain this existing
            funding structure, the addition of commingled on-demand service to local
            municipalities within Bruce and Grey counties not currently covered by SMART
            would require the local municipality to buy into the specialized portion of the SMART
            service. Should this occur, a similar on-demand service structure as identified in the
            Base Service Recommendation 6 would apply to inter-community stops that have
            SMART service. This would also be the case for Dufferin County, although the cost
            could be covered at either the county or the local level.
         2. Utilize a Taxi / Ridesharing Partnership: This option would expand the use of taxi /
            ridesharing vehicles to other areas of Bruce, Grey and Dufferin counties based on the
            partnership model identified in Base Service Recommendation 5. The impacts and
            recommended vehicles requirements under this option for all three counties is
            discussed below.




         Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
         Unified Regional Transit Network Study
         September 2026 – 25-2330



10.0 Service Plan 113

10.3.2.1   Dufferin County
           In Dufferin County, specialized transit service is provided by DCCSS; however, the
           current operational model is restricted to medical-related travel. If the county wanted
           to implement an on-demand service that would connect residents to the closest inter-
           community fixed-route stop, it would also require an accessible option to fulfill AODA
           requirements. Expanding DCCSS would be challenging as much of the funding is tied to
           the Ministry of Health to support medical trips only.

           For Dufferin County, this could either be done by contracting the service to SMART
           (including providing specialized transit trips within the County) or proceeding with the
           taxi / ridesharing partnership.

           For both options, the travel demand is not anticipated to be high for these trips
           (between 1-3 trips per revenue vehicle hour). In this instance, DCCSS would continue to
           provide door-to-door medical rides and SMART or the taxi / ridesharing partnership
           would provide on-demand trips. This would require at least three vehicles to start,
           focused on the following areas:

           • Shelburne: Opportunity for local trips in Shelburne and well as connections to the
             inter-community corridor from residents in Mulmur, Melancthon, north Mono, and
             north Amaranth;
           • Grand Valley: Opportunity for local trips in Grand Velley, as well as connections to
             the fixed-route corridor from residents in East Garafraxa and the western portion of
             Amaranth; and
           • Orangeville: This would provide residents in the south of Mono and south Amaranth
             with the opportunity to connect to the fixed-route corridor in Orangeville. This
             would not include specialized transit trips within Orangeville, as that would be the
             responsibility of the Town.

           To meet the schedule of the inter-community fixed routes, it is recommended that the
           county subsidize each vehicle for up to 13 hours a day, six days a week (excluding
           statutory holidays).

           If the service were provided by a taxi / rideshare provider (Base Recommendation 5),
           additional funding is recommended to accommodate accessible trip requests to connect




           Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
           Unified Regional Transit Network Study
           September 2026 – 25-2330



10.0 Service Plan 114

           to the inter-community fixed-route corridors. This could be accommodated by DCCSS or
           contracted to SMART based on a pre-determined hourly rate.

           If this service were contracted to SMART, it could also be used to provide specialized
           transit trips within the County, which would be shared with DCCSS as part of a
           partnership agreement (see Base Service Recommendation 7).

           The estimated cost of both options is presented in the Financial Plan (Section 11.2.3). Is
           should be noted that the cost estimate does not include the provision of local
           specialized transit services within Orangeville, as this would be a responsibility of the
           Town.

10.3.2.2   Grey and Bruce County Taxi / Rideshare Service
           Should there be a desire to extend the taxi / rideshare option to municipalities within
           Bruce and Grey counties that are not members of SMART, the following identifies urban
           settlement areas where vehicles could be strategically placed to support both local trips
           and connections to the inter-community corridors.

           • Wiarton: This vehicle would focus on connecting residents to Route 2 and the
             seasonal Route 5 in Wiarton. During the summer, there is the potential to include a
             second vehicle to support increased demand to Sauble Beach.
           • Lion’s Head / Neyaashiinigmiing First Nation: One vehicle could be proposed as a
             seasonal service between the Victoria Day and Labour Day long weekends to support
             connections to Route 5 and to provide local trips.
           • Meaford / The Blue Mountains: This vehicle would provide options for residents to
             connect to Route 3 at stops in Meaford, Thornbury and The Blue Mountains, as well
             as provide mobility options for local trips.

           As with Dufferin County, the initial recommendation would be to provide funding
           support to each of these vehicles for up to 13 hours a day to support connections to the
           inter-community fixed-routes. This can be reduced once the service is in operation and
           there is a better understanding of demand. For this option, the vehicles in Wiarton and
           Meaford / The Blue Mountains would be funded six days a week, while the two seasonal
           vehicles in Bruce County could be subsidized seven days a week.




           Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
           Unified Regional Transit Network Study
           September 2026 – 25-2330



10.0 Service Plan 115

           Additional funding is also allocated to this option to provide the opportunity to contract
           SMART or another service provider with an accessible vehicle to accommodate an
           accessible trip request to connect to the inter-community fixed-route service. Within
           Meaford and parts of The Blue Mountain, this could also be done with the existing
           specialized transit services.

           Both Bruce and Grey counties would need to identify who many vehicles it would be
           interested in supporting to address the remaining mobility gaps in both counties.

10.3.2.3   Grey and Bruce County Commingled SMART Service
           If there is a desire for a local municipality or First Nation within Grey and Bruce County
           to introduce the commingled on-demand / specialized transit service model provided by
           SMART, there would be a requirement for the municipality/First Nation to join SMART
           for the specialized service, while the on-demand trips would be funded by the MSB.

           The implementation of this enhanced option would utilize the structured cost-sharing
           model between the local municipality and the county. Participation is discretionary,
           allowing each municipality to evaluate the local benefit of the expansion. The financial
           framework is defined as follows:

           • Local municipalities and First Nations assume the baseline costs associated with
             providing specialized SMART, using the same costing distribution as recommended in
             the Governance Report (Appendix D).
           • The MSB is responsible for the incremental costs required to increase service
             capacity to provide commingled on-demand transit to the nearest fixed-route stop.
           • Municipalities and First Nation communities may opt in to this service level during
             the initial unified service formation or at a subsequent date as priorities evolve, as
             outlined in the Governance Report (Appendix D).

 10.3.3    Enhanced Service Option 3: Phase 2 of On-demand Expansion within SMART Service
           Area
           Initially in Phase 1 of the on-demand expansion (Section 10.1.5), trips would be focused
           on connecting passengers to the fixed-route corridors (both specialized and on-
           demand). In the second year of operation, this could be expanded to Phase 2 to allow
           local trips to take place within the nearest settlement area.



           Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
           Unified Regional Transit Network Study
           September 2026 – 25-2330



10.0 Service Plan 116

         In Phase 2, any of the participating municipalities or counties within the SMART service
         area may elect to provide curb-to-curb trips within their boundaries to support local
         travel. In these instances, it is recommended to use the jurisdiction’s boundaries to limit
         non-revenue travel time.

         This could be done by either adding a dedicated taxi / rideshare vehicle in a local service
         area, or by expanding the mandate of the commingled SMART on-demand service. The
         later would require SMART to ensure their charitable status would not be impacted.

         If there is a desire to move to Phase 2 using SMART, this would likely increase the
         vehicle requirement by 3 to 6 vehicles. SMART has an additional three vehicles that are
         not currently utilized that could be used for this service, with minor repairs (up to
         $7,000 per vehicle).

         If Phase 2 is implemented using SMART, the existing part-time driver hours would also
         need to be extended to full-time hours to accommodate additional demand. There are
         currently eight drivers that work 30 hours a week. For budgeting purposes, it was
         assumed that half of the part-time drivers would accept this increase in hours (up to
         eight hours each).

10.3.4   Enhanced Service Option 4: Local Transit Fare Integration
         While the fixed-routes provide regional connections, many trips begin or end on local
         municipal transit systems, such as Owen Sound Transit, Orangeville Transit, Colltrans, or
         Guelph Transit. This local transit fare integration involves working collaboratively with
         local agencies to develop a unified fare policy that simplifies the transfer process and
         rewards regional ridership.

         Local municipalities would continue to set and collect their own local transit fares.
         However, to encourage regional travel, a transfer credit model is recommended. If a
         customer transfers from a local municipal bus to a regional route within a specified
         window (typically 60 to 90 minutes), the local fare already paid would be deducted from
         the regional fare. If a customer is transferring from an inter-community route to a local
         route, they could board the local route for free by providing a paper transfer to the
         driver. There are several steps that can be taken in moving forward in this direction.
         These are outlined in the subsequent sections.



         Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
         Unified Regional Transit Network Study
         September 2026 – 25-2330



10.0 Service Plan 117

10.3.4.1   Provide Consistency in Fare Concessions
           A barrier to transit usability is the variation in how different agencies define passenger
           demographics. Currently, definition thresholds for "Senior," "Student," or "Child" (and
           the corresponding discounts) vary across agencies.

           While the base fare price may differ by municipality, the MSB should work with local
           agencies to standardize these concessions. Providing a consistent definition (e.g.
           ensuring "Child" refers to the same age bracket in both Orangeville and Owen Sound)
           reduces confusion for the rider and simplifies the centralized booking system.

10.3.4.2   Digital Integration and the Centralized Booking Platform

           Fare integration can be managed through the centralized trip booking and scheduling
           platform (discussed in Section 10.2.7). By integrating local fare data into the regional
           software, a passenger can book a trip from their home in a local municipality to a
           destination in a neighboring county and receive a single total price and digital ticket.

 10.3.5    Enhanced Service Option 5: Introduce Local Transit in Centre Wellington
           The Township of Centre Wellington has completed and endorsed a 2026 Transit
           Feasibility Study, outlining a plan to implement a local transit service within the urban
           and rural areas of the Township.

           Centre Wellington is a rapidly growing township with a population expected to nearly
           double by 2051, with the majority of growth occurring in Fergus, Elora, and Salem.
           While the Township is currently serviced by RIDE WELL for local travel, the potential
           transit demand is too high for an on-demand service and warrants the introduction of a
           local fixed-route network.

           The Feasibility Study recommended the introduction of a local urban transit service
           comprised of five fixed-routes, operating from a central transit terminal in Fergus. This
           builds on the existing RIDE WELL service that would provide specialized transit as well as
           continued on-demand service in the rural areas of the Township.

           The plan compliments the planned inter-community service between Owen Sound and
           Guelph, with a proposal to add a stop at a new transfer hub in downtown Fergus and
           introduce fare integration with the service. It also recommends the implementation of



           Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
           Unified Regional Transit Network Study
           September 2026 – 25-2330



10.0 Service Plan 118

an enhanced inter-community service between Fergus and Guelph (Enhanced Service
Element 1), adding frequency between Fergus and Guelph.

The proposed transit network is scheduled to be implemented in three phases. The first
phase is illustrated in Figure 18 and would include four routes operating every 60
minutes, with a connection to the proposed inter-community service. This would
require four buses to operate.




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study
September 2026 – 25-2330



10.0 Service Plan 119


Figure 18: Phase 1 Township of Centre Wellington Local Transit Network Plan




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study
September 2026 – 25-2330



10.0 Service Plan 120

Phase 2 increases the headway of two of the routes to ever 30 minutes and introduces
two additional routes to improve coverage, while Phase 3 introduces further frequency
and service hour improvements. This is illustrated in Figure 19.

The use of the OTIF would help kick-start the Centre Wellington local transit service by
providing necessary funding to grow ridership and passenger revenue over the first few
years of service. This would help to reduce municipal investment early and potentially
accelerate the financial feasibility of the service, allowing the Township to move to
Phase 2 or 3 of the service plan.

The introduction of a local transit service would also help to enhance the sustainability
of the base inter-community route between Owen Sound and Guelph, and the two
potential enhanced inter-community routes between Fergus and Guelph and between
Fergus and Waterloo Region. It would provide more opportunities to connect to these
corridors for residents that do not live within a reasonable walking distance of an inter-
community stop.




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study
September 2026 – 25-2330



10.0 Service Plan 121


Figure 19: Phase 3 Township of Centre Wellington Local Transit Network Plan




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study
September 2026 – 25-2330



10.0 Service Plan 122

The introduction of local transit in Centre Wellington will also benefit other
municipalities in the county. Currently, the majority of trips on the RIDE WELL service
occur within Fergus and Elora, and between Fergus/Elora and Guelph. Adding the fixed-
route local transit service in Fergus and Elora will better match the higher passenger
demand but also increase the availability of RIDE WELL vehicles to surrounding
municipalities.

The introduction of a transit terminal in Fergus also provides a safe and comfortable
transfer point for residents in Wellington North, Minto and Mapleton who want to
travel to Guelph. This also opens travel options when paired with a potential inter-
community route between Fergus and Guelph. Residents in northern Wellington County
could use RIDE WELL to connect to the transfer point in Fergus, and with increased
frequency, the length of RIDE WELL trips will be significantly reduced, opening the
availability to deliver more trips.

Working in cooperation with the Unified Transit Service Network would allow for
improved service and fare integration and identify efficiencies in planning and
operations (e.g. reducing administrative costs and identified economies of scale with a
single contractor).

This enhanced option would need to be approved by both Centre Wellington and
Wellington County Council, and a decision made about how the township would fit
within the proposed governance structure of the Municipal Services Board.

The potential would be to support funding of the first phase of the service, including
capital investments required for a new terminal, bus stops and shelters and vehicles.




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study
September 2026 – 25-2330



11.0 Financial Framework 123


11.0     Financial Framework
         The financial framework establishes the base costs and methodologies to guide the
         implementation and long-term financial implications of the Unified Transit Network.
         Given the evolving nature of the Unified Transit Network and the multi-jurisdictional
         coordination involved, this section presents high-level cost options and financial
         scenarios rather than a fixed, final budget.

         To provide decision-makers with a flexible planning tool, this chapter outlines the
         financial implications of the system across two primary tracks:

         • The Base Service Plan: High-level operating costs, revenue projections, funding
           mechanisms, and phasing options for the core cross-boundary network; and
         • Enhanced Service Elements: Scalable financial options for the secondary routes, fare
           integration models, and specialized/on-demand service expansions.

11.1     Base Service Plan Operating Costs
         Operating cost estimates for the Unified Transit Network are based on a third-party
         service delivery model. As the MSB intends to contract these operations to private
         providers, final costs are subject to competitive procurement processes and market
         conditions at the time of tender. The figures presented in this section serve as high-level
         estimates derived from current operational data and industry benchmarks.

         The recommended cost-sharing framework distributes the financial requirements of the
         Unified Transit Network among the four participating counties. This model aligns the
         municipal contributions to the service levels received and is consistent with regional
         equity goals. The methodology for these allocations is described in detail in the
         Governance Report included in Appendix D.

11.1.1   Inter-Community Fixed-Routes

         The cost of the primary inter-community fixed-route network has been calculated based
         on a maximum cost of $135 per service revenue hour. This would be an ‘all-in’ cost that
         includes vehicle branding and fuel surcharges. This cost has been established through an
         analysis of existing operational expenditures for the GOST, and the GTR systems as well
         as estimates provided by two private transit operators.

         Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
         Unified Regional Transit Network Study
         September 2026 – 25-2330



11.0 Financial Framework 124

         Based on the primary inter-community, commuter and tourism routes outlined in
         Section 10.1, the estimated annual cost to operate the inter-community fixed-route
         component of the base service plan is approximately $2,784,100. These costs will vary
         depending on hourly cost to the service provider and the frequency of the routes. A
         breakdown of these costs is detailed in Table 21.

         Table 21: Base Service Plan – Primary Regional Fixed-Route Costs

          Route              Trips Per Day        Round      Annual      Annual      Annual
                                                Trip Time   Operating    Service    Operating
                                                 (Hours)      Days        Hours       Cost
          Owen Sound         4 x Monday -          4.7         305        5,700      $772,900
          to Guelph            Saturday
          Wiarton to         4 x Monday -          4.9         305        5,900      $804,000
          Orangeville          Saturday

          Kincardine to      4 x Monday -          5.2         305        6,200      $841,400
          Collingwood          Saturday
          Shelburne to       4 x Monday -          1.5         251        1,500      $202,800
          Grand Valley           Friday
          Bruce County       3 x Monday -          3.5         100        1,200      $163,000
          Seasonal         Sunday (summer)
          Route
                   Total          N/A             N/A          N/A       19,300     $2,784,100

         These operating costs will be divided between counties based on the funding
         methodology defined in the Governance Report (Appendix D).

11.1.2   Commingled On-demand
         The integration of general on-demand trips with existing SMART specialized services
         (commingling) will be managed through a collaborative financial framework. A tiered
         responsibility model between the counties and the municipalities ensures that the cost
         of specialized transit remains the responsibility of the local municipalities while the
         expansion of service to the general population through on-demand service is supported
         by each county.



         Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
         Unified Regional Transit Network Study
         September 2026 – 25-2330



11.0 Financial Framework 125

11.1.2.1   Local Municipal Contribution
           Participating local municipalities within Grey and Bruce counties will retain responsibility
           for the baseline costs associated with specialized transit services. It will be assumed that
           a requirement for additional vehicles will be a result of the on-demand service. Local
           municipal costs are calculated using the established SMART pricing formula, which
           incorporates municipal population size and specialized transit ridership metrics.

11.1.2.2   County SMART Contribution
           Each applicable county assumes the incremental operational costs required to offer the
           Phase 1 on-demand transit to residents connecting to the fixed-route network.

           Operating costs for SMART on-demand delivery are estimated at a rate of $61.00 per
           revenue vehicle hour. This rate was derived through a review of SMART's operational
           financials. A base operating rate of $58.00/hour was calculated by dividing total 2025
           system operating costs ($1,896,176) by total driver hours (32,748). Because this rate is
           derived from comprehensive system expenditures, it fully encompasses driver wages
           and benefits, fuel, vehicle maintenance, insurance, administrative overhead, and
           software costs. An additional $3.00 per hour is added to the rate to build a capital
           reserve fund, supporting financing for future vehicle replacement and lifecycle upkeep
           as service mileage expands.

           Within the SMART coverage area, the $61.00/hour rate applies strictly to revenue
           vehicle hours (from vehicle arrival at a passenger pick-up to drop-off). Net invoicing to
           the MSB is calculated by deducting collected passenger fare revenue directly from the
           gross vehicle hourly cost.

           Based on an estimated Phase 1 ridership forecasts of 23,485 annual on-demand trips
           across Grey and Bruce counties (averaging 15 minutes per trip), commingled operations
           will require 5,871 annual service hours. An assumed average fare of $9.00 per trip
           (accounting for multi-trip card discounts) was subtracted from the total cost. As a result,
           Phase 1 will cost $171,800 annually to operate.

           Fixed Capital & Technology Upgrades
           In addition to variable hourly operating costs, Phase 1 requires initial fixed capital
           investments funded by the MSB:


           Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
           Unified Regional Transit Network Study
           September 2026 – 25-2330



11.0 Financial Framework 126

•     Vehicle Refurbishment: $14,000 in one-time capital costs (reflecting two refurbished
      vehicles at $7,000 each).
•     Scheduling Software Upgrade: A one-time software upgrade cost of $230,000 to
      integrate automated booking, dispatching, and commingling capabilities into
      SMART’s scheduling platform. This reflects a conservative estimate, which could be
      adjusted by going to competitive RFP.
•     Centralized Booking Software: A one-time software cost of $20,000 to upgrade the
      booking software to allow for potential partnership / brokerage model between
      multiple transit /community transportation operators (Base Service
      Recommendation 7).
•     Ongoing Software Licensing: An annual software licensing fee of up to $25,000 in
      subsequent operating years to upgrade the existing software. This includes both the
      software upgrade for the commingled on-demand ($24,000) and $1,000 annual fees
      per agency (assume SMART and DCCSS to begin) for the partnership /brokerage
      model. If a new software provider is selected through RFP, then the annual licensing
      fee cost would be split by SMART and the MSB, so SMART is paying the portion for
      specialized transit and the MSB is paying the portion for the commingled on-demand
      service.

Phase 1 costs are summarized in Table 22. It should be noted that note that 2027
assumes half a year of service operations.

Table 22: Phase One SMART Operating Costs Grey and Bruce Counties

    Year            Hourly       Software         Vehicle          Fare       Total Cost
                   Operating       Cost        Refurbishment     Revenue
                     Costs
    2027            $179,100     $263,500         $14,000        $105,700      $456,600
    Typical year    $358,200      $26,000            $0          $211,400      $384,200




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study
September 2026 – 25-2330



11.0 Financial Framework 127

11.1.2.3   Subsidized Taxi / Rideshare On-Demand Service (Hanover, Walkerton, Durham, and
           Mildmay)

           To supplement the SMART network and cost-effectively target transit gaps, the plan
           incorporates a subsidized partnership with private TNCs (such as Uber or Uride) or taxi
           providers.

           This service will be deployed across Hanover, Walkerton, Mildmay, with a connection to
           Durham.

           Rather than purchasing public vehicles, the MSB would utilize a subsidized "base-pay"
           model to incentivize driver availability, guaranteeing an operating rate of up to $25 per
           hour. Under this structure, any the driver’s portion of any passenger fares collected
           during their shift are subtracted from the MSB’s hourly payment obligation.

           Example of the Base-Pay Subsidy:

           • Scenario A (No Rides): If a driver works a 4-hour shift and receives zero ride
             requests, the MSB pays the full base guarantee of $100 ($25 × 4 hours).
           • Scenario B (Partial Offset): If the driver completes rides during that 4-hour shift and
             collects $40 in fares, the drivers’ portion of the fare (assume 60%) is subtracted from
             the guarantee, and the MSB only pays $76.
           • Scenario C (Surplus): If the driver experiences high demand and collects $200 in
             fares, the driver keeps 60% of the fare ($120), and the MSB pays $0.

           Assuming the rideshare service operates 13 hours a day, 6 days per week, and the driver
           keeps an average of $8 per hour from the passenger fares, the net cost to the MSB is
           reduced to $17 per hour. This results in a cost of $67,400 annually per vehicle, bringing
           the total operational cost for two rideshare vehicles to $134,800 annually.

  11.1.3   Administrative Costs
           While the MSB will be responsible for making strategic decisions about the service, it is
           expected that operational support will be required to manage the daily administrative
           functions and the system-wide infrastructure of the regional network. Because the
           delivery of transit service is expected to be contracted to third-party providers, the
           administrative team does not handle driver staffing or vehicle maintenance. Instead,
           their focus is on high-level system management, ensuring that the public’s investment is


           Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
           Unified Regional Transit Network Study
           September 2026 – 25-2330



11.0 Financial Framework 128

         protected and that the network functions as a unified family of services. The primary
         responsibilities of this operational support team include the development of key
         policies, agreement management, long-term plans, and annual budgets for MSB
         approval. They will also be responsible for compiling data to assess Key Performance
         Indicators (KPIs).

         Estimated administrative costs provided by county staff are summarized in Table 23.

         Table 23: Administrative Costs

          Administrative Item             2027        2028        2029        2030        2031


          Salary & Benefits          $308,700 $320,000 $332,000             $344,600    $353,200
          Annual Operating Costs     $251,600 $263,900 $276,900             $290,600    $299,300
                               Total $560,300 $584,000 $608,900             $635,200    $652,500

11.1.4   Capital Costs
         Launching the Unified Transit Network will require upfront capital investments. A shared
         lump-sum capital cost model will be utilized for capital start-up costs. Under this
         framework, all capital expenses are centralized and divided among the participating
         members of the MSB, rather than being assigned directly to individual counties.

         During the initial rollout phases, minimal investment will be made in permanent,
         localized physical assets (such as passenger shelters or boarding pads). This prevents
         losing assets in the event that routes require adjustment in the future.

         The majority of upfront capital is dedicated to system-wide digital and administrative
         infrastructure such as centralized trip-planning software, regional branding, website
         development, and legal startup consulting which benefits and supports the entire four-
         county network.

         Capital costs are heavily concentrated in Year 1 (2027) to establish the network’s
         foundation. In subsequent years, capital requirements will drop off sharply.

         Table 24 provides a year-by-year breakdown of the projected capital costs for the
         transit network.



         Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
         Unified Regional Transit Network Study
         September 2026 – 25-2330



11.0 Financial Framework 129

         Table 24: Capital Costs

          Item                        2027           2028         2029          2030        2031

          Brand Development,        $120,400        $5,000       $2,000        $5,000      $5,000
          Community
          Outreach &
          Technology
          Bus Stop / Vehicle        $14,500         $4,000       $7,000        $4,000      $4,000
          Infrastructure
                         Total      $134,900        $9,000       $9,000        $9,000      $9,000

11.1.5   Gross Costs

         To provide an overview of the financial requirements of the Unified Transit Network,
         Table 25 and Table 26 consolidate the cost elements detailed in the preceding sections
         into gross expenses per county.

         The figures presented represent gross expenditures before any cost-recovery
         mechanisms such as passenger fares, or OTIF subsidies are applied to lower the cost
         requirements.

         Table 25 outlines the typical operating expenses for a full year of service, while Table 26
         breaks down the total gross costs by county for each year, assuming a 3% annual cost
         escalation as a result of inflation.




         Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
         Unified Regional Transit Network Study
         September 2026 – 25-2330



11.0 Financial Framework 130

Table 25: Gross Operating Costs Per County – Typical Year

Item                   Bruce            Grey           Dufferin     Wellington
Owen Sound to            $0           $386,500              $0       $386,500
Guelph
Wiarton to            $97,200         $459,000         $247,900         $0
Orangeville
Kincardine to         $391,200        $450,200              $0          $0
Collingwood
Bruce County          $163,000           $0                 $0          $0
Seasonal Route
Grand Valley to          $0              $0            $202,800         $0
Shelburne
SMART On-             $85,900         $85,900           $1,000          $0
Demand
Rideshare On-         $67,400         $67,400               $0          $0
Demand
      Total Gross     $804,700       $1,449,000        $451,700      $386,500
 Operating Costs




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study
September 2026 – 25-2330



11.0 Financial Framework 131

         Table 26: Gross Annual Costs Per County

         Item                Year        Bruce           Grey         Dufferin     Wellington
         GOST/GTR            2027       $124,600       $299,800       $151,500      $148,300
         Operating           2027       $550,400       $882,200       $233,100      $199,000
         Administrative      2027       $126,200       $202,200        $53,400      $45,600
         & Capital
             Total - 2027    2027       $801,200      $1,384,200      $438,000      $392,900
         Operating           2028       $853,700      $1,537,200      $479,100      $410,000
         Administrative      2028       $163,800       $294,900        $92,000      $78,600
         & Capital
             Total - 2028    2028      $1,017,500     $1,832,100      $571,200      $488,600
         Operating           2029       $879,300      $1,583,300      $493,600      $422,300
         Administrative      2029       $175,800       $316,500        $98,700      $84,400
         & Capital
             Total - 2029    2029      $1,055,100     $1,899,800      $592,300      $506,700
         Operating           2030       $905,600      $1,630,800      $508,400      $435,000
         Administrative      2030       $188,700       $339,800       $105,700      $90,600
         & Capital
             Total - 2030    2030      $1,094,300     $1,970,600      $614,400      $525,600
         Operating           2031       $932,800      $1,679,700      $523,600      $448,000
         Administrative      2031       $194,400       $350,000       $109,100      $93,400
         & Capital
             Total - 2031    2031      $1,127,200     $2,029,700      $632,700      $541,400

11.1.6   Base Transit Service Plan Revenue
         To fund these services, several revenue sources will be utilized. The primary streams
         include farebox revenue, municipal funding and provincial support through OTIF and the
         Gas Tax Program. This model maximizes external grants to minimize the direct financial
         requirement from the participating counties.




         Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
         Unified Regional Transit Network Study
         September 2026 – 25-2330



11.0 Financial Framework 132

11.1.7   Fare Revenue Projections
         The revenue model aligns fare revenue with ridership forecasts. Ridership projections
         were developed using a comparative analysis of historic performance data from existing
         transit services within the participating counties.

         For the primary fixed-routes, a system-wide average fare of $11.00 was assumed. For
         the Shelburne to Grand Valley route, a system-wide average fare of $8.00 was assumed
         as this route fully operates within one zone. While the actual fare structure is zone-
         based (as detailed in Section 10.1.8), this average serves as the baseline for revenue
         calculations. Total annual fare revenue is determined by multiplying the projected
         ridership for each corridor by this average fare. The estimated fare revenue and
         ridership by route is broken down in Table 27. These are high level revenue estimates
         and will vary depending on actual service operation costs, route frequency, and actual
         ridership.

         The resulting projections indicate a Revenue-to-Cost (R/C) ratio between 25% and 43%.
         This represents a relatively high rate of cost recovery compared to typical rural transit
         but is aligned with the R/C ratio achieved by GOST. This performance is a result of the
         decision to set higher regional fares that balance individual passenger affordability with
         the long-term financial sustainability of the Unified Transit Network.

         Table 27: Ridership and Fare Revenue Projections

          Route                       Ridership      Fare Revenue        Annual           R/C
                                                                        Operating
                                                                          Cost
          Owen Sound to Guelph         17,723          $195,000         $772,900          0.25
          Wiarton to Orangeville       21,233          $233,600         $804,000          0.29
          Kincardine to                22,221          $244,400         $841,400          0.29
          Collingwood
          Shelburne to Grand            6,669           $87,600         $202,800          0.43
          Valley
          Bruce County Seasonal         1208            $38,000         $163,000          0.23
          Route
                 Inter-Community       69,054          $798,600        $2,784,100         0.29
                      Routes Total



         Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
         Unified Regional Transit Network Study
         September 2026 – 25-2330



11.0 Financial Framework 133

           With the launch of new transit services, it is typical for a ramp-up phase after the initial
           launch, where ridership is lower before the service gains popularity. Over the 4-year
           period, it has been assumed that ridership, and therefore fare revenue, will gradually
           increase, achieving maximum fares by year four. The annual base service plan fare
           revenues are summarized in Table 28.

           Table 28: Base Service Plan - Annual Fare Revenue

            Year                  Fare Revenue
            2027                    $345,500
            2028                    $958,600
            2029                    $995,600
            2030                   $1,052,600
            2031                   $1,052,600

  11.1.8   Gas Tax Fund for Public Transportation

           The Ontario Gas Tax Program provides a stable, long-term source of funding to support
           the expansion and improvement of public transit services. The program is designed to
           increase transit ridership through the expansion of capital infrastructure and service
           levels.

11.1.8.1   Program Overview

           Provincial Gas Tax funds are distributed annually to eligible transit operators based on a
           specific formula weighted 70% on transit ridership and 30% on localized population.

           To understand the financial implications for the Unified Transit Network, it is important
           to examine how these percentages translate to direct per-unit allocations. Based on
           2025 provincial allocation data, the funding rates were approximately:

           • Ridership component: $0.38 per passenger trip; and
           • Population component: $7.80 per resident.

           Financial Insight: While the population component represents a smaller percentage of
           the overall formula weighting (30%), its per-unit value ($7.80 per resident) is
           significantly higher than the per-rider rate ($0.38).




           Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
           Unified Regional Transit Network Study
           September 2026 – 25-2330



11.0 Financial Framework 134

11.1.8.2   Program Rules and Eligibility Restrictions
           To successfully secure and retain Gas Tax allocations, the regional system must adhere
           to provincial constraints:

           • The 75% Spending Cap: A municipality’s or board's annual Gas Tax allocation cannot
             exceed 75% of its own spending on transit (known as "Municipality's Own Spending"
             or MOS). If the network reduces its localized transit spending—due to service cuts,
             shifting costs to alternative grants like the OTIF, or rising farebox revenue—its Gas
             Tax allocation will drop proportionally in the subsequent funding year.
           • The Single Claim Rule: Population and ridership statistics cannot be double counted.
             For example, because Orangeville Transit claims the population of urban Orangeville
             for its localized service allocation, the regional network cannot claim that same
             population segment.
           • The Two-Year Historical Lag: There is a standard two-year reporting lag before Gas
             Tax funding is applied to new or expanded systems. Allocations for the launch in late
             2026 and early operational years will be tied to historical baseline data.
           • Accessibility Mandate: To remain eligible for any provincial funding under this
             program, all public transportation services must be fully accessible in accordance
             with the AODA.

           It should be noted that as of May 2026, MTO announced that funding allocations have
           been frozen to 2024/25 levels.

11.1.8.3   Current Baseline Allocations

           Provincial Gas Tax revenues currently flowing into the four counties under existing
           independent transit frameworks are summarized in Table 29.




           Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
           Unified Regional Transit Network Study
           September 2026 – 25-2330



11.0 Financial Framework 135

           Table 29: Existing (2025-26) Provincial Gas Tax Allocation

            County Focus           Transit Service Stream / Partnership           2025–26 Provincial
            Area                                                                      Allocation
            Grey / Bruce   Saugeen Mobility and Regional Transit (SMART)               $740,828
                                                 Pool
            Wellington                  Wellington County                              $397,205
                                  (RIDE WELL On-Demand Service)
                 Sub-Total         Municipalities within the MSB                      $1,138,033
            Grey             City of Owen Sound (Owen Sound Transit)                   $245,919
            Grey             Municipality of Meaford (Meaford Moves)                   $65,797
            Grey / Simcoe     Town of Collingwood & Town of The Blue                   $343,932
                            Mountains (Colltrans - primarily Collingwood)
            Dufferin          Town of Orangeville (Orangeville Transit)                $294,473
                     Total   All Municipalities (note that Collingwood                $2,088,154
                                   would not be part of the MSB)

11.1.8.4   Strategic Application and Governance Scenarios

           Because the final governance framework of the MSB remains fluid, the financial plan
           evaluates three distinct modeling scenarios for claiming Provincial Gas Tax. How these
           assets are pooled will directly dictate the net costs required from each municipal
           partner.

           Ultimately, the most strategic advantage is to utilize OTIF while it is available and build
           ridership so that the Gas Tax allocation is maximized when OTIF funding is no longer
           available. Therefore, any new Provincial Gas Tax funding would not be used until 2029,
           after two years of operation of the new Unified Transit Network.

11.1.8.5   Gas Tax Scenarios
           Scenario 1: Comprehensive Four-County Consolidation

           All four participating counties combine their eligible population bases and pool all
           regional ridership into a single, unified provincial application. This maximizes the total
           provincial funding draw across the entire geography but requires a highly structured
           inter-municipal agreement to distribute pooled revenues back to individual county
           operations.


           Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
           Unified Regional Transit Network Study
           September 2026 – 25-2330



11.0 Financial Framework 136

Scenario 2: Three-County Framework (Excluding Wellington County)

If Wellington County chooses not to participate in the collective application, the
remaining partners (Bruce, Grey, and Dufferin) would combine their eligible population
base. The MSB would claim the ridership generated by the Unified Transit Network, this
reduction would then be applied to the costs occurred by the participating counties.

Scenario 3: SMART Integration (Saugeen Mobility Integration vs. Exclusion)

Integrating SMART brings its specialized ridership and member municipality populations
into the unified pool. Excluding SMART means the Unified Transit Network loses the
ability to claim that population base, drastically lowering the total Gas Tax funding the
MSB can qualify for and leaving SMART’s independent operational spending capped.
Inclusion of SMART would involve applying with a combined population and ridership
and allocating an agreed upon portion of the funds to SMART.

Recommendation and 2029 Reassessment
It is recommended that the exact Gas Tax funding and allocation strategy be formally
reassessed in 2029 when the counties submit their first application. This window allows
the MSB sufficient time to evaluate stabilized ridership data, finalize long-term
Wellington County and SMART participation arrangements, and adapt to any broader
structural updates to the provincial Gas Tax program.

Financial Plan Modeling Baseline
For the purposes of this financial plan, modeling assumes the network will proceed
under Scenario 2, with SMART excluded. Under this baseline, Bruce, Grey, and Dufferin
counties will jointly apply for Gas Tax funding utilizing the Unified Transit Network
ridership.

To prevent double-counting, and comply with provincial regulations, the population
baseline excludes Wellington County, the SMART service area, and all municipalities that
maintain independent local transit allocations (Orangeville, Owen Sound, Meaford, and
The Blue Mountains).

Once Gas Tax revenues are received by the MSB starting in 2029, they will be divided
among the three participating counties proportionally based on their actual operational
cost contributions to the network.



Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study
September 2026 – 25-2330



11.0 Financial Framework 137

         Gas Tax Allocation Example
         If the net operating costs are shared as follows:

         • Grey County: $500,000 (50% cost share);
         • Bruce County: $300,000 (30% cost share); and
         • Dufferin County: $200,000 (20% cost share).

         If the MSB receives a provincial Gas Tax allocation of $100,000, the funding will be
         distributed back to the partner counties to offset their municipal levies as follows:

         • Grey County receives: $50,000;
         • Bruce County receives: $30,000; and
         • Dufferin County receives: $20,000.

         Gas Tax Projections
         Gas Tax is the provincial funding framework transit operations are directed to for long
         term predictable funding. That said, County staff are concerned with this option due to
         recent changes and overall policy. County staff were informed earlier this year that
         funding allocations have been capped at 2024–25 levels, with no indication when this
         cap may be lifted. In addition, allocations continue to rely on ridership data from two
         years prior, meaning funding does not reflect current service expansion, increased
         demand, or investments being made today. At present, the combined unclaimed gas tax
         allocation among the four counties is approximately $248,900. Funding allocations are
         population-based and may only be counted once. Applying Gas Tax funding to this
         Unified Regional Transit Network would utilize the remaining local allocation, potentially
         restricting lower-tier municipalities' ability to access these funds for future needs. As a
         result, staff have excluded Gas Tax allocations from the current financial calculations.

11.1.9   OTIF Funding

         OTIF provides time-limited, application-based funding for a maximum duration of five
         years. The funding model is designed to support a gradual transition toward financial
         sustainability:

         • Total Contribution: OTIF will provide up to 50% of total multi-year project costs.
         • Sustainability Mechanism: To encourage long-term viability, the OTIF contribution is
           capped at 30% of eligible costs in the final year of the agreement.


         Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
         Unified Regional Transit Network Study
         September 2026 – 25-2330



11.0 Financial Framework 138

           • Cost Sharing: Project teams are responsible for the remaining costs through
             municipal contributions, fare revenue, and other funding sources.

           As noted earlier in this report, the Partnership is eligible to receive up to $9,495,000 to
           facilitate the integration of new and existing transit services in Grey, Bruce, and Dufferin
           counties into a single, Unified Transit Network.

           While Wellington County was included as part of this study, it is not formally part of the
           OTIF application at this time.

11.1.9.1   OTIF Funding Application

           The year-by-year application of OTIF funding, along with the net remaining costs to be
           shared by the MSB, is summarized in Table 30.

           This funding methodology is designed to maximize OTIF funding by leveraging the full
           50% cost-matching threshold over the 5-year period. By front-loading this provincial
           support, the Unified Transit Network will utilize 68% ($6,420,500) of the total
           $9,495,000 in eligible funding allocated to the region for the base transit service plan,
           significantly lowering the initial financial burden on local municipal property tax levies
           while ridership numbers mature.




           Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
           Unified Regional Transit Network Study
           September 2026 – 25-2330



11.0 Financial Framework 139

          Table 30: OTIF Funding Allocation

           Year                  Gross      % OTIF Subsidy $ OTIF Funding              Remaining
                             Operating Cost                                              Cost
           2025 (April to       $339,300             47%             $159,500           $179,800
           December)
           2026                $1,508,700            55%             $824,700           $683,900
           2027                $3,016,400            75%            $2,262,300          $754,100
           2028                $3,909,200            60%            $2,345,500         $1,563,700
           2029                $4,053,800            30%            $1,195,900         $2,858,000
           2030 (January       $1,051,200            15%             $157,700           $893,500
           to March)
                     Total     $13,878,600           50%            $6,945,600         $6,933,000

11.1.10   Regional Contribution

          The net municipal contribution for each county is determined through a standardized,
          three-step calculation:

          1. Gross Cost Attribution: First, each county is allocated its specific share of gross costs
             as summarized in Section 11.1.5.
          2. OTIF Deduction: A uniform percentage reduction is applied to the gross costs of all
             counties.
          3. Route-Specific Fare Offsets: Finally, system fare revenues are deducted from each
             county's balance. Fares are allocated based on the specific routes each county
             supports and their proportional cost-sharing ratio for those corridors.

          The remaining balance after these provincial subsidies and system revenues are
          deducted is the final Net Operating Cost, representing the tax levy impact for each
          county council.

          The following tables provide a year-by-year financial breakdown for each county over
          the six-year planning horizon. Each table details the gross cost, the localized application
          of funding offsets, and the final net cost required to sustain the network.




          Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
          Unified Regional Transit Network Study
          September 2026 – 25-2330



11.0 Financial Framework 140

Table 31: County Contributions 2027

Cost                  Bruce             Grey         Dufferin     Wellington
Gross Cost           $801,200         $1,384,200    $438,000       $392,900
OTIF                 $600,800         $1,038,200    $328,600       $294,700
Fares                $97,800          $167,600       $31,300       $48,700
          Total     $102,600          $178,400       $78,100       $49,500

Table 32: County Contributions 2028

Cost                  Bruce             Grey         Dufferin     Wellington
Gross Cost          $1,017,500        $1,832,100    $571,100       $488,600
OTIF                 $610,500         $1,099,200    $342,700       $293,200
Fares                $308,500         $464,900       $87,800       $97,500
          Total      $98,500          $268,000      $140,600       $97,900

Table 33: County Contributions 2029

Cost                  Bruce             Grey         Dufferin     Wellington
Gross Cost          $1,055,100        $1,899,800    $592,300       $506,700
OTIF                 $311,200         $560,400      $174,700       $149,500
Fares                $344,400         $440,900      $112,800       $97,500
          Total     $399,500          $898,500      $304,800       $259,700

Table 34: County Contributions 2030

Cost                  Bruce             Grey         Dufferin     Wellington
Gross Cost          $1,094,300        $1,970,600    $614,300       $525,600
OTIF                 $41,000           $73,900       $23,000       $19,700
Fares                $362,400         $467,300      $125,400       $97,500
          Total     $690,900          $1,429,400    $465,900       $408,400




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study
September 2026 – 25-2330



11.0 Financial Framework 141

         Table 35: County Contributions 2031

          Cost                  Bruce             Grey            Dufferin         Wellington
          Gross Cost         $1,127,200        $2,029,700         $632,700         $541,400
          OTIF                    $0               $0                $0                $0
          Fares               $362,400          $467,300          $125,400          $97,500
                    Total     $764,800         $1,562,400         $507,300         $443,900

11.2     Enhanced Service Costs
         The operating and capital costs of each of the enhanced services are broken down
         below. Should a decision be made to implement any of the enhanced service options,
         the costs reflected below would be further reduced by applying any unallocated OTIF
         funding based on the recommended year of implementation. This would be recalculated
         once a final decision is made by applicable Councils, subject to available OTIF dollars
         remaining.

11.2.1   Supplemental Regional Fixed-Routes
         The supplemental fixed-routes are intended to be assessed and implemented
         individually. A breakdown of the cost of each route is provided in Table 36. These
         estimates are based on the service parameters identified in Section 11.1 and will vary
         depending on ultimate route frequency and the contracted cost per hour of vehicle
         operations.

         OTIF would further reduce the total operating cost of each route by up to 50%, with up
         to a 70% reduction in 2027 (assuming a July start of service), and up to a 30% reduction
         for the first quarters of 2029. The cost and allocation to each county would be
         calculated if Council elects to move forward with any of the above routes. After this
         time, Provincial Gas Tax would be used to provide a new funding source to these routes,
         further offsetting the municipal contribution.




         Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
         Unified Regional Transit Network Study
         September 2026 – 25-2330



11.0 Financial Framework 142

           Table 36: Enhanced Service Plan – Supplemental Regional Fixed-Route Costs

            Route           Trips Per     Round Trip       Annual          Annual       Annual Net
                               Day          Time          Operating        Service      Operating
                                           (Hours)          Days            Hours          Cost
            Durham to           4              3.0           251            2,989        $403,600
            Listowel
            Fergus to           6              1.0           302            1,868        $252,100
            Elmira
            Fergus to           6              1.0           302            1,812        $245,600
            Guelph
            Orangeville         4              4.3           251            6,439        $869,200
            to Guelph

  11.2.2   Additional Taxi / Ridesharing Vehicles
           As detailed in Section 11.1.2.3, the annual cost of one rideshare vehicle operating 13
           hours per day, 6 days per week is approximately $67,400. The base transit service plan
           taxi / rideshare service could be expanded to provide service to additional areas
           including locations outside of the SMART service area.

           If a taxi / rideshare vehicle were to operate to support a seasonal route (13 hours a day,
           7 days a week for only 4 months of the year), operating the vehicle would cost
           approximately $25,500 for the season. Depending on the size of the area, any number
           of vehicles could be required, taxi / rideshare vehicles can be implemented as needed.

  11.2.3   Dufferin On-Demand Service
           On-demand service in Dufferin County can be provided by SMART or with a taxi /
           rideshare vehicle.

11.2.3.1   SMART
           If on-demand service were to be provided by SMART, the rate of $61 per hour would be
           applied to the entire time that a vehicle is available. This is because SMART specialized
           service is not offered in Dufferin County, therefore the on-demand service would need
           to account for deadhead and wait time. Because Dufferin County would be paying for
           the vehicles to be available, not by trip, it would be cost effective for the SMART
           vehicles to offer first-mile last-mile trips as well as local on-demand trips.

           Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
           Unified Regional Transit Network Study
           September 2026 – 25-2330



11.0 Financial Framework 143

           Based on an estimated ridership of 20,130 annual on-demand trips across Dufferin
           County, 11,895 vehicle hours (three SMART vehicles), and an assumed average fare of
           $9.00 per trip, SMART service would cost approximately $649,500 annually to operate
           (including annual software licenses).

           In addition to variable hourly operating costs, SMART implementation requires initial
           fixed capital investments:

           •     Vehicle Refurbishment: $21,000 in one-time capital costs (reflecting three
                 refurbished vehicles at $7,000 each).
           •     Scheduling Software Upgrade: A one-time software upgrade cost of $60,000 to
                 expand software coverage to Dufferin County.
           •     Ongoing Software Licensing: An annual software licensing fee of $6,000 in
                 subsequent operating years.
           SMART implementation costs are summarized in Table 37, noting that 2027 assumes half
           a year of service operations.

           Table 37: SMART Operating Dufferin County

               Year             Hourly       Software        Vehicle           Fare       Total Cost
                               Operating       Cost       Refurbishment      Revenue
                                 Costs
               2027            $362,800      $63,000         $21,000         $90,600      $356,200
               Typical year    $725,600       $6,000            $0           $181,200     $550,400

11.2.3.2   Taxi / Rideshare

           To implement a taxi / rideshare service as an on-demand service for Dufferin County,
           three vehicles would be required. Instead of assuming one rider per hour, the Dufferin
           County on-demand ridership has been estimated at 20,130 annual trips. Assuming the
           driver would take home $8 from the fare for each trip, the cost of three rideshare
           vehicles in Dufferin County would be $166,800. If the rideshare service were to be
           supplemented by SMART specialized service at a cost of $61 per hour, assuming 2 hours
           per day, this would cost an additional $37,200 annually. The total cost of rideshare/taxi
           service supplemented by SMART accessible trips would be approximately $204,000
           annually.

           Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
           Unified Regional Transit Network Study
           September 2026 – 25-2330



11.0 Financial Framework 144

11.2.4   Phase Two SMART On-Demand Service
         Upgrading the SMART service to provide local on-demand transit would generate
         approximately 17,000 additional trips. This would cost an additional $260,400 annually
         in hourly operating costs, and generate $153,700 in additional fare revenue, resulting in
         a net additional cost of $106,700 annually to upgrade SMART service to provide local
         on-demand trips within the areas that it is already operating. This should only done
         once Phase 1 is operating for at least 6 months and SMART has a better understanding
         of the impact on trips and its charitable status.

11.2.5   Centre Wellington Local Service

         The annual net operating cost to operate the proposed Phase 1 Centre Wellington local
         transit service (Section 10.3.5) would be approximately $1,554,000. This includes the
         cost of hiring a transit coordinator, training, advertising and printing, and other
         miscellaneous costs as documented in the 2026 Centre Wellington Transit Feasibility
         Study report.

         One of the benefits of consolidating working with Wellington County and the MSB is the
         opportunity to reduce the need to have a dedicated staff person to manage the system.
         Two staff members are proposed for the MSB, which may reduce the need for a
         dedicated staff person to manage the RIDE WELL service (Wellington County) and a
         separate dedicated staff person to manage the proposed Fergus/Elora local transit
         service. This could reduce the annual operating cost as noted above by sharing an
         internal staff resource between Centre Wellington and Wellington County to manage
         the broader transit network in Wellington County, as the MSB staff resources could also
         take on certain planning and administrative functions.

         In addition to this, the initial capital cost of the service for Phase 1 is included in
         Table 38 below.




         Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
         Unified Regional Transit Network Study
         September 2026 – 25-2330



11.0 Financial Framework 145

       Table 38: Centre Wellington Capital Costs

        Capital Requirement                       Cost
        Transit Terminal Design                $40,000
        Transit Terminal Construction         $1,000,000
        Bus Stops                              $150,000
        Shelters                               $80,000
                                   Total      $1,270,000

       The costs identified above are outlined in the 2026 Centre Wellington Transit Feasibility
       Study. Subject to availability of remaining funds, OTIF would further reduce the total
       operating and capital cost of this service by up to 50%, with up to a 70% reduction in
       2027 (assuming a July start of service), and up to a 30% reduction for the first quarters
       of 2029.

       The costs that could be applied to the OTIF fund, subject to availability, are highlighted
       in Table 39 below. This assumes a July 1, 2027 start of service, an OTIF ending on March
       31, 2030.

       Table 39: Potential Costs per Year for OTIF

        Cost Elements            2027                2028            2029              2030
        Capital Cost          $1,270,000            $0                $0               $0
        Operating Cost         $777,000         $1,554,000        $1,554,000        $388,5000
                Total Cost    $2,331,000        $1,554,000        $1,554,000        $388,500

       The exact cost of OTIF reductions would be calculated if both the Township of Centre
       Wellington Council and Wellington County Council elect to move forward with this plan,
       pending available OTIF funding.

       After this time, Provincial Gas Tax would be used to provide a new funding source to
       these routes, further offsetting the municipal contribution.

11.3   Funding Opportunities
       There are other funding opportunities that could offset potential county contributions,
       particularly when OTIF funding has ended. These are identified below.



       Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
       Unified Regional Transit Network Study
       September 2026 – 25-2330



11.0 Financial Framework 146

         It should be noted that there are rules for staking funds that need to be reviewed before
         applying. For example, the portion of expansion fleet paid by provincial or federal grants
         cannot be paid for with Development Charges.

11.3.1   Rural Transit Solutions Fund

         The Rural Transit Solutions Fund2 is a targeted funding stream of the federal Permanent
         Public Transit Fund. The fund targets transit solutions in rural and remote communities
         through two streams:

         • Planning and Design Projects stream providing grants up to $50,000 to complete
           studies that support introduction or expansion of transit in rural communities; and
         • Capital Project stream, offering eligible organizations with at least two years of
           transit experience or a completed public transit feasibility study (dated after January
           1, 2020) up to $10 million, or organizations with less than two years of experience
           and no recent feasibility study up to $250,000 in federal funding.

         For both solutions, 80% of the value of the project is funded to a municipality for the
         upset limit in both streams, while Indigenous communities can receive 100% of the
         value of the project, up to the upset limit.

         At the time of writing this report, the application for both funding streams was closed.
         However, once open, the MSB would be able to apply for funding to support capital and
         infrastructure up to $10,000,000 based on the recommendations that were identified in
         this report. This could be used for both expansion and replacement vehicles and could
         further reduce the hourly operating cost by 10% to 15% from the contracted provided if
         vehicles were supplied by the MSB for the contractor to operate and maintain.

         This fund was also previously used by SMART to support replacement vehicles. SMART
         would also be able to apply to request additional funding to the maximum limit of the
         grant.




         2
             https://housing-infrastructure.canada.ca/rural-trans-rural/index-eng.html

         Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
         Unified Regional Transit Network Study
         September 2026 – 25-2330



11.0 Financial Framework 147

11.3.2   Rural Ontario Development (ROD) Program
         The Rural Ontario Development (ROD) program is an application-based initiative that
         provides up to $20 million in funding to address targeted regional barriers in rural
         communities. The goals of the program are to foster regional partnerships, workforce
         attraction, and community infrastructure transformation in rural communities in
         Ontario. The program offers various funding opportunities split into three core
         categories:

         • Economic Diversification, Competitiveness, and Capacity Building: Supports the
           initial creation of strategies or plans (up to a 50% cost-share, max $50,000) or funds
           the physical implementation of existing economic development plans (up to a 50%
           cost-share, max $150,000).
         • Workforce Development, Attraction, and Retention: Funds specialized initiatives or
           campaigns focused on attracting, training, and retaining localized workers,
           immigrants, or youth (up to a 50% cost-share, max $150,000).
         • Community Infrastructure Enhancements: Invests directly in public spaces by
           transforming or modifying existing community assets identified as important to the
           local economy. Funding provides up to a 35% cost-share, covering small projects up
           to $25,000 or large infrastructure upgrades spanning $25,000 to $250,000.

         The MSB could apply for this program to support future studies that are tied to how
         transit will achieve the economic objectives of the program (e.g. how transit could
         further support connections to key employers or the tourism industry). The Community
         Infrastructure Enhancements sub-stream could also be utilized to update or transform
         vital public economic assets (e.g. retrofitting a key transit terminal or adding shelters
         and passenger amenities at stops that service a key employer).

         At the time of writing this report, there one intake period left for this fund that the four
         counties could apply to on January 18, 2027 – February 25, 2027.

11.3.3   Green Municipal Fund
         The Green Municipal Fund (GMF), administered by the Federation of Canadian
         Municipalities (FCM), represents a potential external funding mechanism to support the
         sustainable infrastructure and technology requirements of the Unified Transit Network.
         As an independent endowment, the GMF provides Canadian municipalities and their


         Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
         Unified Regional Transit Network Study
         September 2026 – 25-2330



11.0 Financial Framework 148

partners with access to capital to make climate-smart infrastructure, sustainable transit,
and community resilience financially viable.

Program Mechanics and Funding Structure

The GMF provides a flexible funding model that scales alongside a project. Depending
on the initiative type, the program can cover between 50% and 80% of eligible project
costs. Funding is distributed across two primary streams:

• Grants: Designated for early-stage planning, strategy development, feasibility
  studies (assessing technical, financial, and environmental impacts), and small-scale
  pilot projects evaluating solutions under real-life conditions.
• Loans with Grant Components: Tailored for full-scale capital project
  implementation. Capital project recipients typically secure long-term loans paired
  with an additional, non-repayable grant of up to 15% of the total loan amount.

Applications are accepted year-round through a structured two-stage process.
Municipalities first submit a pre-application to confirm project eligibility, after which
qualified projects are formally invited to submit a comprehensive full application.

Application to the Unified Transit Network
Because the GMF focuses heavily on low-carbon transformation and municipal fleet
sustainability, the MSB and participating counties can leverage this fund across multiple
phases of the transit network’s rollout:
• Feasibility Studies and Future Corridor Planning (Grants): As noted in the capital
   cost framework (Section 11.1.4), additional studies will be required as the network
   expands. GMF grants can offset up to 80% of the costs for technical and
   environmental assessments of new inter-community corridors or micro-transit
   zones.
• On-Demand and Micro-Transit Pilots (Grants): For the introduction of commingled
   specialized and on-demand transit in rural areas currently lacking service
   (Section 10.3.2), the GMF can provide grant funding to launch small-scale pilot
   projects. This allows the MSB to test scheduling software, vehicle placement, and
   passenger uptake before committing to full capital investments.
• Low-Carbon Fleet and Infrastructure Upgrades (Loans/Grants): For long-term
   capital procurement, the GMF offers specific initiatives such as Municipal Fleet



Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study
September 2026 – 25-2330



11.0 Financial Framework 149

            Electrification and Sustainable Municipal Buildings. If the MSB elects to transition
            toward zero-emission battery-electric buses (BEBs) or construct regional transit hubs
            equipped with solar infrastructure or charging stations, the GMF can serve as a
            source of low-interest loans and compounding grants.

11.3.4   Development Charges

         All four counties use Development Charges (DC) to pay for capital projects that are
         needed to meet the demands generated by population growth. Through the application
         of DCs, the development community contributes an appropriate share of infrastructure
         capital costs for necessary growth-related transit improvements over the ten-year
         planning period. The Development Charges Act, 1997 identifies a separate methodology
         in which transit services can be added to the by-law. The by-law identifies how and
         when municipalities can collect Development Charges for transit. This includes the
         following:

         • DCs can be applied to conventional, specialized, and on-demand services as well as
           studies that assess growth (e.g. a future transit master plan);
         • DCs can be used for capital costs that support expansion of the system, including
           fleet, new stops in growth areas (pads, signs, shelters), terminals, facilities,
           supervisor and maintenance vehicles;
         • Only the portion of these costs that support growth can be eligible for inclusion in
           the Development Charge by-law;
         • Federal and Provincial funding used to support these expenses (e.g. OTIF and
           Provincial Gas Tax) must be subtracted from the calculation;
         • If vehicles are provided by the contractor, they can be incorporated into the by-law
           as long as the contract separates the portion of the operating contract that is
           attributable to the lifecycle cost of an expansion vehicle; and
         • DCs are not applicable for replacement costs (e.g. vehicles), unless a municipality
           demonstrates an increase in capacity that is required to support growth (e.g. moving
           from a cutaway vehicle to a 30-foot bus).

         To maximize the use of DCs, each partner in the MSB should assess the ability to include
         transit in its next update. This would help to offset some of the capital costs and the
         capital portion of the operating cost for any services launched within a 10-year horizon
         of the DC by-law update.


         Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
         Unified Regional Transit Network Study
         September 2026 – 25-2330



11.0 Financial Framework 150

         To maximize the benefits of funding from DCs, the following considerations should be
         made:

         • Where possible, OTIF and Provincial Gas Tax funding should be used to offset
           operating costs and not capital expenses;
         • DC by-law updates should be undertaken prior to the launch of the service or the
           spending of capital and infrastructure requirements; and
         • Include a provision in the operating contract to create a separate line item for the
           capital cost of any expansion vehicles, should this be included as part of the
           operating contract.

11.3.5   Advertising Revenue

         Many public transit systems enhance their revenue streams by advertising on behalf of
         other organizations on various platforms, including transit vehicles, transit hubs and
         stops, and digital platforms. Ads can be placed on the exterior and interior of transit
         vehicles, typically utilizing wraps and exterior and interior ad space.

         Transit terminals and bus stops also offer advertising space through billboards, digital
         displays, and bench ads. Additionally, transit websites can create ad space that has the
         opportunity to generate revenue.

         The ability to earn revenue from advertising opportunities depends on the visibility of
         the ads. In rural and remote communities, lower ridership typically limits the revenue
         brought in for interior vehicle advertising spots. However, exterior bus ads and ads at
         stops may have an increased attractiveness as they can also be observed by pedestrians
         and persons travelling by personal vehicle.

         For the MSB, the potential to generate ad revenue is minimal, and will likely only
         generate 1% to 2% of the total revenue recovered from the system. Therefore, when
         moving forward with identifying advertising revenue opportunities, the level of effort
         should be kept at a minimum and not reduce focus on other key priorities.

         If there is a desire to move forward with advertising, the following steps should be
         considered:

         • Develop an advertising policy that aligns with any standards identified through each
           of the counties;


         Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
         Unified Regional Transit Network Study
         September 2026 – 25-2330



11.0 Financial Framework 151

         • Identify if there are any third-party advertising contracts currently used by municipal
           members of the MSB that can be used as a starting point;
         • Where appropriate, issue a RFP to select a third-party advertising provider, and
           negotiate a contract with the chosen vendor. Partnering with established third-party
           advertising providers can streamline the process of implementing an advertising
           program, allowing the MSB to focus on delivering transit;
         • Work closely with an advertising provider to identify suitable advertising spaces and
           ensure compliance with content guidelines; and
         • Establish a revenue-sharing agreement and a reporting structure to help track the
           program's success and financial impact.

         Advertising space can also be used by the MSB to communicate with the public and
         promote key internal messages and/or community events. This could include service
         updates, safety messages, and promotional materials for local events or to ask for
         community feedback (e.g. include a QR code for a community survey).

11.3.6   Reserve Fund Strategy
         A primary challenge with OTIF is managing the transition between short-term provincial
         funding to full reliance on the municipal tax levy. Each county faces constraints that limit
         how much municipal taxes can increase in a single fiscal year to support the growth of
         the service and reduction in OTIF. To prevent large single-year increases and ensure the
         long-term viability of the Unified Transit Network, each county should consider
         establishing a Transit Reserve Fund.

         The Transit Reserve Fund addresses this challenge by allocating funding to a dedicated
         reserve, helping to mitigate significant year-over-year funding increases while
         optimizing the use of available OTIF funding. This approach is expected to smooth future
         funding requirements and reduce the anticipated impact on County contributions as
         OTIF funding levels gradually decline.

         Any municipal funds contributed during these grant years that exceed the actual net
         operating costs will not be spent. Instead, they will be transferred into the dedicated
         Transit Reserve Fund.




         Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
         Unified Regional Transit Network Study
         September 2026 – 25-2330



12.0 Implementation Plan 152


12.0   Implementation Plan
       The following section of the report includes an implementation strategy, outlining next
       steps required to move forward with the formation of a Unified Transit Network, subject
       to Council approval. These are organized into three phases.

       • Phase 1 - Pre-Approval (prior to adoption by each Council): There are several
         actions that the BDGW Unified Transit Network working committee can take to
         advance the project prior to formal approval by each Council. These are steps that
         do not commit each county to the plan but will help reduce the timeline to
         implementation should each Council decide to move forward with the MSB.
       • Phase 2 - Priority 1 Implementation: Upon Council approval, there are several
         priority steps that will need to be taken over the first two months to progress the
         Unified Transit Network across the agreed to counties.
       • Phase 3 – Priority 2 Implementation: These are steps that should be taken following
         the completion of Priority 1 steps. They are important to advance the network but
         can be completed within the 3 to 5 month horizon.

       A draft implementation plan is described in Table 40 below. Key inputs to the
       implementation plan are then described further in Appendix E (software requirements)
       and Appendix F (operator requirements).

       A review of the legislative requirement compliance s is provided in Appendix G.




       Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
       Unified Regional Transit Network Study
       September 2026 – 25-2330



12.0 Implementation Plan 153

Table 40: Implementation Plan

Categories             Phase 1 – Pre-Approval        Phase 2 - Implementation           Phase 3 - Implementation
On-Demand          • Confirm participation in the • Develop RFP (if decision        • Award on-demand contract
Software             procurement of a common        made to go to market) or          provider and begin to work
                     on-demand software             finalize a contract template      with the proponent to
                     solution and brokerage         for a preferred on-demand         implement the service
                     model with other               provider (two-year term           upgrade.
                     community and specialized      with an option to extend).      • Train existing booking
                     transit providers in the                                         agents from SMART and
                     area.                                                            other participating
                   • Meet with TripSpark and                                          organizations on the new or
                     RideCo to discuss                                                upgraded software.
                     opportunity to extend and                                      • Update policies and
                     expand on-demand                                                 procedures regarding co-
                     software license based on                                        mingling with on-demand
                     the requirements identified                                      transit.
                     in Appendix E.
                   • Based on information
                     collected, decide whether
                     to extend either on a 2-year
                     term or move forward with
                     a full RFP (Phase 2).




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study
September 2026 – 25-2330



12.0 Implementation Plan 154

Categories             Phase 1 – Pre-Approval           Phase 2 - Implementation       Phase 3 - Implementation
Operating          • Issue Request for              •   Develop RFP (if a decision is • Award contract(s) and
Contract             Information (RFI) for an           made to go to market) or        begin to work with the
                     operating contract to              finalize a contract template    proponent(s) to implement
                     determine the ability to bid       for a preferred                 the expanded service.
                     on the service based on the        transportation operator(s)    • Get preferred operator to
                     requirements identified in         (two-year term with an          submit KPI reporting
                     Appendix F.                        option to extend).              template, driver training
                   • Review responses received                                          plan, customer service plan
                     and decide next steps                                              and incident response plan.
                     (extend existing contracts
                     for two years or go to RFP).




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study
September 2026 – 25-2330



12.0 Implementation Plan 155

Categories             Phase 1 – Pre-Approval       Phase 2 - Implementation          Phase 3 - Implementation
Formation of       • Work with county Chief       • Draft and circulate a         •   Hire support staff required
the Board            Administrative Officers        shared-service agreement          to assist the Transit
                     (CAOs) to confirm the          defining the funding              Manager.
                     governance structure.          formula, cost allocation,
                   • Review each of the counties    scope of services and
                     by-laws to confirm the         decision-making structure
                     authority to operate a         of the MSB.
                     public transit service under • Enact the MSB
                     the Municipal Act, 2001.       Establishment By-law
                     Update or create a new by-     pursuant to Section 196 of
                     law providing this authority   the Municipal Act, 2001.
                     prior to procurement.        • Consolidate regional
                                                    funding, such as OTIF and
                                                    the Ontario Provincial Gas
                                                    Tax to the Board.
                                                  • Hire a Transit Manager
                                                    under the MSB to guide the
                                                    organization.




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study
September 2026 – 25-2330



12.0 Implementation Plan 156

Categories            Phase 1 – Pre-Approval       Phase 2 - Implementation        Phase 3 - Implementation
Marketing and  • Continue to market the        • Retain and work with a        •   Create a website that will
Communications   existing service, including     marketing/branding agency         host the Unified Transit
                 extended routes.                to identify a name and            Network, including routes,
               • Ensure all new routes           brand for the Unified             schedules and maps.
                 include General Transit         Transit Network. This         •   Create transit maps and
                 Feed Specification (GTFS)       should include a common           schedules and continue
                 data and are visible on         wayfinding process (print         with social media
                 Google to allow trip            and digital).                     campaigns.
                 planning.                     • Develop press release and     •   Create social media
                                                 social media campaign             accounts for the unified
                                                 about the planned                 transit service.
                                                 announcement of the           •   Begin process of route
                                                 unified transit network.          numbering and naming.
                                                                               •   Organize a media event for
                                                                                   the launch of the network.




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study
September 2026 – 25-2330



12.0 Implementation Plan 157

Categories             Phase 1 – Pre-Approval            Phase 2 - Implementation       Phase 3 - Implementation
Service Plan /     • Identify ideal stop locations   • Adjust the service plan        • Develop a schedule for
Infrastructure       for the recommended               based on recommendations         each fixed-route, including
                     fixed-route service based         by each county council.          layover at each terminal to
                     on guiding principles.          • Develop Service Standards        allow for connections
                   • Begin discussions with the        and Bus Stop Design              (Owen Sound, Orangeville,
                     City of Owen Sound, the           Guidelines.                      Guelph, and Collingwood).
                     Town of Orangeville, the        • Work with Transportation / • Install bus stops and pads
                     City of Guelph, and the           Public Works Departments         where applicable at each
                     Town of Collingwood about         at each local municipality to    transit stop.
                     the use of their transit          identify locations for new     • Test each route to confirm
                     terminals and the potential       bus stops, including             schedule.
                     to add bus stops in their         appropriate locations for
                     municipalities. Identify any      bus pads and shelters.
                     cost implications.              • Initiate discussions with an
                                                       advertising company that
                                                       supplies shelters. If there is
                                                       no interest, begin to source
                                                       shelters to purchase.




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study
September 2026 – 25-2330



12.0 Implementation Plan 158

Categories             Phase 1 – Pre-Approval            Phase 2 - Implementation           Phase 3 - Implementation
Fare Strategy      •   Meet with Social Services     • Begin to design a template       • Work with employers in the
                       and Employment Services         for transit tickets which can      Unified Transit Network to
                       within each county to           be sold in bulk (include           identify opportunities to
                       identify the opportunity to     measures to reduce fraud).         purchase transit tickets in
                       implement a low-income        • Work with upper and                bulk.
                       pass (Section 10.1.8.6).        lower-tier municipalities as     • Finalize agreements with
                                                       well as SMART to identify          Social Service and
                                                       locations to sell tickets.         Employment Agencies
                                                                                          across the four counties to
                                                                                          create a Low-Income Pass.
                                                                                          Work with the Province on
                                                                                          this to ensure ODSP and
                                                                                          OW clients are included.
                                                                                        • Work with Wellington
                                                                                          County to identify the
                                                                                          potential to switch RIDE
                                                                                          WELL to a similar zone
                                                                                          structure.




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study
September 2026 – 25-2330



12.0 Implementation Plan 159

Categories             Phase 1 – Pre-Approval           Phase 2 - Implementation           Phase 3 - Implementation
Taxi /             •   Review and develop a         •   Jointly discuss an             • Consult with local
Ridesharing by-        consolidated taxi /              agreement with Flixbus           municipalities within the
laws and Private       ridesharing by-law to open       about subsidizing fares for      Unified Transit Network
Sector                 the market to allow new          trips taken entirely within      service area to identify
Integration            services to enter the            the Unified Transit Network      those that would want to
                       market based on                  service area.                    support the introduction of
                       recommendations in                                                a taxi / ridesharing service.
                       Section 10.1.5.                                                   This would require Council
                                                                                         support and funding
                                                                                         commitment.
                                                                                       • Develop a common RFP
                                                                                         document for taxi /
                                                                                         ridesharing companies to
                                                                                         provide service based on
                                                                                         Unified Transit Network
                                                                                         providing subsidy to
                                                                                         guarantee hours (see
                                                                                         Section 10.1.5).




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study
September 2026 – 25-2330



12.0 Implementation Plan 160


12.1   Performance Metrics
       The success of the service should not just be tied to ridership and cost, but also the
       ability to achieve the vision and guiding principles set out in the service plan.

              VISION: Connecting Communities: Building a better future through
                          a seamless, multi-modal transit network.
       The vision is supported by five guiding principles. To assess the effectiveness of the
       service, the following KPIs were established that will allow MSB to continually monitor
       and assess the effectiveness of the service. For performance measures, a target is
       identified that should be monitored regularly. A monitoring approach and plan for each
       measure is also identified. The performance of each metric should be monitored
       annually and reported to the MSB, with actions identified regarding steps to take to
       improve performance where minimum targets are continuously not being met. In the
       first year of operation, this may also involve adjusting the target if it was felt to be either
       too low or too ambitious, with a goal of continuous improvement.

       1. Equitable and Accessible: All residents, regardless of location or physical ability, have
       reasonable access to transit options to support daily needs.

       The following performance measures should be monitored that align with Guiding
       Principle 1.

       Table 41: Equitable and Accessible KPIs

        Performance                    Key Performance Indicator                     Monitoring
        Measure
        Availability of   All fixed-route vehicles are accessible.                   Inventory of
        accessible                                                                 fleet (annually)
        vehicles
        Operation of      Vehicle lifts are operational 95% of the time.            Driver reports
        accessibility
        equipment
        Trip Denials –    Specialized transit trips accommodated 95% of            Driver software
        Specialized       the time when booked over 24 hours in advance.
        Trip Denials –    On-demand trips accommodated 95% of the time.            Driver software
        On-demand


       Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
       Unified Regional Transit Network Study
       September 2026 – 25-2330



12.0 Implementation Plan 161

2. Customer Driven: Prioritizes the passenger experience by focusing on seamless
connectivity, comfort, and ease of use.

The following performance measures should be monitored that align with Guiding
Principle 2.

Table 42: Customer Driven KPIs

 Performance                Key Performance Indicator                 Monitoring
 Measure
 On-time          Inter-community and commuter fixed-routes         Use Computer
 performance      arrive at scheduled stops 0 to 5 minutes late, Aided Dispatch and
                  90% of the time.                               Automatic Vehicle
                                                                       Location
                  On-demand and specialized transit trips arrive
                                                                 (CAD/AVL) system
                  at pick-up points 0 to 5 minutes late, 90% of
                                                                  included on each
                  the time.
                                                                  vehicle. Measure
                  On-demand connections to inter-community or results quarterly.
                  commuter fixed-route corridors made 95% of
                  the time.

 Average wait     The average time between the requested trip      Measured in driver
 times            and the scheduled trip should be less than one      software.
                  hour for trips that are not booked in advance.
 Customer         Average customer rating provided on the trip      Booking app or
 Satisfaction     booking app or online feedback form should        feedback form.
                  not fall below 4.5/5.

3. Supports Ridership Growth: Integrates transit with community development and
land use to encourage higher utilization and support regional economic health.

The following performance measures should be monitored that align with Guiding
Principle 3.




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study
September 2026 – 25-2330



12.0 Implementation Plan 162

Table 43: Ridership Growth Supportive KPIs

 Performance              Key Performance Indicator                    Monitoring
 Measure
 Transit         Over 75% of urban settlement areas over           Measure every five
 Access /        5,000 people in the Unified Transit Network       years using census
 Coverage        Service Area are connected to an inter-                  data
                 community or commuter transit stop.

4. Environmentally Sustainable: Reduces the regional carbon footprint by promoting
efficient resource use and providing viable alternatives to single-occupancy vehicle
travel.

The following performance measures should be monitored that align with Guiding
Principle 4.

Table 44: Environmentally Sustainable KPIs

 Performance                Key Performance Indicator                  Monitoring
 Measure
 Average          Reduce deadheading over baseline on SMART         Measure using on-
 Deadhead         and RIDE WELL by 10% with the                     demand software
 ratio for on-    implementation of integrated service delivery        annually.
 demand /         and commingled service.
 specialized
 transit

5. Fiscally Responsible: Balances service delivery requirements with long-term financial
viability to ensure the system remains sustainable for participating municipalities.

The following performance measures should be monitored that align with Guiding
Principle 5.




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study
September 2026 – 25-2330



12.0 Implementation Plan 163

Table 45: Fiscally Responsible KPIs

 Performance                   Key Performance Indicator              Monitoring
 Measure
 Boardings per          Inter-community Routes                     Use farebox data
 revenue vehicle hour   – Minimum 5 BPRVH                         on fixed-route and
                        Commuter Routes                              on-demand
                        – Minimum 8 BPRVH                           software data.
                        On-demand / specialized
                        – Minimum 1 BPRVH
 Ridership (Total       Fixed-routes achieve an average of 50        Average daily
 Completed Trips)       trips completed per day.                    ridership to be
                                                                  reviewed monthly.
 Driver Utilization     Commingled drivers should be providing    Driver software will
                        revenue service (on fare time) at least     track this data.
                        60% of the time.




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study
September 2026 – 25-2330



A–1




    Appendix A
A   Existing Community Context




    Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
    Unified Regional Transit Network Study
    September 2026 – 25-2330



A-2


Community Context
Table A-1 illustrates key settlement areas in each county that was used to help design
the transit service and connect key settlement areas.

Table A-1: Settlement Areas

 County                 Urban Settlements                     Rural Settlements

 Bruce County    •   Walkerton (Brockton)             • Formosa (South Bruce)
                 •   Kincardine                       • Chepstow (Brockton)
                 •   Port Elgin & Southampton         • Cargill (Brockton)
                     (Saugeen Shores)                 • Pinkerton (Brockton)
                 •   Wiarton (South Bruce             • Barrow Bay (Northern Bruce
                     Peninsula)                         Peninsula)
                 •   Tobermory & Lion's Head          • Pike Bay (Northern Bruce
                     (Northern Bruce Peninsula)         Peninsula)
                 •   Chesley, Paisley, Tara (Arran-   • Stokes Bay (Northern Bruce
                     Elderslie)                         Peninsula)
                 •   Lucknow, Ripley (Huron-
                     Kinloss)
                 •   Teeswater, Mildmay (South
                     Bruce)
                 •   Sauble Beach (South Bruce
                     Peninsula)
                 •   Hepworth (South Bruce
                     Peninsula)
 Dufferin        •   Orangeville                      •   Marsville, Orton (East
 County          •   Shelburne                            Garafraxa)
                 •   Grand Valley (Town)              •   Waldemar, Laurel, Farmington
                                                          (Amaranth)
                                                      •   Mansfield, Honeywood, Terra
                                                          Nova, Rosemont (Mulmur)
                                                      •   Horning’s Mills, Corbetton,
                                                          Riverview (Melancthon)
                                                      •   Colbeck, Monticello (Grand
                                                          Valley rural areas)




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study



A-3

 County                Urban Settlements                    Rural Settlements

 Grey County     •   Owen Sound                     •   Chatsworth, Desboro,
                 •   Hanover                            Williamsford, Holland Centre,
                 •   Thornbury (Town of The             Berkley, Walter's Falls, Keady
                     Blue Mountains)                    (Chatsworth)
                 •   Meaford                        •   Shallow Lake, Kemble (Georgian
                 •   Durham (West Grey)                 Bluffs)
                 •   Markdale (Grey Highlands)      •   Leith, Annan (Meaford)
                 •   Flesherton (Grey Highlands)    •   Ayton, Neustadt, Elmwood
                 •   Dundalk (Southgate)                (West Grey)
                                                    •   Holstein (Southgate)
                                                    •   Eugenia, Kimberley, Maxwell,
                                                        Feversham, Rocklyn (Grey
                                                        Highlands)
                                                    •   Clarksburg (The Blue
                                                        Mountains)
 Wellington      •   Fergus, Elora, Salem (Centre   •   Ariss, Eden Mills, Everton,
 County              Wellington)                        Marden (Guelph/Eramosa)
                 •   Rockwood                       •   Belwood, Ennotville,
                     (Guelph/Eramosa)                   Inverhaugh, Ponsonby (Centre
                 •   Erin, Hillsburgh (Erin)            Wellington)
                 •   Drayton, Moorefield            •    Alma, Glen Allan, Lebanon,
                     (Mapleton)                         Rothsay, Wallenstein, Yatton
                 •   Palmerston, Harriston,             (Mapleton)
                     Clifford (Minto)               •   Teviotdale (Minto)
                 •   Mount Forest, Arthur           •   Arkell, Crieff (Puslinch)
                     (Wellington North)             •   Ballinafad, Brisbane, Cedar
                 •   Aberfoyle, Morriston               Valley, Orton, Ospringe (Erin)
                     (Puslinch)                     •   Conn, Damascus, Kenilworth,
                                                        Riverstown (Wellington North)

Understanding travel patterns is an important consideration when assessing the
demand for inter-community transit. The following tables identify the most significant
destinations and catchment areas for inter-community travel within each county. These
hubs represent the high-demand nodes that the future transit network could connect
to.




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study



A-4

Table A-2: Bruce County - Key Destinations

     Key
                      Primary Catchment Area                     Details
 Destinations

Bruce Power      •   Kincardine                     •   Major employer
                 •   Saugeen Shores (Port
                     Elgin/Southampton)
                 •   Huron-Kinloss
                 •   Arran-Elderslie
                 •   Brockton
Sauble Beach     •   Visitors: GTA, Kitchener-      •   Greater Golden Horseshoe
                     Waterloo, London, Simcoe           tourism draw
                 •   Employees: South Bruce         •   Significant seasonal demand
                     Peninsula, Georgian Bluffs,        spikes during summer
                     Owen Sound                         months
Saugeen          •   Port Elgin                     •   Brightshores Health Centre
Shores           •   Southampton                    •   Beaches
                                                    •   Retail hub
Kincardine       •   Kincardine                     •   South Grey Health Centre
                                                    •   Beaches
                                                    •   Retail hub
Wiarton          • Northern Bruce Peninsula         •   Brightshores Health System
                   (Lion's Head, Tobermory),            Hospital
                   Georgian Bluffs                  •   Retail hub
Walkerton        • Brockton                         •   County Administration
                 • South Bruce                          Centre
                 • Hanover (Grey County)            •   Courthouse
                                                    •   South Bruce Grey Health
                                                        Centre
Tobermory        • Visitors: GTA, Kitchener-        •   Northern tip of the peninsula
                   Waterloo, London, Simcoe         •   Provides connection to the
                 • Employees: Wiarton, Port Elgin       Chi-Cheemaun Ferry
                                                        (Manitoulin Island)
                                                    •   Fathom Five National Marine
                                                        Park
                                                    •   Significant seasonal demand
                                                        spikes during summer
                                                        months

Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study



A-5

Table A-3: Dufferin County - Key Destinations

Key
                      Primary Catchment Areas                Details
Destinations

Orangeville      •   Shelburne                  •   Major commercial hub
                 •   Grand Valley               •   Big-box retail, the
                 •   Mono                           Orangeville Mall, and
                 •   Amaranth                       government services
                 •   East Garafraxa             •   Major recreation facilities
                 •   Caledon (Peel Region)          (e.g. Tony Rose Memorial
                 •   Erin (Wellington County)       Sports Centre and Alder
                                                    Street Recreation Centre)
                                                •   GO Transit connection
Shelburne        •   Melancthon                 •   One of Canada's fastest-
                 •   Mulmur                         growing small towns
                 •   Amaranth                   •   Expanding industrial zones
                                                •   Major commuter node to
                                                    the GTA
Island Lake      •   Orangeville                •   Major year-round regional
Conservation     •   Mono                           attraction for hiking, fishing,
Area             •   Shelburne                      and festivals
                 •   Grand Valley               •   Draws visitors from across
                                                    the GTA




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study



A-6

Table A-4: Grey County - Key Destinations

Key
                     Primary Catchment Areas                     Details
Destinations

Owen Sound       • Meaford                          •   The commercial and
                 • Chatsworth                           administrative capital for the
                 • Georgian Bluffs                      County
                 • Grey Highlands (Markdale,        •   Brightshores Health System
                   Flesherton)                          (regional hospital)
                 • South Bruce Peninsula            •   Major recreation facilities
                   (Wiarton, Sauble Beach)              (e.g. Harry Lumley Bayshore
                   (Bruce County)                       Community Centre and Julie
                 • Port Elgin (Bruce County)            McArthur Regional
                                                        Recreation Centre)
                                                    •   Georgian College
                                                    •   Major retail corridor
Blue             •   Tourism: GTA, Simcoe County,   •   Four-season tourism
Mountain             Grey County                        destination
Village          •   Collingwood (Simcoe)           •   Major employment centre for
                 •   Meaford                            the hospitality and service
                 •   Thornbury                          sectors
Hanover          •   West Grey (Durham)             •   Hanover & District hospital
                 •   Brockton (Walkerton)           •   Casino
                 •   South Bruce                    •   P & H Centre
                                                    •   Manufacturing and retail hub
                                                    •   Serves southern Grey
Markdale         • Grey Highlands (Flesherton,      •   Chapman’s Ice Cream, a
                   Eugenia)                             major regional employer
                 • Chatsworth                       •   Brightshores Health System
                                                        Hospital




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study



A-7

Table A-5: Wellington County - Key Destinations

Key Destinations      Primary Catchment Areas                    Details

Fergus & Elora        • Centre Wellington rural   •   Groves Memorial Community
                        areas                         Hospital
                      • Arthur                    •   Dense commercial hub -
                      • Guelph                        major grocery, big-box retail,
                      • Visitors (GTA, Guelph,        and government services
                        Kitchener)                •   Provincial attraction featuring
                                                      the Elora Gorge Conservation
                                                      Area and historic mill
                                                  •   Significant seasonal and
                                                      weekend tourism
Mount Forest          •   Wellington North        •   Service centre for the
                      •   Southgate (Dundalk)         northern part of the County
                      •   West Grey               •   Louise Marshall Hospital
                      •   Palmerston              •   Essential commercial services
                      •   Harriston               •   Manufacturing hub
                      •   Arthur
City of Guelph        •   Wellington County       •   Major employment and retail
(External)                                        •   University of Guelph
                                                  •   Hospital
                                                  •   GO Transit connections




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study



B–1




    Appendix B
B   Existing Transit Operations Data




    Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
    Unified Regional Transit Network Study
    September 2026 – 25-2330



B-2



Existing Transit Operations Data
To provide a clear comparison of the regional landscape, the following tables consolidate operational data across the
study area.

Table B-1 provides a high-level inventory of the service models and geographic hubs served by each provider, while
Table B-2 details transit service level including hours of operation, trip frequency, and ridership. Table B-3 details
transit fares and payment strategies.

Table B-1: Transit Providers Overview

                                                                                                             Service
 Service Name                   Service Type                Service Area               Eligibility
                                                                                                            Operator

 Home and Community              Community            Grey and Bruce Counties        18+ who have         In-house paid
 Support Services of        transportation (door-                                 difficultly accessing       drivers
                                                       Trips are also provided
 Grey-Bruce (HCSS)                to-door)                                               regular
                                                      outside the service area                             Volunteer
                                                                                     transportation
                           For non-emergency         for medical appointments                               drivers
                          medical and social rides                                    Registration
                                   only                                                required




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study



B-3



                                                                                                      Service
Service Name                  Service Type              Service Area              Eligibility
                                                                                                     Operator

FlixBus                     Fixed route, inter-     Owen Sound, Meaford,              All             Private
                          regional private coach   Thornbury, Collingwood,                           operator
                                                       Barrie, Toronto

Orangeville Transit       Fixed route (3 routes)     Town of Orangeville              All           Contracted
                                                                                                   (First Student
                                                                                                      Canada)

Grey Transit Route          Fixed route, inter-    Dundalk, Melancthon,               All           Contracted
(GTR)                          community           Shelburne, Orangeville                          (DriverSeat)

GO Bus (Route 37)           Fixed route, inter-     Orangeville, Caledon,             All          In-house (GO
                                 regional                  Peel                                       Transit)

Dufferin County                Community               Dufferin County       Seniors and persons   In-house paid
Community Support         transportation (door-                                with disabilities       drivers
Services (DCCSS)                to-door)

                          Primarily for medical
                           and essential rides

                           Pilot shopping trips



Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study



B-4



                                                                                                       Service
Service Name                  Service Type               Service Area              Eligibility
                                                                                                      Operator

The Shelburne               Non-emergency            Dufferin, Grey, Bruce,   Seniors and persons   In-house paid
Transporter (TST)           medical trips only      and Huron counties, and     with disabilities       drivers
                                                         South Simcoe

Owen Sound Transit        Fixed route (4 routes)      City of Owen Sound       All (conventional)    Contracted
                                                                                                      (Voyago)
                            Specialized transit                                  Persons with
                             (door-to-door)                                       disabilities
                                                                                 (specialized)

Meaford Moves+              Specialized transit     Municipality of Meaford     Residents with       Contracted
                             (door-to-door)            as well as medical         disabilities      (First Student
                                                        appointments to                                Canada)
                         All ride types: medical,
                                                    Collingwood, Thornbury
                          social shopping, etc.
                                                        and Owen Sound

Guelph Owen Sound           Fixed route, inter-          Owen Sound,                   All           Contracted
Transit (GOST)                   regional                 Chatsworth,                                 (Voyago)
                                                    Williamsford, Durham,
                                                    Mount Forest, Arthur,
                                                    Fergus, Elora, Guelph



Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study



B-5



                                                                                                          Service
Service Name                  Service Type                Service Area                Eligibility
                                                                                                         Operator

Blue Mountain Link             Fixed route            Town of The Blue                All (Link)          Town of
                                                    Mountains, Collingwood                              Collingwood
                           Specialized transit                                      Persons with
                                                                                                       Contracted to
                         (within Blue Mountain                                       disabilities
                                                                                                         Landmark
                           Link service area)                                       (Specialized)

RIDE WELL                 On-demand (curb-to-          Wellington County                  All           Contracted
                                curb)                                                                    (RideCo)
                                                    Trips also provided to the
                          Specialized (door-to-           City of Guelph
                                  door)

GO Train                     Inter-regional           Kitchener, Guelph,                  All          In-house (GO
                             commuter rail          Brampton, Mississauga,                                Transit)
                                                           Toronto

VON (Wellington)               Community             Wellington County and       Seniors and persons   In-house paid
                          transportation (door-             Guelph                 with disabilities       drivers
                                to-door)
                                                                                                        Volunteer
                         All ride types: medical,                                                        drivers
                          social shopping, etc.



Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study



B-6



                                                                                                        Service
Service Name                  Service Type               Service Area             Eligibility
                                                                                                       Operator

Community CRC             Specialized transit for    Wellington County and   Residents of Centre      Volunteer
(Wellington)             appointments (medical,             Guelph              and Northern           drivers
                           legal) employment,                                 Wellington County
                          educational, grocery                               that are low income
                                   etc.                                       and not eligible for
                                                                                 other transit
                                                                                   services

EWCS (Wellington)               Community            Wellington County and     Residents of Erin      Volunteer
                              Transportation                Guelph               and Guelph /          drivers
                           including specialized                             Eramosa who are at
                                                                                                     One paid bus
                          transit for a variety of                             least 16 years of        driver
                                 purposes                                      age, low-income
                                                                                                      One regular
                                                                              clients, users with
                                                                                                        driver
                                                                             mobility needs and
                                                                                 seniors (65+)       Casual drivers




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study



B-7



Table B-2: Transit Service Levels
                                                            Headway /       Vehicle Types and
 Service Name                  Hours of Operation                                                  Annual Ridership
                                                           Trips per Day        Capacity

 Saugeen Mobility and     Monday to Thursday: 7:00 AM          N/A         Accessible mini vans     27,278 (2025)
 Regional Transit                 – 6:00 PM
                                                                              Accessible 30-
                           Friday to Saturday: 7:00 AM -                      passenger bus
                                     11:59 PM

                           Kincardine enhanced service:

                          Monday to Thursday: 6:00 PM
                                  – 11:59 PM

                           Sunday: 9:00 AM – 9:00 PM

 Home and                 Monday to Saturday: 7:00 AM          N/A         Personal vehicles and         N/A
 Community Support                – 7:00 PM                                 accessible mini vans
 Services of Grey-
 Bruce (HCSS)




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study



B-8



                                                         Headway /       Vehicle Types and
Service Name                  Hours of Operation                                               Annual Ridership
                                                        Trips per Day        Capacity

FlixBus                  Thursday to Monday: One trip   One trip daily   High deck coach bus   17,620 trips from
                                     daily                                                       Grey County

                                                                                               1,600 trips from
                                                                                                Bruce County
                                                                                                   (2025)

Orangeville Transit      Monday to Friday: 6:30 AM –    2 routes, 45-     30-foot low floor     247,186 (2024)
                                  8:45 PM                  minute              buses
                                                          headway
                         Saturday: 7:15 AM – 7:15 PM

Grey Transit Route       Monday to Friday: 6:30 AM –    8 round trips    10 passenger vans       7,142 (2025)
(GTR)                             8:00 PM                   daily

GO Bus (Route 37)        Monday to Friday: 5:45 AM –       Varied,           Low-floor               N/A
                                 10:00 PM               approximately    conventional buses
                                                          1-3 hours




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study



B-9



                                                          Headway /      Vehicle Types and
Service Name                  Hours of Operation                                                Annual Ridership
                                                         Trips per Day       Capacity

Dufferin County             Office Hours: Monday to          N/A         Accessible mini vans      512 (2025)
Community Support          Friday: 8:30 AM – 4:30 PM
Services (DCCSS)
                         Trips can be provided outside
                                 of these hours

The Shelburne            Monday to Friday: 8:00 AM –         N/A                 N/A              1,500 (2025)
Transporter                       5:00 PM

Owen Sound Transit       Monday to Friday: 6:30 AM –     4 routes, 30-   Accessible cutaways     Conventional:
and Mobility Bus                  6:00 PM                   minute                               206,137 (2024)
                                                           headway
                         Saturday: 9:00 AM – 4:00 PM                                            Specialized: 5,049
                                                                                                     (2024)

Meaford Moves+           Tuesday to Friday: 8:00 AM –        N/A                 N/A              2,683 (2024)
                                   4:00 PM

Guelph Owen Sound        Monday to Sunday: 2 runs per    2 roundtrips     16-20 seat buses        12,954 (2025)
Transit (GOST)                       day                     daily




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study



B - 10



                                                         Headway /       Vehicle Types and
Service Name                  Hours of Operation                                                Annual Ridership
                                                        Trips per Day        Capacity

Blue Mountain Link       Monday to Sunday: 6:00 AM –     30-minute      Accessible, low-floor    45,142 (2025)
                                  10:00 PM                headway       conventional buses

RIDE WELL                Monday to Friday: 6:00 AM –        N/A         Personal vehicles and    11,326 (2025)
                                  7:00 PM                                accessible mini vans

GO Train                 Monday to Friday: 5:30 AM –      Varies by             N/A                   N/A
                                  9:00 PM               destination,
                                                        time of day,
                          Weekends: 2-3 trips per day
                                                        day of week

VON (Wellington)         Monday to Friday: 8:30 AM –        N/A         Personal vehicles and         N/A
                                  4:30 PM                                 accessible vans in
                                                                           Guelph, Centre
                                                                         Wellington, North
                                                                         Wellington (“Health
                                                                         Van” not offered in
                                                                             Wellington)




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study



B - 11



                                                        Headway /      Vehicle Types and
Service Name                  Hours of Operation                                            Annual Ridership
                                                       Trips per Day       Capacity

CRC (Wellington)         Monday to Friday: 8:30 AM –       N/A          Personal vehicles        1,235
                                  4:30 PM
                                                                       One accessible van

EWCS (Wellington)        Monday to Thursday: 8:00 AM       N/A          Personal vehicles        3,225
                                 – 4:30 PM
                                                                        One Cutaway bus
                          Friday: 8:00 AM – 12:00 PM
                                                                       Two passenger vans
                                                                       One accessible van
                                                                           One sedan




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study



B - 12



Table B-3: Transit Fares
                                                                                               Integration with
                                                             Payment         Fare Payment
 Service Name                  Fare          Concessions                                          Connected
                                                             Methods          Technology
                                                                                                   Systems

 Saugeen Mobility          Typical: $0.70       None       Cash, cheque,          N/A               None
 and Regional                 per km                       debit, credit,
 Transit                                                     e-transfer
                          Kincardine
                       enhanced service:
                         $2.50 per km

                       Chatsworth: $1.09
                            per km

                           All: Minimum
                           charge of $12

 Home and                  $0.60 per km         None        Credit card,    Online (Moneris)        None
 Community                                                     online        or with direct
                      Minimum charge of
 Support Services                                             banking            deposit
                            $15
 of Grey-Bruce
 (HCSS)




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study



B - 13



                                                                                                  Integration with
                                                                    Payment        Fare Payment
Service Name                 Fare              Concessions                                           Connected
                                                                    Methods         Technology
                                                                                                      Systems

FlixBus              $28 - $45 range for         Child fare          Online          Website           None
                       Owen Sound to
                     Toronto. Fare varies
                       by distance and
                             time

Orangeville             Fare-Free Pilot             N/A               N/A              N/A             None
Transit                    Program

Grey Transit Route     $4.50 - $5.00 flat    Seniors, students,   Credit, debit,       N/A             None
(GTR)                        fare             and child (under       ticket
                                                  5) fares

GO Bus (Route 37)    $8.35 - $8.90 range      Senior, youth,      Presto, paper       Presto       One Fare (free
                      for Orangeville to      student, child          ticket                         transfer to
                          Brampton                fares                                               Brampton
                                                                                                     Transit, but
                        Fare varies by
                                                                                                  does not include
                          distance
                                                                                                     Orangeville
                                                                                                   Transit or GTR)


Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study



B - 14



                                                                                                   Integration with
                                                               Payment         Fare Payment
Service Name                 Fare            Concessions                                              Connected
                                                               Methods          Technology
                                                                                                       Systems

Dufferin County        $8 local flat fare       None         Cash, cheque,          N/A                 None
Community                                                       on-line
                       $0.43 per km for
Support Services                                               payment
                         out of town
(DCCSS)                                                         option

The Shelburne         Typically covered         N/A               N/A               N/A                 None
Transporter           by ODSP or similar

Owen Sound            Adult cash: $3.25     Single Fares:    Exact cash,            None                None
Transit                                  Students, children passes, tickets
                     Student cash: $2.75                                         Passes and
                                               under 5
                                                                                   tickets,
                        Children: Free
                                           Monthly pass:                        purchased in
                                         Seniors, students,                   person at library,
                                         and “affordability                      City Hall, or
                                                rate”                             terminal




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study



B - 15



                                                                                                     Integration with
                                                                  Payment        Fare Payment
Service Name                 Fare             Concessions                                               Connected
                                                                  Methods         Technology
                                                                                                         Systems

Meaford Moves+           Local: $2 per            None               N/A              None                None
                           direction
                                                                                Pay cash to driver
                       Regional: $8 per
                          direction

Guelph Owen          $5 - $20 range, fare         None            Cash Only           None                None
Sound Transit         varies by distance
(GOST)

Blue Mountain            Cash: $2.25          Monthly pass          Cash           TransitFare       Integration with
Link                                         (adults, seniors,                                           Colltrans
                     Adult monthly pass:                         Monthly Pass
                                                students)
                            $41

RIDE WELL               $0.60 per km            Additional        Credit Card        RideCo               None
                                               passengers        (by phone or
                     Minimum fare of $5
                                             booked at once       mobile app)
                      Maximum fare of         discounted by
                           $40                     50%




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study



B - 16



                                                                                             Integration with
                                                                Payment       Fare Payment
Service Name                 Fare            Concessions                                        Connected
                                                                Methods        Technology
                                                                                                 Systems

GO Train               $14.25 - $16.85       Senior, youth,   Presto, paper      Presto       One Fare (free
                     range for Guelph to     student, child       ticket                     transfer to GTA
                     Toronto. Fare varies        fares                                       Transit systems,
                         by distance                                                           but does not
                                                                                               include RIDE
                                                                                             WELL or GOST)

                                                                                             Connect-to-GO
                                                                                              provides free
                                                                                               transfer to
                                                                                             Guelph Transit




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study



B - 17



                                                                                                  Integration with
                                                             Payment          Fare Payment
Service Name                 Fare            Concessions                                             Connected
                                                             Methods           Technology
                                                                                                      Systems

VON (Wellington)       Within Guelph:           None          Online          Online banking           None
                           $6.75                           banking, cash,    bill payment or in
                                                            credit card       person at local
                     Within rural towns
                                                                                    office
                          (Fergus,
                     Palmerston, Mount
                        Forest) $5.75

                      Out of town: $0.65
                           per km

CRC (Wellington)             Free               None           None                None                None

EWCS                  $0.57/km though           None         By phone.             None                None
(Wellington)         exceptions exist for                  Credit card, e-
                     low-income clients                       transfer




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study



C–1




    Appendix C
C   Engagement Findings




    Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
    Unified Regional Transit Network Study
    September 2026 – 25-2330



C-2


Detailed Engagement Findings
The following appendix provides the detailed findings from the engagement activities
conducted as part of this study.

The feedback gathered from residents, employers, and community leaders will inform
the development of a future transit network.

Focus Groups
The eleven focus group sessions/interviews were held between January 26 th and
February 23rd, 2026. In each session, the project team shared a brief overview of the
project and then had a discussion with participants on key destinations within the four
counties, travel patterns (times of day and days of the week), and aspects of service
design that they thought would be important.

The findings from Focus Group sessions were brought together and analysed to draw
out the key themes in the collective discussion, as summarized below.

1. Accessibility and Specialized Transit
Participants stressed that accessibility must go beyond physical vehicle design to include
communication and booking systems.

•   The "Last Mile" in Rural Areas: A major challenge identified is the "door-to-door"
    requirement in rural settings. Long laneways (up to 250 meters) and snow clearing
    make it difficult for vehicles to reach residences. Current policies often limit service
    to the roadway, which is a barrier for those with mobility issues.
•   Service Gaps: There is high demand for specialized services like RIDE WELL and
    SMART, but capacity issues and lack of awareness remain hurdles.
•   Inclusive Design: Future systems must accommodate diverse needs, including
    cognitive disabilities and those with hearing impairments. Suggestions included
    Bluetooth hearing support, screen readers, and maintaining non-digital booking
    options for those with flip phones or limited data. Indigenous participants also




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study



C-3



    suggested advertising in community publications and working through First Nations
    staff to ensure communities were aware of service options.
•   Attendant Policies: Policies regarding Personal Support Workers (PSWs) need review;
    while some services allow PSWs to ride free, not all clients have access to such
    support.

2. Economic Development and Workforce Mobility
Employers and economic development officers identified transportation as a critical
factor in recruitment, retention, and regional economic health.

•   Housing and Employment Mismatch: Workers often live far from employment hubs
    due to housing costs (e.g., living in Port Elgin/Kincardine but working in Sauble; or
    living in Meaford and working at Blue Mountain).
•   Shift Work Barriers: Traditional 9-to-5 transit schedules do not support
    manufacturing shifts (especially midnight shifts) or hospitality/healthcare/tourism
    hours.
•   Specific Employer Challenges:
    o   Security: Some employers have safety protocols in place that make public transit
        drop-offs difficult.
    o   Shift Times: It can be difficult for transit to meet the needs of early morning and
        evening shifts, making employers with multiple shifts difficult to service.
    o   Tourism: High seasonal traffic (e.g., Highway 6 ferry traffic) creates congestion.
        There is a desire to move visitors from transit hubs to destinations like Blue
        Mountain and Sauble Beach.
•   Employer Participation: While some employers are open to discussing shuttle
    partnerships or adjusting shift times, there is hesitation regarding subsidizing transit
    passes.

3. Social Equity and Vulnerable Populations
Service providers highlighted that the lack of affordable transport deepens poverty and
social isolation.




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study



C-4



•   The Cost of Isolation: Vulnerable residents, including those accessing food banks or
    fleeing domestic violence, face prohibitive costs. Examples were cited of taxi fares
    reaching $100 for a round trip to Owen Sound for essential services.
•   Healthcare Access: "Trip chaining" (e.g., going to a medical appointment and then
    the grocery store) is often impossible with current specialized transit rules. This
    creates barriers for those needing to access healthcare across different geographic
    areas. Although current Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) rules do not allow
    for payment of non-medical rides, trip chaining is discussed with each client. They
    understand that they will have to pay for any non-medical portion of their trip.
•   Mental Health Impacts: The lack of transportation contributes to isolation for seniors
    and youth, negatively impacting mental health and preventing access to early
    intervention programs.
•   Service Gaps: Volunteer driver pools are shrinking, and paid services like RIDE WELL
    require credit cards, which excludes unbanked populations.

4. Youth and Education
Youth feedback focused on the practical need for accessing education and employment,
as well as the social stigma associated with transit.

•   Co-op and Employment: Students in rural areas struggle to access co-op placements
    and after-school jobs due to limited bus hours and routes.
•   Socialization: Youth desire connections to larger centers like Guelph and Blue
    Mountain for recreation.
•   Engagement Strategies: Participants suggested "Bus Buddy" programs and
    gamification to encourage youth ridership and build a transit culture.
•   Integration: There is a need to bridge the gap between school busing and public
    transit.

5. Operational and Technical Recommendations
Participants provided specific technical and governance recommendations for the
project team:




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study



C-5



•   Unified Governance: A single governance model is requested to streamline decision-
    making across the four counties.
•   Centralized Technology: Stakeholders requested a "one-window" approach, such as a
    centralized app or 2-1-1 style service that integrates booking for all providers
    (volunteer, specialized, conventional).
•   Fare Integration: Interest was expressed in distance-based fares, sliding scales for
    low-income riders, and integration with systems like Presto or GO Transit.
•   Cross-Boundary Connectivity: The system must solve the "artificial boundary"
    problem, specifically connecting distinct hubs like Palmerston to Perth County, and
    connecting to GO Transit and Kitchener-Waterloo.

Stakeholder Sessions with Transit Operators
Stakeholder meetings were conducted with key municipal transit operators and
transportation agencies across the region including Owen Sound Transit, Orangeville
Transit, Guelph Transit, the Town of The Blue Mountains, the Municipality of Meaford,
and Metrolinx/GO Transit. The primary goal was to explore collaborative opportunities,
evaluate asset-sharing feasibility, and establish frameworks for service and
technological integration.

Input from these sessions has been organized into core strategic themes described
below:

Infrastructure & Asset Sharing
•   Terminal & Bay Access: Participating operators expressed openness to utilizing
    existing urban transit hubs, downtown terminals, and unused bus bays to
    accommodate connecting regional inter-community buses.
•   Vehicle Storage & Maintenance: Operators signaled interest in exploring shared
    depot facilities and vehicle storage space where doing so creates operational
    efficiencies or reduces overhead for new regional or on-demand routes.




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study



C-6



Regional Service Integration & Addressing Network Gaps
•   Corridor & Gap Alignment: Consultations highlighted unserved commuter corridors
    between neighboring communities where local transit currently terminates.
    Operators expressed interest in collaborating to bridge these geographical gaps.
•   Evening & Off-Peak Testing: Providers showed willingness to test extended service
    windows (e.g., evening runs) by leveraging shared on-demand assets supplied
    through the regional network.
•   Specialized Transit Coordination: Opportunities were identified to integrate local
    accessible services with regional community support organizations, moving toward
    shared service delivery models for specialized transportation.

Governance & Collaborative Partnership Models
•   Consortium & Shared Agreements: Municipal stakeholders indicated that they are
    open to participating in multi-jurisdictional governance models such as a Municipal
    Services Board, joint commission, or shared service agreement to streamline regional
    connectivity.
•   Overcoming Local Financial Barriers: Partners noted that a consolidated regional
    transit structure helps eliminate historical barriers where adjacent municipalities
    could not expand cross-boundary service due to localized funding constraints.

Funding Innovation & Resource Pooling
•   Alternative Municipal Revenues: Operators identified opportunities to tap into
    alternative funding streams, such as local Municipal Accommodation Taxes (MAT) or
    unallocated Provincial Gas Tax reserves, to help fund regional transit expansions and
    seasonal workforce connections.

Technology, Ticketing & Customer Experience
•   Centralized Platforms: Operators supported establishing a unified booking platform
    and centralized customer call center to streamline dispatching, optimize fleet usage,
    and improve the passenger experience.




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study



C-7



•   Provincial Fare Alignment: Discussions with provincial partners confirmed that
    integration with systems like PRESTO remains a long-term goal, with implementation
    most feasible following upcoming provincial software upgrades (anticipated around
    2027).

Tourism, Event & Seasonal Mobility
•   Targeted Event Transit: Stakeholders highlighted the strategic value of piloting
    weekend and seasonal express transit aligned with major regional tourism drivers,
    resort areas, and cultural events (e.g., resort corridors, beach destinations, and
    historic downtown hubs).

Public Open House Comments
There were several comments received from both public open houses. Highlights from
the discussion with participants are summarized below:

•   Project Awareness and Interest: The majority of interactions focused on general
    inquiries, with attendees primarily seeking to understand the scope and objectives of
    the project.
•   Perceived Need and Usage: Feedback on the necessity of regional transit was mixed.
    o   Some residents sought clarification for the need of the service, noting that most
        households in the area already possess multiple cars.
    o   Conversely, residents with young children expressed optimism and were happy to
        see plans for transit expansion.
•   Affordability and Fare Structure: Given that Orangeville currently operates a fare-
    free public transit system, there were some questions regarding future costs.
    Attendees asked if the regional service would also be free. The project team clarified
    that to ensure the system is sustainable, a fee would likely apply, though affordability
    remains a key consideration in the planning process.
•   Efficiency and Regional Connectivity
    o   Toronto Connections: Transit advocates expressed excitement about the potential
        for a more efficient mode of transportation, noting that current travel times to
        Toronto can take hours.



Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study



C-8



    o   Expansion Requests: Several comments suggested expanding the service area to
        include connections to Barrie.

Employer Survey
The employer survey was conducted between January and February of 2026, to gather
data on workforce mobility across the region. The survey requested information on
specific transportation barriers affecting recruitment and retention, operational shift
patterns, and measure employer willingness to support and partner on new transit
initiatives. There were 26 responses from different sectors such as manufacturing,
tourism, and services, primarily from Wellington, Bruce, and Grey counties. The majority
do not have a secondary location within the four counties.

Some of the key themes heard and findings are summarized below:

Parking Challenges: The majority reported no parking challenges. However, those who
did cited specific issues, such as significant shortages in Sauble Beach during summer,
winter snow storage reducing capacity of the parking lot, and a lack of EV charging
stations.

Employee Shift Times: Some employers operate standard shifts (e.g., 6:00 AM to 9:00
AM starts and finishes between 4:00 PM and 7:00 PM), while others operate 24/7.
Results show that operations are reduced on Saturdays and further reduced on Sundays.

Remote Working: The vast majority reported no variation in attendance due to work-
from-home policies.

Seasonal Variations in Shift Times: Most respondents do not have seasonal variations.
Those who do highlighted:

•   Agriculture: Fewer staff in winter
•   Tourism: Busy seasons in spring/fall or May–October.
•   Bruce Power: Population spikes during spring/fall outages.

Employee Access to Local Inter-Community Transit and Benefits: Access to transit is
reported as very low for most services (e.g., Owen Sound Transit, Orangeville Transit,




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study



C-9



GO Transit). However, over half of the respondents felt that an improved regional
transit system would benefit their workforce and assist with recruitment and retention.

Employer Willingness to Support a New Service: Most employers do not currently
provide financial transit support. When asked how they would support a new service, a
few respondents said they would not be able to offer support. Of those who were
interested, the following supports were noted: hosting a bus stop, coordinating work
schedules, contributing to/coordinating employer transit passes, and contributing
financially to the service.

Councillor Survey
The Councillor survey was conducted between January 30, 2026, and February 6, 2026,
to capture the perspectives of local and county level leadership on regional transit
delivery. Representing municipalities across the study area, the survey aimed to identify
significant priorities for municipal benefits, assess current levels of public support, and
establish core principles for future governance and cost-sharing. The findings from the
regional representatives are summarized below.

Respondent Profile: There were six responses in total representing local and county
councillors.

Key Priorities for Transit: Respondents highlighted the importance of transit for social
equity—particularly for aging populations, individuals needing medical transportation,
and youth requiring access to education and jobs.

Public Support and Service Design Preferences: Councillors mostly reported moderate
to limited public support for improved transit in their communities. Councillors
emphasized the need for seamless connection between local and inter-county services,
as well as the need to design routes that serve employment hubs. There was a strong
preference for fully accessible services that operate on weekday evenings and
weekends.




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study



C - 10



Governance and Barriers:

•   Governance Principles: When deciding on a governance model, the most important
    principles were accountability to the County, transparency in decision-making, and
    strong provincial advocacy.
•   Barriers: The biggest perceived barriers to establishing a unified network were tied
    between cost, ridership levels, and rural geography.

Community Survey
There was a total of 3,790 responses to the community survey, which was open from
December 9th, 2025 to February 14th, 2026.

Place of Residence: Participants were spread across the four counties and beyond, with
the largest participating segment from Grey County as summarized in Figure C-1.

Figure C-1: Community Survey Respondents County of Residence




Within each County, the most common communities of residence for participants are
listed in Table C-1.




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study



C - 11



Table C-1: Community Survey Respondents Community of Residence

 County                     Most Common Community of Residence

 Saugeen Ojibway            Saugeen First Nation (Saugeen 29); Chippewas of Nawash
 Nation                     Unceded First Nation (Neyaashiinigmiing 27)

 Bruce County               Saugeen Shores; Kincardine; Huron Kinloss; Brockton;
                            Lucknow

 Dufferin County            Orangeville; Shelburne

 Grey County                Owen Sound; Grey Highlands; Southgate; West Grey;
                            Hanover; Chatsworth

 Wellington County          Centre Wellington; Wellington North; Guelph Eramosa

Use of Existing Transit Options: Approximately 67% of respondents had never used any
of the existing services. Of those who had, 19% used GO Transit, 7% used GOST service,
and 4% to 6% had used local transit in Owen Sound, Guelph, Orangeville, or Grey
County.

Opinion of Existing Services: Of those who had used an existing service, the most highly
rated elements (highest satisfaction) were the fare payment options and fare price,
while the lowest rated (highest dissatisfaction) were the service area, and the start and
end time of the service each day.

Purposes for Travel: The top reasons respondents cited that they currently do/or would
use transit for are summarized in Figure C-2.

The most common reasons were to access recreational activities, community events,
religious services, visit family and friends, and to access regional transportation (e.g., GO
Transit).




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study



C - 12



Figure C-2: Community Survey Response – Purpose of Travel




Destinations for Trips: The top origin-destinations pairs from respondents are:

•   Centre Wellington to Guelph;
•   Grey Highlands to Owen Sound;
•   Kincardine to Owen Sound;
•   Kincardine to Saugeen Shores;
•   Saugeen Shores to Kincardine;
•   Saugeen Shores to Owen Sound;
•   Owen Sound to Orangeville; and
•   Owen Sound to Guelph.

Times of Day for Travel: When asked the most favoured times of day for trips within the
four counties, the weekday midday window (9:00 AM to 4:00 PM) and the weekend
daytime window (7:00 AM – 6:00 PM) were the most commonly selected times for
travel.

Frequency of Travel: When asked how often respondents currently use or would use
transit to meet their travel needs to destinations within the four Counties, 80% of
participants said they would use the service.



Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study



C - 13



Of those that would use the service, the most commonly selected were once per month
or less (32%), while 48% would use it every two weeks or more frequently. Responses
were similar across all counties, with Saugeen Ojibway Nation residents indicating the
most frequent transit use (0% selected never).

Top Priorities for a Transit Network: Based on the responses to the survey, the top six
priorities for a transit network in the four counties were:

•   Focus on providing frequent and reliable service to key destinations;
•   Focus on ensuring seamless connections to other Transit networks (e.g., GO);
•   Focus on improved coverage to all residents, including rural areas of each County;
•   Provide real-time information and easy-to-understand trip planning tools;
•   Keep fares low (affordable), which may mean a higher contribution from the
    municipal tax base; and
•   Provide seamless connections between local and inter-county services.

Maximum Fare for a One-Way Trip: The highest fare that participants were willing to
pay for a one-way trip was $10.00 (31% of participants), followed by $5.00 (19%) and
then $15.00 (15%).




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study



D–1




    Appendix D
D   Service Delivery and Governance Report




    Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
    Unified Regional Transit Network Study
    September 2026 – 25-2330



Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Wellington Counties

Service Delivery and
 Governance Report



Table of Contents i


      Table of Contents
1.0   Introduction                                                                                                              1
      1.1     What is Transit Governance ............................................................................ 1
      1.2     Primary Goal of a Regional Governance Structure ......................................... 1

2.0   Existing Governance Context                                                                                               2
      2.1     Local Transit .................................................................................................... 2
      2.2     Inter-Community Transit ................................................................................. 3
      2.3     Specialized and Community Transportation ................................................... 4
      2.4     Limitations of the Current Model ................................................................... 7

3.0   Governance Model Evaluation & Selection                                                                                   8
      3.1     Governance Principles for a Unified Transit Network .................................... 8
      3.1.1   County CAO and Municipal Stakeholder Perspectives on Governance ......... 8
      3.1.2   Alignment with Vision and Guiding Principles ................................................ 9
      3.1.3   Governance Principles for the Unified Transit Network ............................... 10
      3.1.4   Relationship to Governance Evaluation Criteria ........................................... 12

4.0   Governance Model Options                                                                                                14
      4.1     Option 1 – Joint Municipal Services Board ................................................... 14
      4.1.1   Authority and Mandate................................................................................. 14
      4.1.2   Decision-Making, Equity, and Council Oversight .......................................... 14
      4.1.3   Financial Authority, Transparency, and Accountability ................................ 15
      4.1.4   Implementation Risk, Scalability and Long-term Sustainability ................... 15
      4.2     Option 2 – Lead Municipality / Inter-Municipal Agreement ........................ 16
      4.2.1   Authority and Mandate................................................................................. 16
      4.2.2   Decision-Making, Equity, and Council Oversight .......................................... 17
      4.2.3   Financial Authority, Transparency and Accountability ................................. 17



      Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Wellington Counties
      Service Delivery and Governance Report



Table of Contents ii

      4.2.4   Implementation Risk, Scalability and Long-Term Sustainability ................... 17
      4.3     Option 3 – Municipally Governed Non-Profit Corporation .......................... 18
      4.3.1   Authority and Mandate................................................................................. 18
      4.3.2   Decision-Making, Equity, and Council Oversight .......................................... 18
      4.3.3   Financial Authority, Transparency, and Accountability ................................ 19
      4.3.4   Implementation Risk, Scalability, and Long-Term Sustainability .................. 19
      4.4     Evaluation of Governance Models ................................................................ 19

5.0   Recommended Governance Model                                                                                         23
      5.1     Rationale and Assessment ............................................................................ 23
      5.1.1   Alignment with Governance Principles ......................................................... 23
      5.2     Proposed Governance Framework ............................................................... 25
      5.2.1   A. Mandate and Authority ............................................................................ 25
      5.2.2   B. Governance Structure, Representation, and Decision Rights .................. 27
      5.2.3   C. Roles and Responsibilities (Governance vs. Operations) ......................... 28
      5.2.4   D. Financial Authority, Transparency, and Accountability............................ 33
      5.2.5   E. Reporting Requirements (Councils, Public, and Program
              Accountability) .............................................................................................. 34
      5.2.6   F. Proposed Staffing Model ........................................................................... 35
      5.2.7   G. Implementation and Transition (Establishing the MSB) .......................... 39
      5.2.8   H. Key Design Choices to Confirm (Decision Points) ..................................... 40

6.0   Cost and Funding Allocation Model                                                                                    42
      6.1     Cost Allocation .............................................................................................. 42
      6.1.1   Overhead Costs ............................................................................................. 42
      6.1.2   Direct Infrastructure and Supporting Costs .................................................. 43
      6.1.3   Fixed-Route Cost Sharing Model ................................................................... 44
      6.1.4   SMART Funding Model .................................................................................. 51




      Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Wellington Counties
      Service Delivery and Governance Report



Table of Contents iii

      6.1.5   On-Demand Transit and Ridesharing/Taxi .................................................... 52
      6.1.6   Private Sector Fare Subsidy ........................................................................... 53
      6.1.7   Cost Allocation Summary .............................................................................. 54
      6.2     Revenue and Funding Allocation .................................................................. 55
      6.2.1   Fare Revenue................................................................................................. 55
      6.2.2   Provincial Gas Tax and OTIF .......................................................................... 55
      6.2.3   Grants / Donations ........................................................................................ 56
      6.2.4   Reserve Management Strategy ..................................................................... 56

7.0   SMART Mandate & Integration Strategy                                                                                    60
      7.1     SMART’s Current Governance Structure and Mandate ................................ 60
      7.1.1   Governance Structure ................................................................................... 60
      7.1.2   Mandate and Service Focus .......................................................................... 61
      7.2     Key Aspects of SMART’s Operations That Can Be Leveraged Regionally ..... 61
      7.3     Key Mandate Changes Required for Participation in a Unified Transit
              Network ......................................................................................................... 63
      7.4     Summary Assessment ................................................................................... 64
      7.5     Draft By-Law Amendments ........................................................................... 64

8.0   Governance and Operational Risk Assessment                                                                              66
      8.1     Governance Risk Assessment ........................................................................ 66
      8.1.1   Risk 1: One or More Counties Choose Not to Participate ............................ 66
      8.1.2   Risk 2: Lack of Consensus on Cost Allocation Methodology......................... 67
      8.1.3   Risk 3: One or More County Councils Decline to Support Ongoing Tax
              Levy Funding.................................................................................................. 68
      8.1.4   Risk 4: Governance Paralysis Due to Consensus-Based Decision-Making .... 69
      8.2     Operational Risks Affecting Governance ...................................................... 70
      8.2.1   Risk 5: Inconsistent Operational Performance Across Service Providers ..... 70
      8.2.2   Risk 6: Insufficient Central Administrative Capacity ..................................... 70




      Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Wellington Counties
      Service Delivery and Governance Report



Table of Contents iv

8.3        Overall Risk Position ...................................................................................... 71
8.4        Summary Conclusion ..................................................................................... 71

Figures
Figure 1: Proposed Route Funding Model ................................................................... 48


Tables
Table 1: Existing Governance of Local Transit ............................................................... 3

Table 2: Existing Governance of Inter-community Transit ............................................ 4

Table 3: Existing Governance of Specialized / Community Transit ............................... 6

Table 4: Evaluation of Governance Models ................................................................. 20

Table 5: Proposed Allocation of Direct Costs............................................................... 44

Table 6: Types of Benefits for Inter-Community Services ........................................... 46

Table 7: Fixed-Route Variable Cost Allocation Scenarios ............................................ 48

Table 8: Summary of Recommended Cost Allocation ................................................. 54


Appendices
A          Summary of CAO Interviews
B          SMART By Law Amendments




Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Wellington Counties
Service Delivery and Governance Report



Acronyms, Abbreviations, Definitions i


Acronyms, Abbreviations, Definitions
AODA         Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act

BDGW         Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, and Wellington

CAO          Chief Administrative Officers

CVOR         Commercial Vehicle Operators Registration

DCCSS        Dufferin County Community Support Services

GOST         Guelph Owen Sound Transit

GTHA         Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area

GTR          Grey Transit Route

HCSS         Home & Community Support Services (e.g., HCSS Grey-Bruce)

MSB          Municipal Services Board

MTO          Ministry of Transportation (Ontario)

OTIF         Ontario Transit Investment Fund

PSAB         Public Sector Accounting Board

PSAS         Public Sector Accounting Standards

SMART        Saugeen Mobility and Regional Transit

VON          Victorian Order of Nurses




Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Wellington Counties
Service Delivery and Governance Report



1.0 Introduction 1


1.0   Introduction
      This report identifies potential governance models that were considered to create a
      unified inter-community transit network across Bruce, Dufferin, Grey and Wellington
      counties. The governance structure is intended to best support implementation of the
      recommended service strategy, including Saugeen Mobility and Regional Transit SMART
      as well as the role of other transit services within the region.

1.1   What is Transit Governance
      Transportation or transit governance is a comprehensive framework of processes,
      structures and norms by which an organization is directed. While transportation
      governance can look different from one jurisdiction to the next, it is typically defined by
      answering four core questions:

      • Who makes decisions and plans the service?
      • Who operates and delivers the service and maintains the vehicles?
      • Who owns and has responsibility over the assets, like the fleet, facilities, and
        infrastructure?
      • Who funds the service?

      The answers to these questions form the core functions and are informed by several
      factors, including budgetary and resource capacity, legislation, stakeholder engagement,
      and the existing transportation context.

1.2   Primary Goal of a Regional Governance Structure
      The goal of a regional governance structure is to eliminate the burden on the rider so
      passengers perceive the network as a single regional service. It also ensures decisions
      are made in a centralized manner, which still maintains local input and accountability in
      decision-making.



2.0 Existing Governance Context 2


2.0   Existing Governance Context
      At present, there is no single governance framework responsible for planning, funding,
      or oversight of transit services at a regional scale across the four counties. Instead,
      transit and community transportation services are governed through a patchwork of
      local, private, county-led, and not-for profit models, including:

      • Municipally operated or municipally contracted fixed-route transit (e.g., Owen
        Sound, Orangeville, Guelph);
      • County-led inter-community routes governed through bilateral or ad hoc
        arrangements (e.g., GTR, GOST, Ride Well);
      • Municipally governed non-profit specialized transit (SMART) serving a subset of
        municipalities; and
      • Community Support Service agencies delivering medical or social transportation
        under separate mandates (e.g., HCSS, DCCSS, VON, etc.).

      The governance structure of each of the available transit services are described in more
      detail below:

2.1   Local Transit
      Orangeville, Owen Sound, and Guelph are all operated within the structure of a
      municipal department. In the case of Orangeville and Owen Sound, the service is
      contracted to a private operator, while Guelph operates its service and maintains its
      vehicles in-house.
      The Town of The Blue Mountains, the Town of Collingwood, the Blue Mountain Village
      Association, and Blue Mountain Resorts are parties to an agreement respecting the
      Blue Mountains Link. Under this framework, the Town of Collingwood contracts with a
      private operator to provide operation and maintenance services for the Transit System.

      The Town of The Blue Mountains does not contract directly with the private operator.
      Instead, the Town of The Blue Mountains receives service through a shared services
      agreement with the Town of Collingwood, under which Collingwood administers the
      operating arrangement for the Blue Mountains Link as part of the overall transit
      system. The service is delivered under the Colltrans brand alongside Collingwood’s local
      transit routes.


      Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Wellington Counties
      Service Delivery and Governance Report



2.0 Existing Governance Context 3

      A summary of each of the services based on the four governance questions is illustrated
      in Table 1 below.

      Table 1: Existing Governance of Local Transit

       Transit       Governance      Decision       Service       Ownership        Funding
       Service         Model        Making and     Operation       of Assets       Service
                                     Planning
                                      Service
       Owen           Municipal        Owen           Private        Private     Owen Sound
       Sound         Department        Sound        Operator       Operator
       Transit                                      (Voyago)       (Voyago)
       Orangeville    Municipal     Orangeville       Private        Private      Orangeville
       Transit       Department                     Operator       Operator
                                                       (First         (First
                                                     Student)       Student)
       Blue             Shared       Town of          Private        Private      The Blue
       Mountain         Service     The Blue        Operator       Operator       Mountains
       Link          (Collingwood   Mountains      (Landmark)     (Landmark)
                       as prime)
       Guelph          Municipal      Guelph          Municipal    Municipal        Guelph
       Transit        Department

2.2   Inter-Community Transit
      There are four inter-community services within the four counties. GOST (Owen Sound to
      Guelph) is managed by the City of Owen Sound but contracted to a private operator.
      Currently, this service is being funded by OTIF, Grey County, and Wellington County until
      next steps are recommended through the study.

      The GTR route between Dundalk and Orangeville is currently managed by Grey County,
      with funding support from Dufferin County. Grey is responsible for managing the
      contract with the private operator, while Dufferin has input into the service design and
      service levels.

      RIDE WELL is both an inter-community and local transit service, as it provides trips
      across Wellington County and into the City of Guelph. The service is managed by the
      Economic Development Division of the County and contracted to a private operator.




      Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Wellington Counties
      Service Delivery and Governance Report



2.0 Existing Governance Context 4

      Finally, FlixBus is a private entity that provides inter-community service between
      Toronto and Owen Sound, with summer expansion into Bruce County. This is a fully
      private sector operated company that makes decisions based on the financial
      sustainability of each service.

      A summary of each of the services based on the four governance questions is illustrated
      in Table 2 below.

      Table 2: Existing Governance of Inter-community Transit

       Transit     Governance  Decision             Service     Ownership of     Funding
       Service       Model    Making and           Operation      Assets         Service
                               Planning
                                Service
       Guelph       Municipal       Owen            Private        Private      OTIF, Grey
       Owen                         Sound          Operator       Operator      County &
       Sound                                       (Voyago)       (Voyago)      Wellington
       Transit                                                                   County
       Grey          Shared       Grey County      Private         Private      OTIF, Grey
       Transit       Service                      Operator        Operator      County &
       Route          (with                     (Driver Seat)   (Driver Seat)    Dufferin
                    Dufferin                                                     County
                    County)
       RIDE         Municipal     Wellington        Private        Private      Wellington
       WELL                        County          Operator       Operator       County
                                                   (RideCo)       (RideCo)
       FlixBus     Private for-     Private         Private        Private        Private
                      Profit       Operator        Operator       Operator       Operator
                     Service
                     Model

2.3   Specialized and Community Transportation
      The specialized and community transportation landscape presents a challenge due to its
      disjointed funding and service delivery models, as there is no centralized governance
      structure. The main service providers for specialized transit include:

      • SMART (parts of Grey and Bruce Counties);
      • Dufferin County Community Support Service (DCCSS) (Dufferin County);



      Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Wellington Counties
      Service Delivery and Governance Report



2.0 Existing Governance Context 5

•   Meaford Moves+ (Meaford);
•   Home & Community Support Services of Grey-Bruce (HCSS);
•   Victoria Order of Nurses (VON) (Wellington County);
•   East Wellington Community Services (Wellington County); and
•   Community Resource Centre of North and Centre Wellington (Wellington County).

SMART is a Municipal Governed Non-Profit Corporation, which is funded by local
municipalities that receive the service. Decisions are made through a Board, which
includes representation from each of the funding municipalities.

HCSS is a non-profit agency governed by a board and funded primarily through the
Ministry of Health.

DCCSS is a department of Dufferin County which governs and operates programs
through a Multi Service Accountability Agreement with funding from the Ministry of
Health, as well as support from the County.

A summary of each of the services based on the four governance questions is illustrated
in Table 3 below.




Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Wellington Counties
Service Delivery and Governance Report



2.0 Existing Governance Context 6

Table 3: Existing Governance of Specialized / Community Transit

Transit        Governance     Decision        Service     Ownership      Funding
Service          Model       Making and      Operation     of Assets     Service
                              Planning
                               Service
SMART           Municipal      Board of      In House      SMART         11 Local
                               Directors                               Municipalities
                                                                       across Bruce
                                                                         and Grey
                                                                         Counties
Meaford         Municipal      Meaford          Private    Private       Meaford
Moves+                                        Operator    Operator
                                                 (First     (First
                                               Student)   Student)
HCSS            Non-Profit     Board of      Non-Profit     HCSS        Ministry of
                               Directors      (Paid and                  Health
                                             Volunteer
                                               Drivers)
DCCSS           Municipal      Dufferin         County     Dufferin     Ministry of
                               County            (Paid     County        Health
                                               Drivers,
                                             Volunteer
                                               Drivers)
VON             Non-Profit     Board of      Non-Profit      VON        Ministry of
                               Directors      (Paid and                  Health
                                             Volunteer
                                               Drivers)
EWCS            Non-Profit     Board of      Non-Profit   EWCS and      Wellington
                               Directors      (Paid and   volunteer     County and
                                             Volunteer     vehicles     Ministry of
                                               Drivers)                   Health
CRC             Non-Profit     Board of      Non-Profit    CRC and      Wellington
                               Directors     (Volunteer   volunteer       County
                                               Drivers)    vehicles




Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Wellington Counties
Service Delivery and Governance Report



2.0 Existing Governance Context 7


2.4   Limitations of the Current Model
      When assessing the existing governance context for transit, stakeholder interviews
      consistently indicated that decisions affecting regional connectivity are often made in
      isolation, driven by individual councils’ fiscal pressures, provincial funding timelines, or
      localized service priorities, rather than by a shared regional transit objective.

      Key governance issues identified through engagement include:

      • Lack of regional authority to plan or protect inter-county connections when funding
        conditions change;
      • Delayed or inconsistent communication when service adjustments in one county
        affect others;
      • Over-reliance on informal staff relationships instead of formal decision-making
        structures;
      • Duplication of administrative effort, particularly in procurement, reporting, and
        service monitoring; and
      • Inability to pool or strategically allocate funding due to siloed mandates and
        accountability frameworks.

      Several interviewees noted that previous experiences—particularly the reduction of
      inter-community services when grant funding ended—highlight the risk of continuing
      without a governance structure designed to manage a network rather than individual
      routes.




      Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Wellington Counties
      Service Delivery and Governance Report



3.0 Governance Model Evaluation & Selection 8


3.0     Governance Model Evaluation & Selection
3.1     Governance Principles for a Unified Transit Network
        The governance principles outlined in this section establish a common foundation for
        evaluating governance models and informing the design of a governance structure for a
        Unified Transit Network. These principles are grounded in what was heard through
        stakeholder consultation, particularly interviews with Chief Administrative Officers
        (CAOs) and senior staff, along with the Vision and Guiding Principles developed at the
        outset of the study. Together, they provide a consistent lens through which governance
        options are assessed, and a benchmark against which the recommended governance
        structure is evaluated.

3.1.1   County CAO and Municipal Stakeholder Perspectives on Governance
        Interviews were held with CAOs and senior leadership from all four counties. Through
        these interviews, a strong degree of alignment emerged regarding what a future
        governance model must achieve to be viable and sustainable. A summary of the
        interviews is included in Appendix A.

        Key themes from stakeholder consultation include:

        • The need for regional decision-making authority: Stakeholders emphasized that
          current governance arrangements are fragmented and overly dependent on bilateral
          or informal agreements. Decisions affecting regional connectivity are often made in
          isolation, creating service gaps and inefficiencies. There was broad consensus that a
          Unified Transit Network requires a governance body that can make decisions at the
          network level, rather than on a route-by-route or municipality-by-municipality basis.
        • Importance of equitable representation and shared accountability: CAOs
          consistently raised concerns about governance models that concentrate authority in
          a single municipality or county. There was a strong preference for a structure that
          provides participating partners with an equitable voice, particularly given past
          experiences where decisions by one funder had unintended impacts on others.
        • Clear separation of governance and operations: Stakeholders stressed the
          importance of distinguishing between governance responsibilities (planning, funding,
          oversight, policy) and operational responsibilities (service delivery, scheduling,



        Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Wellington Counties
        Service Delivery and Governance Report



3.0 Governance Model Evaluation & Selection 9

          dispatch). Blurred roles were identified as a source of inefficiency and risk in previous
          inter-municipal arrangements.
        • Financial transparency and sustainability: Long-term affordability was identified as
          one of the most significant governance risks. CAOs emphasized the need for
          predictable cost allocation, transparent reporting, and governance structures that
          support gradual, informed financial decision-making—particularly given the limited
          appetite for large or sudden tax-levy increases.
        • Governance stability over time: Stakeholders highlighted the importance of
          governance arrangements that endure beyond individual funding programs or
          election cycles, noting that frequent changes in structure undermine confidence and
          long-term planning.

        These perspectives directly informed the governance principles set out below.

3.1.2   Alignment with Vision and Guiding Principles
        At the outset of the project, partners established a shared Vision for the Unified Transit
        Network:




        Supporting this Vision, a set of Guiding Principles was identified to shape service and
        governance decisions. The governance principles outlined in this section operationalize
        those broader project principles by translating them into governance-specific
        expectations.

        Key Vision and Guiding Principles reflected in governance design include:

        • Equity and Accessibility: Governance must ensure that services are planned and
          delivered in a way that considers vulnerable populations, rural communities, and
          varying degrees of need across the region.
        • Customer-Focused and Seamless: Decision-making structures should prioritize the
          passenger experience and enable integration across services, modes, and municipal
          boundaries.
        • Fiscal Responsibility: Governance must balance service aspirations with realistic
          funding capacity, ensuring that growth and integration are financially sustainable.



        Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Wellington Counties
        Service Delivery and Governance Report



3.0 Governance Model Evaluation & Selection 10

        • Integration and Collaboration: Governance should facilitate coordination among
          multiple service providers, municipalities, and counties, reducing duplication and
          improving efficiency.

        These principles reinforce the need for a governance model that is regional in scope,
        transparent in operation, and adaptable over time.

3.1.3   Governance Principles for the Unified Transit Network

        Based on stakeholder consultation, the project Vision and Guiding Principles, the
        following governance principles were identified as essential for a Unified Transit
        Network.

        1. Network-Level Authority and Strategic Oversight

        A Unified Transit Network requires governance that can plan, fund, and oversee services
        from a regional network perspective, rather than through individual municipal or
        corridor-specific decisions. Governance must be able to consider system-wide impacts,
        prioritize investments across the network, and protect inter-community connections
        that extend beyond any single municipality’s interests.

        This principle directly informs the evaluation of governance options by prioritizing
        models with authority and mandate to act at a regional scale.

        2. Balance of Regional Integration and Local Accountability

        Governance structures must strike a balance between achieving regional integration and
        maintaining appropriate accountability to participating Councils. Stakeholders
        emphasized that while Councils are prepared to collaborate regionally, they require
        clarity regarding decision rights, funding commitments, and representation.

        Effective governance should:

        • Provide equitable representation for participating partners; and
        • Retain clear mechanisms for Council oversight without requiring repetitive or parallel
          approvals for operational decisions.

        This principle is closely aligned with evaluation criteria related to transparency,
        accountability, and political legitimacy.




        Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Wellington Counties
        Service Delivery and Governance Report



3.0 Governance Model Evaluation & Selection 11

3.Transparency and Clarity in Roles and Responsibilities

A clear delineation of roles between governance and operations is fundamental to
effective regional transit delivery. Governance arrangements must explicitly define:

• Who sets policy and service priorities;
• Who approves budgets and allocates funding; and
• Who delivers and manages services.

The intent of unified governance is not to replace effective operational capability, but to
coordinate, align, and contract for service delivery in a way that maximizes value from
existing investments. Where appropriate, the MSB may elect to leverage proven
operational platforms, such as those maintained by SMART (in-house dispatch, route-
planning systems, etc.) as service delivery components within the regional network,
subject to performance standards, service agreements, and accountability requirements
established by the MSB.

This clarity reduces the risk of duplication, confusion, and politicization of operational
decisions and supports consistent accountability across the system.

4. Financial Sustainability and Predictability

Governance must support long-term financial sustainability by enabling predictable,
transparent, and equitable cost-sharing arrangements. Stakeholders consistently noted
that governance structures should:

• Support multi-year financial planning;
• Avoid abrupt funding decisions driven by short-term pressures; and
• Facilitate informed trade-offs between service levels and affordability.

This principle directly relates to evaluation criteria concerning financial authority,
sustainability, and fiscal discipline.

5. Flexibility and Scalability

Given the evolving nature of transit demand, funding programs, and regional
collaboration, governance must be sufficiently flexible to adapt over time. This includes
the ability to:




Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Wellington Counties
Service Delivery and Governance Report



3.0 Governance Model Evaluation & Selection 12

        • Adjust service plans as demand changes;
        • Incorporate new partners or service providers; and
        • Respond to the conclusion of time-limited funding programs.

        Flexibility was identified by stakeholders as particularly important to maintaining
        momentum and confidence during pilot and early implementation phases.

        6. Stability and Continuity

        While flexibility is important, governance must also provide stability. Stakeholders
        emphasized that governance arrangements should not be treated as temporary or
        experimental once services are launched. A stable governance framework builds trust
        among partners, supports long-term investment decisions, and provides consistency
        through political and organizational change.

        This principle reinforces the preference for governance models that do not rely on
        informal agreements or individual leadership relationships.

        7. Equity and Accessibility

        Governance of the Unified Transit Network must preserve the distinct service standards
        and equity objectives of specialized transit, including door-to-door service, accessible
        vehicles, longer trip booking windows, and trip purpose considerations. Integration
        under a unified governance structure must not dilute or override specialized transit
        requirements, recognizing these services as essential to ensuring dignified, safe, and
        reliable mobility for vulnerable populations.

        This principle directly informs governance design choices related to role clarity,
        funding allocation, service standards, and accountability for accessibility outcomes.

3.1.4   Relationship to Governance Evaluation Criteria
        The governance principles outlined in this section form the foundation for the
        evaluation criteria applied later in the report to assess potential governance models.
        Specifically, these principles are reflected in evaluation dimensions related to:

        • Strategic authority and mandate;
        • Balance of regional integration and local control;
        • Financial authority and sustainability; and



        Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Wellington Counties
        Service Delivery and Governance Report



3.0 Governance Model Evaluation & Selection 13

• Transparency and accountability.

By grounding the evaluation criteria in both stakeholder input and the project’s Vision
and Guiding Principles, the governance assessment ensures that recommended options
are not only technically sound but also aligned with partner expectations and regional
objectives.




Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Wellington Counties
Service Delivery and Governance Report



4.0 Governance Model Options 14


4.0     Governance Model Options
        Three governance models were reviewed for the implementation of a unified regional
        transit service across Bruce, Dufferin, Grey and Wellington counties. These are
        described in more detail below.

4.1     Option 1 – Joint Municipal Services Board
        A Municipal Services Board is a joint local board established by participating
        municipalities/counties through enabling by-laws. The MSB has delegated authority to
        govern and oversee the Unified Transit Network on behalf of the participating councils,
        enabling shared decision-making with formal regional accountability.

4.1.1   Authority and Mandate
        Authority is explicitly delegated through the enabling by-laws and associated
        agreements. The mandate can be defined to include:

        •   system planning and integration;
        •   service standards;
        •   budget development;
        •   contract oversight;
        •   performance management; and
        •   cost allocation administration.

        This provides clear regional authority without relying on one county as the legal owner
        of the service.

4.1.2   Decision-Making, Equity, and Council Oversight
        Under a MSB model, decision-making authority is formally delegated by participating
        councils to a joint board responsible for governing the Unified Transit Network. The MSB
        is empowered to make network-level decisions within defined parameters, enabling
        consistent service planning and oversight across jurisdictions.

        Equity is a core strength of this model, as representation is intentionally structured
        across participating municipalities or counties. Decision-making can be designed to




        Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Wellington Counties
        Service Delivery and Governance Report



4.0 Governance Model Options 15

        balance equal regional voice with appropriate recognition of funding responsibility,
        supporting shared accountability while reducing perceptions of dominance by any single
        partner.

        Council oversight remains strong and transparent. Participating councils retain authority
        through appointment of board members, approval of enabling by-laws and funding
        commitments, and receipt of regular financial and performance reporting. This structure
        allows councils to maintain democratic accountability while avoiding operational
        micromanagement and duplicative approvals.

4.1.3   Financial Authority, Transparency, and Accountability
        A MSB supports clear financial authority at the regional governance level defined in this
        context as the centralized, multi-county decision-making body responsible for system-
        wide planning, budgeting, contract oversight, and cost allocation across the Unified
        Transit Network on behalf of participating councils. This enables coordinated financial
        management of services that cross municipal boundaries, while avoiding fragmented,
        route-by-route or county-by-county decision-making. Transparency is typically high
        because the MSB can be required to:

        •   produce regular public reports;
        •   provide quarterly financial and performance reporting to each council;
        •   undergo annual independent audit; and
        •   follow public-sector accountability practices.

        Public-sector financial and accountability frameworks are outlined in the Public Sector
        Accounting Standards (PSAS) issued by the Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB), as
        well as through applicable municipal reporting, audit, and financial control requirements
        under Ontario legislation. Accountability is strengthened by defined reporting
        obligations and clear linkages between performance results and governance decisions
        (service adjustments, contract enforcement, budget changes).

4.1.4   Implementation Risk, Scalability and Long-term Sustainability
        Implementation risk for a MSB is moderate at the outset, as it requires coordinated
        action by participating councils to adopt enabling by-laws and establish a new
        governance body. This upfront effort is offset by the clarity and durability of the




        Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Wellington Counties
        Service Delivery and Governance Report



4.0 Governance Model Options 16

        resulting structure. Once established, governance risk is significantly reduced relative to
        more informal or centralized models.

        Scalability is high. The MSB model is designed to accommodate additional partners and
        service expansions through amendments to by-laws and participation agreements,
        without requiring fundamental changes to governance architecture. This makes it well
        suited to phased implementation and future regional growth.

        Long-term sustainability is high. The model provides a stable governance framework
        that is resilient to leadership changes, evolving service demands, and the conclusion of
        time-limited funding programs. By embedding shared decision-making, transparency,
        and accountability into the governance structure, the Municipal Services Board supports
        sustained regional collaboration and long-term system viability.

        Example of Municipal Services Board in Peer Review – The Niagara Transit Commission
        provides a strong Ontario-based comparator, having been established as a MSB under
        Section 196 of the Municipal Act, 2001. The Bow Valley Regional Services Commission
        (Alberta), while established under a different legislative framework (the Municipal
        Government Act) and not directly comparable to an Ontario MSB, is included as a
        reference example of how multiple independent municipalities—outside of a county or
        regional structure—can collaboratively coordinate and deliver a unified transit service.
        Its relevance is therefore limited to illustrating inter-municipal collaboration and shared
        service delivery approaches, rather than serving as a precedent for governance
        structure or legislative authority.

4.2     Option 2 – Lead Municipality / Inter-Municipal Agreement
        In this model, one municipality or county serves as the lead and is responsible for
        administering and delivering the regional transit service on behalf of partner
        municipalities through an inter-municipal agreement. Partners contribute funding and
        provide input as defined in the agreement, but there is no separate regional governing
        body.

4.2.1   Authority and Mandate
        Legal authority and mandate remain with the lead municipality/county. The scope of
        authority is typically limited to what is described in the inter-municipal agreement (e.g.,




        Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Wellington Counties
        Service Delivery and Governance Report



4.0 Governance Model Options 17

        specific routes, service standards, contract administration). Authority is derived from
        the agreement and the lead’s municipal powers, rather than a shared delegated body.

4.2.2   Decision-Making, Equity, and Council Oversight

        Decision-making authority under a lead municipality model is centralized with the lead
        municipality or county, typically exercised by its council or delegated committee and
        staff. Participating partners may provide input through advisory committees or
        staff-level coordination, but ultimate authority remains with the lead. While this can
        support timely decisions in early stages, it can create equity concerns over time,
        particularly where service decisions materially affect non-lead jurisdictions.

        Council oversight is strongest for the lead municipality, which retains direct
        accountability for service delivery, budgets and contracts. Oversight by non-lead
        councils is indirect and dependent on the terms of the inter-municipal agreement,
        including reporting and consultation requirements. As services expand or costs increase,
        this imbalance can strain partner confidence and heighten governance risk.

4.2.3   Financial Authority, Transparency and Accountability
        Financial authority is typically held by the lead municipality, which manages contracts,
        budgets, and financial reporting. Transparency is often strong for the lead council (since
        the service sits within its financial systems) but may be weaker for partners unless
        reporting is standardized and frequent. Accountability mechanisms depend heavily on
        the agreement (e.g., budget approval rights, audit provisions, dispute resolution,
        cost-sharing adjustment rules).

4.2.4   Implementation Risk, Scalability and Long-Term Sustainability
        The lead municipality model presents low implementation risk in the short term, as it
        relies on existing municipal authority and does not require the creation of a new
        governing body. Services can be launched relatively quickly using familiar administrative
        and legal mechanisms. However, this simplicity diminishes over time as service scope,
        costs, and partner expectations increase.

        Scalability is limited (low). Adding new municipalities or expanding service beyond
        discrete routes typically requires renegotiation of agreements and may exacerbate




        Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Wellington Counties
        Service Delivery and Governance Report



4.0 Governance Model Options 18

        concerns related to equity and decision-making authority. As regional complexity grows,
        the administrative and political burden on the lead municipality increases accordingly.

        Long-term sustainability is moderate to low for a multi-county Unified Transit Network.
        The model is highly dependent on continued partner confidence, stable leadership
        relationships, and ongoing agreement on cost-sharing and service priorities. Stakeholder
        experience suggests that this structure becomes increasingly fragile as financial
        pressures or service tradeoffs emerge, limiting its suitability as a long-term regional
        governance solution.

        Example of Inter-Municipal / Lead Municipality Model in Peer Review – MidPen Transit
        (Midland and Penetanguishene), Colltrans (Collingwood and The Blue Mountains),
        Kingston Transit (Kingston and Loyalist Township).

4.3     Option 3 – Municipally Governed Non-Profit Corporation
        A standalone not-for-profit corporation is established with counties as members. The
        member counties appoint the MSB, and the corporation delivers transit services under a
        defined mandate and governance framework separate from municipal departments.

4.3.1   Authority and Mandate
        Authority flows from the corporation’s articles/by-laws and member agreements. The
        corporation has legal standing to contract, employ staff, and manage service delivery. As
        a regional transit authority, its mandate must clearly cover regional planning,
        integration, and funding/accountability functions (beyond pure operations).

4.3.2   Decision-Making, Equity, and Council Oversight
        In a municipally governed non-profit corporation, decision-making rests with a board of
        directors appointed by member counties. The MSB exercises authority within the scope
        of the corporation’s mandate and governing documents, enabling more arm’s-length
        and operationally focused decision-making than a municipal department model.

        Equity among participating counties depends on the design of the MSB structure, voting
        rules, and membership agreements. Council oversight is indirect, exercised through
        board appointments, approval of funding agreements, and reporting requirements.
        While this can be effective for service delivery organizations, stakeholder feedback from




        Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Wellington Counties
        Service Delivery and Governance Report



4.0 Governance Model Options 19

        this engagement indicates that reduced direct council involvement may raise concerns
        when the corporation is positioned to make system-wide policy or funding decisions or
        when OTIF-funding ends.

4.3.3   Financial Authority, Transparency, and Accountability

        The corporation holds financial authority to manage its operating budgets and contracts
        and typically produces audited financial statements. Transparency can be strong if
        reporting is designed for councils (quarterly performance and financial reporting, public
        reporting), but councils sometimes perceive corporate structures as less transparent
        than municipal departments unless disclosure expectations are explicit. Accountability
        must be contractually reinforced (audits, public reporting, open meeting expectations
        where applicable, and clear consequences for performance issues).

4.3.4   Implementation Risk, Scalability, and Long-Term Sustainability

        Implementation risk for a municipally governed non-profit corporation is moderate.
        Establishing or adapting corporate governance structures, negotiating membership
        agreements, and building sufficient administrative capacity require time and
        coordination among partners.

        Scalability is moderate. While new members can be added, doing so often necessitates
        adjustments to governance arrangements, board composition, and funding agreements.
        This can introduce complexity as the system grows.

        Long-term sustainability is moderate. Corporate structures provide continuity beyond
        election cycles and can be effective for delivering defined services over time. However,
        sustainability as a regional system governance model depends heavily on maintaining
        council confidence in accountability, transparency, and equity.

        Examples of Municipally Governed Non-Profit Corporation in Peer Review – SMART,
        Southwest Integrated Fibre Technology (SWIFT).

4.4     Evaluation of Governance Models
        The three primary governance models were assessed for applicability to the four-county
        Unified Transit Network. This evaluation identifies the strengths and weaknesses of each
        and alignment to the governance principles. This is illustrated in Table 4 below.




        Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Wellington Counties
        Service Delivery and Governance Report



4.0 Governance Model Options 20



Table 4: Evaluation of Governance Models

Model                  Description                  Strengths               Limitations        Alignment with
                                                                                                Governance
                                                                                                  Principles
Joint          A MSB established under the   • Purpose-built for       • Requires              High
Municipal      Municipal Act, 2001,            shared regional           coordinated by-law    Strongest
Services       governed by representatives     services                  adoption              overall
Board          appointed by each             • Clear delegation of     • More time-intensive   alignment with
               participating county. The       authority from            to establish than a   network-level
               MSB is delegated authority      Councils                  lead municipality     decision-making,
               for system-wide planning,     • Balanced                  model                 equity,
               funding oversight, and          representation across                           transparency,
               performance accountability,     counties                                        fiscal
               while municipalities retain   • High transparency                               accountability,
               political oversight through     and public                                      and long-term
               board appointments,             accountability                                  stability.
               enabling by-laws, and         • Used for shared
               approved financial              services and regional
               contributions.                  transit elsewhere in
                                               Ontario




Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Wellington Counties
Service Delivery and Governance Report



4.0 Governance Model Options 21



Model                  Description                  Strengths              Limitations          Alignment with
                                                                                                 Governance
                                                                                                   Principles
Lead           Under this model, one          • Quick to implement   • High risk of             Low to
Municipality   county acts as the legal       • Familiar to            perceived imbalance      Moderate
/ Inter-       service provider, with other     municipalities         among partners           Tends to score
Municipal      counties participating         • Minimal structural   • Decisions can still be   well on speed
Agreement      through service agreements.      change                 reversed unilaterally    and
               Governance authority and       • Suitable for         • Unsuitable for long-     administrative
               legal accountability remain      supporting initial     term, multi-county       simplicity, but
               with the lead municipality,      pilots                 network governance       weaker on
               while participating partners                          • Replicates               equity, regional
               contribute funding and                                  governance risks         integration, and
               provide input as defined in                             observed in past         governance
               the agreement, rather than                              inter-community          stability.
               through a separate regional                             routes
               governing body.




Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Wellington Counties
Service Delivery and Governance Report



4.0 Governance Model Options 22



Model                  Description                   Strengths                 Limitations         Alignment with
                                                                                                    Governance
                                                                                                      Principles
Municipally    A separate legal entity        • Stable governance       • Reduced direct           Moderate
Governed       established by one or more       beyond election           Council control          Strong on
Non-profit     municipalities, with             cycles                  • Requires material        operational
Corporation    municipalities acting as       • Ability to contract and   financial and staffing   stability and
               members and appointing           hold assets directly      growth to govern a       continuity, but
               the MSB. The corporation       • Strong operational        full regional system     mixed on
               operates with a defined          independence            • Financial                council
               mandate and operational                                    transparency             oversight, public
               independence, while                                        concerns                 transparency,
               accountability to                                                                   and regional
               municipalities is maintained                                                        effectiveness
               through board                                                                       depending on
               appointments, funding                                                               design.
               agreements, and reporting
               requirements.




Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Wellington Counties
Service Delivery and Governance Report



5.0 Recommended Governance Model 23


5.0     Recommended Governance Model
        Based on the evaluation of governance options, the recommended governance
        structure for the Unified Transit Network is the establishment of a Four-County Regional
        Transit Services Board in the form of a MSB. This model provides a formal mechanism
        for Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, and Wellington counties to jointly govern a unified regional
        transit network, while retaining appropriate Council oversight through delegated
        authority, board appointments, and defined reporting requirements. The framework is
        intentionally structured to support scalable growth, allowing additional partners to be
        incorporated over time through standardized by-law and participation mechanisms,
        without restructuring the core governance model.

5.1     Rationale and Assessment
        The current transit governance landscape across the four counties lacks the structure
        required to support an integrated, sustainable regional transit network. A purpose-built
        Regional Transit Services Board provides the most realistic and effective means to align
        planning, funding, and accountability while respecting Council authority and local
        priorities. This model balances regional integration with local oversight, reduces
        duplication, and establishes the governance foundation necessary for long-term success
        beyond initial provincial funding. This structure is best suited to delivering a regionally
        integrated transit network that is financially sustainable, politically legitimate, and
        capable of making network-level decisions across municipal boundaries.

        The MSB model best addresses the fundamental governance gaps identified in the
        current state assessment, while aligning with the governance principles established in
        Section 3.1.

5.1.1   Alignment with Governance Principles
        1. Network-level authority and decision-making
        A MSB allows authority to be formally delegated from participating Councils to a single
        governing body with responsibility for the entire regional system, rather than for
        individual routes or services. This enables decisions to be made in the interest of the
        entire network (e.g., corridor prioritization, service standards, fare integration), rather
        than being constrained by individual county perspectives.



        Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Wellington Counties
        Service Delivery and Governance Report



5.0 Recommended Governance Model 24

Stakeholders consistently noted that past reductions to inter-community services
occurred because governance was route or funding specific, not network-oriented. A
MSB directly resolves this issue by shifting the decision-making lens from “should our
Council fund this route?” to “does this decision support the regional network?”

2. Equitable representation and political legitimacy
Under a MSB, each participating county appoints representatives to the MSB through
enabling by-laws. This creates formal, balanced representation, which was identified
through engagement as critical to long-term buy-in, particularly given prior experiences
where decisions by one county had downstream impacts on others.

Unlike a lead municipality model, no single county controls the agenda, budget, or
service planning authority. This mitigates the risk of perceived dominance and supports
shared accountability.

3. Financial transparency and sustainability beyond provincial funding
The MSB model supports:

• Multi-year budgeting;
• Transparent cost allocation frameworks; and
• Independent financial reporting and audit.

This is particularly important given stakeholder concerns about the expiration of
time-limited provincial funding programs (e.g., OTIF) and the need for predictable
municipal contributions over time. A MSB enables Councils to approve funding
envelopes and allocation methodologies upfront, reducing the risk of abrupt service
changes driven by short-term fiscal pressures.

4. Clear separation of governance and operations
A core theme from engagement was the need to avoid ‘governance creep’ into
operations, while still maintaining appropriate oversight. A MSB provides:

• Governance authority (planning, funding, accountability); and
• Delegated operational management through contracts.

This preserves flexibility to use multiple service delivery models (e.g., contracted
operators, SMART, on-demand providers), while ensuring a single point of accountability
for system performance.



Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Wellington Counties
Service Delivery and Governance Report



5.0 Recommended Governance Model 25

        5. Scalability and future adaptability
        The governance framework must be deliberately designed to accommodate future
        growth and change, including the addition of new participating municipalities, service
        providers, or service types, without requiring fundamental restructuring of the MSB.

        Scalability should be achieved through:

        • A modular governance design, where participation can expand incrementally through
          standardized participation agreements or by-law amendments;
        • Clear separation between the governance framework (which remains stable) and
          service participation (which may evolve over time); and
        • Governance rules that enable the MSB to adjust representation, voting, and funding
          arrangements in a transparent and equitable manner as participation changes.

        Consistent with best practices for MSBs, the governance model should support the
        addition of new members based on agreed principles, such as financial contribution,
        service participation, and regional benefit, while preserving fairness among existing
        members and avoiding governance instability. This approach ensures the Unified Transit
        Network can respond to changing regional needs, funding conditions, and partner
        interest over time without undermining accountability or Council confidence.

5.2     Proposed Governance Framework
        This section sets out the proposed governance framework, including mandate,
        delegated authorities, roles and responsibilities, reporting, and implementation
        considerations required to operationalize the model.

5.2.1   A. Mandate and Authority
        Under the MSB model, participating Councils would delegate authority to the MSB
        through concurrent enabling by-laws and associated participation agreements. The
        MSB’s mandate should be explicitly defined to support the unified regional network and
        associated integration objectives (including service integration, fare integration, and
        coordinated customer experience), rather than governance of individual routes in
        isolation.




        Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Wellington Counties
        Service Delivery and Governance Report



5.0 Recommended Governance Model 26

Recommended delegated authorities for the MSB include:

• Network planning and service integration:
  o Approve the regional service plan (corridors, service standards, connectivity
     priorities); and
  o Establish service standards applicable across the system (e.g., accessibility
     expectations, minimum service hours, customer service standards) for services
     that are directly funded or provided by the MSB. Other services that operate in
     the region through their own authority would be governed by their own
     standards.
• Budget and financial planning:
  o Develop and recommend annual operating and capital budgets for approval
     processes defined in the enabling structure; and
  o Adopt a multi-year financial plan aligned with service phasing and funding
     program timelines (e.g., OTIF).
• Cost allocation and funding administration:
  o Administer the approved cost allocation methodology (including periodic review
     of mechanisms and reporting);
  o Allocate shared administrative costs and network-level investments (e.g.,
     technology, regional passenger information tools); and
  o Establish regional fare policy parameters and integration requirements (including
     transfer policy and coordination with local systems where applicable).
• Procurement and contracting authority:
  o Enter into agreements for service delivery, technology providers, and
     fleet/maintenance services where required;
  o Enter into infrastructure agreements and ongoing service contracts related to the
     construction, installation, maintenance, and upkeep of transit assets, including
     but not limited to bus stops, shelters, signage, marketing infrastructure, and
     associated services (e.g., snow removal, cleaning, and lifecycle maintenance); and
  o Establish contract management expectations and performance-based
     requirements (KPIs, remedies, reporting).
• Performance oversight:
  o Monitor performance against Council-approved service and financial targets; and




Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Wellington Counties
Service Delivery and Governance Report



5.0 Recommended Governance Model 27

           o Approve corrective actions where performance, cost, or service levels materially
             deviate from the plan.

        Strategic authority retained by each County Council should include:

        • Adoption of enabling by-laws and foundational governance documents;
        • Appointment (and removal/rotation) of Board members;
        • Approval of core annual funding commitments and any material changes to levy
          impacts beyond agreed thresholds; and
        • Approval of major structural changes (e.g., borrowing, material capital commitments,
          material expansion beyond approved phasing).

5.2.2   B. Governance Structure, Representation, and Decision Rights
        A key feature of the MSB model is that it can be designed to provide equitable
        representation across counties, while enabling timely and defensible decision-making
        on regional priorities.

        Recommended Board composition (framework level):

        • Each County appoints a defined number of representatives (e.g., 1 to 2 per county) to
          ensure balance and manageability. This would typically be the Warden or a member
          of County Council.

        • The MSB should include:
          o Elected officials (to preserve democratic accountability); and
          o The option of adding up to 1 to 2 non-voting technical advisors (to strengthen
             expertise without altering political legitimacy). When desired, the MSB may
             request technical representation from the Unified Transit Network’s core transit
             operators to provide additional context or advice from an operational
             perspective to support informed decision-making.
        • Representation by each county should be the same, unless one or more counties are
          contributing a significantly larger financial investment into the Unified Transit
          Network (e.g., greater than 20% higher than other counties). In this case, this county
          should have another Board member.




        Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Wellington Counties
        Service Delivery and Governance Report



5.0 Recommended Governance Model 28

        Decision Rights and Voting

        • The participation agreement should clearly define:
           o Reserved decisions requiring Council ratification (e.g., material funding changes);
               and
           o Decisions fully delegated to the MSB (e.g., service adjustments within approved
               budget).
        • Decisions with material funding implications remain subject to Council approval
           through established thresholds, ensuring no participating county is committed to
           unapproved financial obligations. "Material funding implications” refers to any
           decision that results in a cost impact exceeding 15% of a participating County’s
           approved transit budget, or that alters approved funding commitments or cost
           allocation methodologies.
        • Voting rules can be designed to balance fairness and fiscal accountability. Together,
           these approaches ensure governance is both equitable and financially accountable.
           For example:
           o Equal voting on service standards and network planning; and
           o Defined thresholds or weighted considerations for decisions with direct funding
               implications.
        Term and Leadership

        • The terms should be aligned to municipal election cycles, with representatives
          serving on a 4-year term; and
        • A Chair and Vice-Chair should be elected annually from among the Board members.

        Quorum and Voting

        • A quorum is necessary to conduct business (e.g., minimum 50% of the composition
          of the MSB, including the Chair or Vice-Chair); and
        • A simple majority is used for standard motions, while a tie vote results in a defeated
          motion. This is recommended for this board composition.

5.2.3   C. Roles and Responsibilities (Governance vs. Operations)
        To maintain clarity and reduce duplication, the governance framework should explicitly
        separate:




        Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Wellington Counties
        Service Delivery and Governance Report



5.0 Recommended Governance Model 29

• Financial commitment and strategic oversight (setting municipal budgets, making
  decisions around membership); and
• Governance functions (Board-level planning, funding oversight, accountability); from
• Operational delivery (provided by contracted operators and/or existing service
  providers).

The following outlines the recommended responsibilities of each of the stakeholders in
this process.

County Councils
While the MSB focuses on day-to-day planning and operations, each County Council
would have authority over the following areas:

Administrative and Legal

• Appointments and Revocations: Appointing representatives to the MSB or revoking
  an appointment from their Council through written notification of a replacement.
• By-law Ratification: Councils must pass resolutions or by-laws specifying their
  approval of the Board’s governing regulations and by-laws.
• Membership: A request for new membership into the MSB must be passed by
  council resolution or by-law approving the Board's existing regulations and financial
  commitments.
• Withdrawal: A council may withdraw from the MSB by providing a formal notice
  period (typically 90 days to one year) and ensuring all financial obligations for the
  current calendar year are met.

Service and Operations

• Approval of Foundational, Financial, and Strategic Plans: Member councils must be
  consulted on annual and three-year rolling financial plans.
• Major Service Changes: Permanent additions or cancellations of services that result
  in a cost change greater than 15% of a county’s approved transit budget require
  approval from the voting Member impacted by that change.
• Taxi / Ridesharing: Should the MSB identify a need to move forward with utilizing
  taxi and ridesharing as part of the service model, each county would need to ratify a
  recommended taxi/ridesharing by-law as recommended by the Board.




Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Wellington Counties
Service Delivery and Governance Report



5.0 Recommended Governance Model 30

• Bus Shelter Construction and Installation: The initial construction and installation of
  new bus shelters will be funded through eligible OTIF capital funding and will be the
  responsibility of participating County Councils. Ongoing maintenance, repairs, snow
  clearing, and lifecycle upkeep will be administered by the MSB through contracted
  agreements with lower-tier municipalities or service providers.
• Support Services: County or local municipalities provide and fund support services
  such as garbage collection around bus stops within their jurisdiction.

Funding

• Funding Commitment: Formally commit to funding the MSB’s transit services and
  related costs as specified in the financial plan.
• Operating Shortfalls: Each Council must pay its share of any passenger fare revenue
  shortfall, based on the net direct operating costs agreed upon in the financial plan.
• Gas Tax Coordination: Councils must pass by-laws designating a "host" municipality
  to apply for provincial Dedicated Gas Tax Funds, which are then used to offset
  operational costs.

Board Responsibilities

The MSB, working with the transit management staff that report to it, is responsible for:

Financial Adjustments Within Approved Limits

• Budget Amendments: The Manager may present amendments to the annual
  financial plan to the MSB during the year; these are approved by the Board rather
  than returned to individual councils.
• Revenue Allocation: The MSB manages the allocation and reconciliation of fare
  revenues, including the use of fare collection technology.
• Reserve Management: If a surplus for a service is below a specific threshold (e.g., 5%
  of total annual revenue), the MSB can decide to retain those funds in a reserve to
  cover future cost overruns without redistributing them to members. Refer to the
  proposed Reserve Management Strategy outlined in Section 6.2.4 for more detail.




Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Wellington Counties
Service Delivery and Governance Report



5.0 Recommended Governance Model 31

Operational Management and Service Delivery

• Service Planning and Monitoring: The MSB, or its designated Manager, would
  develop the transit service plan, which would need to be approved by each Council
  should it require a significant change in funding.
• Routing and Stop Placement: The MSB, or its designated Manager, is responsible for
  the specific placement of stops and the day-to-day coordination of transit routes.
• Threshold-Based Adjustments: While permanent or major changes (often defined as
  those exceeding a 15% change in cost) require approval from the voting Member
  impacted by that change, the MSB generally manages smaller fluctuations in service
  delivery.
• Service Standards: The MSB establishes performance standards and key
  performance indicators to measure operating effectiveness, efficiency and transit
  user satisfaction.
• Contracting and Procurement: The MSB has the authority to award contracts for
  work to public or private organizations, including entering into agreements for the
  ongoing maintenance and operation of transit assets (e.g., bus stops, shelters,
  signage, and marketing infrastructure), as well as associated services (e.g., snow
  removal, cleaning, and lifecycle upkeep).
• Support Services Integration: The MSB will coordinate and contract for supporting
  services associated with transit assets (e.g., waste collection, cleaning, and minor
  upkeep at bus stops and shelters), transitioning these responsibilities from local
  operational arrangements to a standardized, network-wide approach where
  appropriate.
• Marketing and Promotion: The MSB will develop and implements service marketing
  plans and regional branding strategies.

Administrative and Personnel Decisions

• Report to Council: Report to each Council quarterly on the service, including key
  performance measures. Submit budgets for approval annually.
• Hiring and Staffing: The MSB is responsible for hiring, supporting, and supervising
  the Manager or any associated staff. All staff are employed by the MSB (or a
  designated host municipality acting on its behalf, as defined in the participation
  agreement) and are accountable to the MSB through the Manager.




Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Wellington Counties
Service Delivery and Governance Report



5.0 Recommended Governance Model 32

• Internal Policies: The MSB can create, administer, and monitor internal programs and
  policies required for effective operation.
• Committees: The MSB may form committees or working groups as needed to
  support its activities. These may include Board members, municipal staff from
  participating counties or local municipalities, and non-voting technical advisors or
  subject matter experts, depending on the mandate of each group.
• Legal and Regulatory Compliance: The MSB can apply for necessary operating
  certificates from provincial or federal jurisdictions, including ensuring the contractor
  is meeting CVOR and AODA requirements.

Contracted Service Provider Responsibilities (Operators)

The contracted service provider would report to the Manager of the MSB, with
expectations of service set out in an operating contract. They would be responsible for:

Daily Service Delivery

• Labour and Equipment: The contractor(s) provides the necessary drivers,
  supervisors, and administrative personnel to operate the routes and services.
• Adherence to Schedules: The contractor(s) must operate the transit service
  according to the specific routes and service schedules (often referred to as "Revenue
  Vehicle Hours") established by the MSB.
• Fleet Provision (Optional): Depending on the contract, the contractor(s) may provide
  the vehicles themselves, or they may operate vehicles jointly owned or leased by the
  participating counties.
• Customer Interaction: The contractor(s) often handles initial resident inquiries,
  complaints, and simple complaint resolutions related to the transit service.

Vehicle and Asset Maintenance

• Operating Expenses: The contractor(s) is typically responsible for all routine
  expenses connected with the vehicles, including fuel, cleaning, and daily operational
  checks.
• Maintenance: The contractor(s) are responsible for the repair and replacement of
  wear-and-tear items such as brakes, tires, lights, windows, and upholstery as well as
  routine maintenance. The contractor(s) is responsible for major engine or body work
  outside of factory warranties if they own the vehicles. If the counties own the



Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Wellington Counties
Service Delivery and Governance Report



5.0 Recommended Governance Model 33

           vehicle, they are responsible for paying for these works, unless the damage was
           caused by the contractor's neglect.

        Legislative and Safety Compliance

        • Regulatory Adherence: The contractor(s) must ensure all operations comply with
          provincial and federal legislation, including the Highway Traffic Act and the AODA.
        • Commercial Vehicle Operator Registration (CVOR) Licence: The contractor(s) must
          obtain and manage the CVOR certificate. This includes submitting the application,
          providing proof of liability insurance, keeping vehicle information up to date, and
          maintaining good CVOR rating through compliance with safety checks by the
          Ministry. This requirement should be included in the service contract whether the
          contractor or the MSB owns the vehicles.
        • Insurance: The contractor(s) is required to maintain significant Commercial General
          Liability insurance and must name the MSB and participating counties as "additional
          insured".
        • Reporting: The contractor(s) must provide regular data to the MSB, including but not
          limited to, monthly ridership statistics, revenue reports, and updates on any major
          service disruptions.

        This model supports SMART and other providers functioning as operators within the
        network, under regional governance direction, while avoiding governance overlap.

5.2.4   D. Financial Authority, Transparency, and Accountability
        The MSB model supports strong financial governance through centralized budgeting and
        consistent reporting, while remaining accountable to participating Councils.

        Recommended financial accountability mechanisms include:

        • Annual independent audit of Board financials;
        • Quarterly financial reporting to each participating Council (actuals vs. Budget,
          forecast, cost drivers, risks);
        • Clear separation of:
          o operating costs (service delivery, administration); and
          o capital costs (fleet, technology, infrastructure).

        • Adoption of a principles-based cost allocation framework, with:



        Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Wellington Counties
        Service Delivery and Governance Report



5.0 Recommended Governance Model 34

           o   a stable base component (shared governance/administration);
           o   variable components linked to service and benefit (service hours/kms; ridership
               patterns); and
           o   defined review points to recalibrate once the proof-of-concept period produces
               reliable data.

5.2.5   E. Reporting Requirements (Councils, Public, and Program Accountability)

        Regular reporting was identified as a core requirement for Council confidence and
        long-term sustainability, particularly as provincial funding programs sunset.

        Minimum recommended reporting requirements:

        1) To participating Councils (quarterly)

        • Service performance dashboard (ridership, productivity, on-time performance,
          missed trips, accessibility indicators);
        • Financial performance (budget to actual, forecast, cost pressures);
        • Risk register updates (financial, operational, governance risks); and
        • Decisions taken under delegated authority and upcoming decision points requiring
          Council direction.

        2) Public reporting (annual)

        • Annual report on:
          o ridership and outcomes;
          o cost recovery/farebox recovery;
          o equity and geographic coverage; and
          o progress toward integration (fares, booking, information).

        • Public accountability commitments aligned with Board expectations (meeting
          transparency, published agendas/minutes where applicable).

        3) Funding program accountability

        Program-specific reporting for OTIF, and any successor funding, including performance
        measures required by the province and documentation supporting continued funding
        eligibility.




        Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Wellington Counties
        Service Delivery and Governance Report



5.0 Recommended Governance Model 35

5.2.6   F. Proposed Staffing Model
        To support the effective operation of the BDGW Unified Transit Network while
        maintaining fiscal discipline and flexibility, the recommended governance framework
        includes a lean, centralized staffing model focused on governance, coordination, and
        accountability rather than direct service delivery.

        The MSB will be supported by a dedicated Manager (Transit Manager) who will serve as
        the primary lead for contract oversight, vendor management, and system governance,
        including monitoring performance of third-party operators, managing service
        agreements, and ensuring compliance with Board-approved service standards and KPIs.

        The MSB will also employ a contract/system administrator. This function will include
        responsibility for coordinating and overseeing centralized systems (e.g., booking,
        scheduling, and reporting platforms), with day-to-day system administration delivered
        by contracted vendors or service providers (e.g., SMART or software providers) and
        governed through Board-defined requirements, performance expectations, and data-
        sharing agreements.

        Both roles will support high-level system management, ensuring that the public’s
        investment is protected and that the network functions as a unified family of services.
        Core responsibilities will include the development and maintenance of key policies,
        agreement and contract management, long-term service and financial planning, and the
        preparation of annual budgets for Board approval. The functions will also be responsible
        for compiling and analyzing data to monitor system performance against established
        KPI, supporting continuous improvement and informed Board decision-making.

        The staffing model is intentionally designed to:

        • Preserve a clear separation between governance and operations; with the MSB
          retaining accountability for contract performance, service integration, and
          continuous improvement, while leveraging external providers for service delivery,
          technology administration, and other specialized operational functions;
        • Minimize duplication of functions already provided by participating municipalities
          and contracted operators; and
        • Scale responsibly as the system transitions from start-up to a steady-state operating
          environment.




        Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Wellington Counties
        Service Delivery and Governance Report



5.0 Recommended Governance Model 36

          Operational service delivery (e.g., vehicle operation, dispatch, maintenance) will
          continue to be provided through contracted service providers and participating
          organizations, rather than through Board staffing.

5.2.6.1   Phased Staffing Approach
          Phase 1 – Start-Up and Early Implementation

          During the establishment and early operating period of the Unified Transit Network,
          staffing should be kept intentionally limited and focused on the core functions required
          to launch, manage, and oversee the regional system. The initial staffing model should
          include two dedicated roles: a Transit System Manager/Board Manager and a
          Contract/System Administrator. These roles are intended to provide sufficient capacity
          for governance support, contract oversight, system coordination, performance
          monitoring, and Board reporting, while avoiding the creation of a larger operating
          organization at the outset.

          Transit System Manager/Board Manager (1 role)

          • Reports directly to the MSB.

          Core responsibilities include:

          • Implementing the approved service plan and annual work plan;
          • Supporting the MSB in developing annual budgets, long-term financial plans, and
            service phasing recommendations;
          • Managing operator contracts and service delivery agreements;
          • Coordinating route planning, stop placement, service standards, and service
            adjustments within delegated authority;
          • Monitoring contractor performance and coordinating corrective actions where
            required;
          • Preparing reports for the MSB and participating Councils, including financial,
            operational, and risk reporting;
          • Coordinating funding program compliance, including OTIF, Provincial Gas Tax, and
            other applicable grant or reporting requirements; and
          • Acting as the primary liaison with participating counties, local municipalities,
            contracted service providers, and other transit partners.



          Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Wellington Counties
          Service Delivery and Governance Report



5.0 Recommended Governance Model 37

Contract/System Administrator (1 role)

• Reports directly to the Transit System Manager/Board Manager.

Core responsibilities will include:

• Coordinating centralized technology and reporting systems used across the Unified
  Transit Network, including booking, scheduling, dispatch integration, reporting
  platforms, fare-related data, and performance dashboards;
• Supporting agreement and contract administration, including tracking contract
  obligations, renewal dates, reporting requirements, and issue-resolution processes;
• Maintaining key policies, procedures, service standards, and administrative tools
  required to support consistent system operation;
• Compiling and analyzing financial, ridership, service, and performance data against
  Board-approved KPI;
• Supporting preparation of annual budgets, long-term plans, and Board reporting
  materials;
• Coordinating data-sharing and reporting requirements between the MSB, SMART,
  fixed-route operators, software vendors, and other service providers;
• Supporting procurement processes, vendor coordination, and implementation of
  service or technology changes; and
• Maintaining records required for audit, funding compliance, performance
  monitoring, and Council reporting.

It should be noted that while day-to-day system administration may be delivered by
contracted vendors or service providers, such as SMART or software providers, they will
be governed through Board-defined requirements, performance expectations, data-
sharing agreements, and reporting protocols.

Administrative and Professional Support

Additional finance, procurement, legal, communications, IT, human resources, and
technical planning support should be provided through a combination of shared
municipal services, contracted professional services, or temporary third-party support,
as required. This may include assistance with drafting policies and procedures,
developing procurement documents, preparing implementation plans, refining




Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Wellington Counties
Service Delivery and Governance Report



5.0 Recommended Governance Model 38

performance dashboards, supporting change management, and completing detailed
service or financial analysis.

This approach allows the MSB to become operational quickly while avoiding permanent
staffing commitments before service volumes, funding certainty, and long-term
governance needs are fully validated.

Any additional roles required to move to implementation should be completed through
third-party consulting providers. Operational service delivery, including vehicle
operation, dispatch, maintenance, scheduling, and customer-facing service functions,
will continue to be provided through contracted service providers and participating
organizations rather than through direct Board staffing.

Phase 2 - Steady-State Staffing (Post-Implementation)

As services stabilize, ridership patterns mature, contract requirements become clearer,
and funding transitions from start-up programs to longer-term municipal contributions,
the MSB may consider modest staffing adjustments. Any increase in permanent staffing
should be evidence-based and aligned to demonstrated service scale, contractual
complexity, reporting requirements, funding compliance obligations, and the level of
coordination required across service providers.

Potential steady-state staffing enhancements may include:

• Additional contract and performance oversight capacity where the number or
  complexity of operator, infrastructure, technology, or service agreements increases;
• Additional financial planning and reporting capacity where budget management, cost
  allocation, grant compliance, or reserve reporting requirements warrant dedicated
  support;
• Service planning or customer experience support where ridership growth, service
  expansion, fare integration, or public communication needs increase; and
• Additional technology, data, or systems support where centralized booking,
  scheduling, fare, reporting, or cross-provider integration requirements become more
  complex.

Any transition to additional permanent staff should be considered through the MSB’s
normal budget approval process and supported by a clear business case. The intent is to
ensure that staffing grows only where justified by service demand, contractual



Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Wellington Counties
Service Delivery and Governance Report



5.0 Recommended Governance Model 39

        complexity, reporting requirements, and demonstrated value to the Unified Transit
        Network.

        Summary
        The proposed phased staffing model establishes a lean but functional administrative
        structure for the MSB. The Transit System Manager/Board Manager provides overall
        leadership, Board support, contract oversight, municipal coordination, and
        accountability for implementation of Board-approved plans. The Contract/System
        Administrator provides dedicated support for contract administration, centralized
        systems oversight, performance reporting, data management, and policy coordination.

        Together, these roles provide the core capacity required to manage the Unified Transit
        Network as an integrated regional system while preserving a clear separation between
        governance, oversight, and operational delivery. This approach supports fiscal prudence,
        protects the public investment, enables consistent Board and Council reporting, and
        allows the staffing model to scale responsibly as the system matures.

5.2.7   G. Implementation and Transition (Establishing the MSB)

        The MSB model requires upfront coordination but reduces longer-term governance
        fragility. The following phased steps provide a practical pathway for establishment:

        Phase 1 – Establishment

        Phase 1 activities are led collaboratively by participating Counties, with administrative
        coordination supported by senior staff (e.g., CAOs/Clerks) and specialized legal and
        financial advisors, as required.

        1. Council endorsement of the MSB approach and draft governance framework.
        2. Drafting of enabling by-laws and participation agreement (including delegation and
           reserved decisions) led by designated County administrative leads (e.g., CAO/Clerk
           functions) in coordination with participating municipalities, and supported by
           external legal counsel to ensure compliance with the Municipal Act, 2001 and
           alignment with the agreed governance framework. This step includes the adoption
           of enabling by-laws by each participating County under the Municipal Act, 2001,
           confirming the delegation of authority to the MSB, and establishing the legal
           framework necessary to govern and fund regional transit services.



        Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Wellington Counties
        Service Delivery and Governance Report



5.0 Recommended Governance Model 40

          3. Appointment of initial Board members by each participating County Council through
             resolution or by-law, consistent with the approved governance structure, followed
             by Board approval of governance policies (meeting procedures, reporting templates,
             financial controls).

          Phase 2 – Operationalization

          4. Board approval of initial service plan and performance framework.
          5. Procurement/contracting approach confirmed (operators, technology, customer
             information).
          6. Adoption of interim cost allocation for proof-of-concept period, with scheduled
             review points.

          Phase 3 – Stabilization

          7. Transition from implementation governance to steady-state governance (annual
             work plan, audit cycle, annual reporting, program compliance).

 5.2.8    H. Key Design Choices to Confirm (Decision Points)
          To finalize the governance framework, the following elements should be confirmed in
          collaboration with the partner counties:

          •   Board composition and voting rules;
          •   Delegation framework and reserved decisions;
          •   Cost allocation methodology and review schedule;
          •   Reporting package content and cadence;
          •   Staffing plan and shared services options; and
          •   Contracting approach (single operator vs multiple operators; role of SMART and
              other providers).

5.2.8.1   Baseline Elements of a Service Plan
          Before the MSB can legally operate, the member counties must agree on several
          "baseline" elements, which includes the initial ‘day 1’ service and key elements of how
          the inter-community transit service should operate. This should include elements of the
          recommended plan, such as:




          Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Wellington Counties
          Service Delivery and Governance Report



5.0 Recommended Governance Model 41

• Initial Four-Year Financial Plan: A detailed budget outlining estimated expenditures
  for operating services, administration (salaries), marketing, and a capital investment
  plan for infrastructure and vehicles (as applicable).
• Cost Allocation Methodology: A defined formula for how the following will be split:
  o Direct Capital Costs (e.g., vehicles and bus stop infrastructure)
  o Direct Operating Costs (e.g., revenue vehicle hours of service); and
  o Overhead Costs (e.g., marketing and administration).

• Base Service Level Agreement: A defined map of "Baseline Routes" and on-
  demand/specialized transit services, including the scheduled hours of service
  (revenue vehicle hours) each municipality expects to receive.
• Uniform Fare Structure: A preliminary schedule of passenger fares (e.g., Adult,
  Student, Senior rates) and policies for transfers between different county services.
• Common On-Demand Software Provider: Establish a common on-demand
  specialized transit software solution where comingling will be provided with SMART.




Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Wellington Counties
Service Delivery and Governance Report



6.0 Cost and Funding Allocation Model 42


6.0     Cost and Funding Allocation Model
        An effective regional transit structure requires a fair and transparent methodology for
        distributing expenses and revenue/funding between each participating county. The
        model balances fairness, simplicity, and predictability, recognizing that no single
        approach fully reflects all usage patterns across a regional system. The components of
        this model include:

        •   Overhead costs;
        •   Direct infrastructure and supporting service costs;
        •   Direct fixed-route operating costs;
        •   SMART specialized transit and on-demand costs;
        •   On-demand transit and subsidizes ridesharing/taxi costs; and
        •   Private sector fare subsidy.

        Revenue generated by the Unified Transit Network includes:

        • Fare and advertising revenue;
        • Provincial Gas Tax and OTIF revenue; and
        • Grants and donations.

6.1     Cost Allocation
        The following section proposes a methodology to allocate the various costs to operate a
        Regional Transit Authority.

6.1.1   Overhead Costs
        Overhead costs associated with operating both the MSB and the Unified Transit
        Network are recommended to be shared among each participating county based on the
        amount of service they receive. If service hours are similar between each county, one
        option would be to share costs evenly. The exception would be if there is a county that
        receives a disproportionately higher amount of service than the other participating
        counties. In this case, the county with the highest share would pay a slightly higher
        portion of the overhead cost (e.g., If one county receives 30% or greater revenue service




        Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Wellington Counties
        Service Delivery and Governance Report



6.0 Cost and Funding Allocation Model 43

        hours than average share between the other counties, this would pay a 20% higher
        share of the overhead costs).

        Overhead costs include but are not limited to:

        • Marketing, branding, trip wayfinding, software, and system data;
        • Dedicated transit coordination staff reporting to the MSB (e.g., transit manager and
          support staff);
        • Office space and furniture (unless donated by one of the participating counties);
        • Any costs associated with network planning or a network review; and
        • Other elements which impact the full network.

6.1.2   Direct Infrastructure and Supporting Costs
        Direct infrastructure and supporting costs would be administered by the MSB and paid
        for by each county that receives a transit service. This would be based on the location of
        each municipality that operates service. For transit hubs where multiple inter-
        community bus routes meet, the cost of building, leasing, or maintaining the hub should
        be split between the counties that benefit from it. A cost allocation model is illustrated
        in Table 5 below.




        Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Wellington Counties
        Service Delivery and Governance Report



6.0 Cost and Funding Allocation Model 44

        Table 5: Proposed Allocation of Direct Costs

        Notes:

        *This is also an eligible OTIF expense if built during the OTIF term

         Costing Element                                           Allocation
         Bus stop including concrete pad      100% cost to municipality that the stop is in. For
         and/or shelter (as applicable)*      example, new bus stops in Bruce County would be
                                              funded by Bruce County.
         Snow removal and maintenance         100% cost to municipality that the stop is in. For
         of bus stop                          example, costs to clear snow on roads with transit
                                              routes in Grey County would complete by the
                                              lower-tier municipality, but would be funded by
                                              Grey County.
         Transit hub or bus bay rental of a   Cost is split equally between the counties that
         local transit hub*                   have routes that utilize the hub or bus bay. For
                                              example, if there is a cost to use the downtown
                                              terminal in Guelph for the Owen Sound to Guelph
                                              bus, this would be split between Wellington
                                              County and Grey County.
         Transit maintenance facility*        Cost is split equally between the counties that
                                              have routes that utilize the portion of the facility
                                              dedicated to the regional transit system. For
                                              example, if a transit facility housed buses that
                                              operate in Grey and Dufferin County, the cost
                                              would be split between these counties.

6.1.3   Fixed-Route Cost Sharing Model

        Establishment of a formal decision-making framework is required to determine which
        counties are categorized as "served" or "benefiting" from a specific inter-community
        transit route. This assessment serves to ensure that financial contributions reflect the
        actual utility provided to residents of each county.

        The allocation of costs for cross-boundary routes should occur in two steps:




        Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Wellington Counties
        Service Delivery and Governance Report



6.0 Cost and Funding Allocation Model 45

Step 1: Determination of Benefit

The first step requires determining the nature and degree of benefit that a
cross-boundary fixed-route provides to each participating county. Benefit is not limited
to resident pick-ups or drop-offs, but may include access to employment, education,
health care, commercial services, tourism destinations, and regional hubs.

A route may deliver different types of benefit to different counties. For example, one
county may primarily benefit from resident mobility and access to services, while
another may benefit from increased access to its employment centres, businesses, or
institutions. Both forms of benefit are recognized as valid and contributing to overall
regional value.

Benefit determination is intended to be qualitative and contextual, informed by
available data (e.g., travel demand, service usage, key destinations, economic
development or tourism linkages) and professional judgement, rather than a rigid
scoring system. While not all benefits are easily quantified, identifying and documenting
them supports transparency, shared understanding, and informed funding discussions
among participating counties.

In cases where a route primarily functions as a one-way commuter or access service,
counties may determine funding participation accordingly, recognizing that the
allocation of variable operating costs does not need to be proportional to route mileage
alone. An example of different types of benefits and how they can be realized is
illustrated in Table 6 below.




Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Wellington Counties
Service Delivery and Governance Report



6.0 Cost and Funding Allocation Model 46

Table 6: Types of Benefits for Inter-Community Services

Type of Benefit                          How the Benefit Is Realized

 Resident Mobility   Provides residents with access to employment, education, health
                     care, and essential services outside their home county.
 Workforce Access Enables employers and institutions to draw from a broader labour
                  pool, supporting workforce attraction and retention.
 Access to Services Increases access to retail, government services, hospitals, and
 & Commercial       post-secondary institutions located in destination communities.
 Centres
 Economic            Supports regional economic integration by improving connections
 Development         between workers, businesses, and markets.
 Tourism & Visitor   Facilitates visitor travel to tourism destinations, events, and
 Access              cultural attractions across county boundaries.
 System Efficiency   Reduces service duplication and aligns transit provision with real
                     travel patterns rather than administrative boundaries.
 Environmental &     Supports reduced vehicle dependence and contributes to
 Sustainability      longer-term emissions reduction goals.
 Outcomes
 Regional Equity &   Promotes equitable access to opportunities and reinforces
 Cohesion            collaboration across the region.

Step 2: Cost Allocation

Once impacted partners have reached a formal agreement on the counties benefiting
from the route, the fixed-route funding model is applied to apportion costs to benefiting
counties. If a partner determines that their residents would not benefit from a route,
the benefiting counties can decide whether the route should stop within the non-
benefiting county or whether they would like to proceed with the route by taking on a
larger portion of the cost.

This fixed-route funding model is recommended to then apportion service costs to each
route partner based on fixed-portion of the route (e.g. contractors administrative cost)
and variable portion (service hours provided in each municipality). This formula is
described below:




Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Wellington Counties
Service Delivery and Governance Report



6.0 Cost and Funding Allocation Model 47

• Fixed-Portion: 25% of individual route costs would be equally shared amongst
  counties benefiting from any single fixed-route. This includes scenarios where a route
  may operate through a County’s jurisdiction to support network connectivity, even if
  the primary benefit is realized elsewhere.
• Variable Portion: 75% apportioned based on service hours within each County, paid
  for by counties who benefit from the particular route according to an allocation
  formula.

The funding formula recognizes the fixed-portion costs inherent to a transit service,
geographic differences, the level of service provided within each funding partner, and
passenger travel across municipal boundaries. The route funding costs are based on the
contractor rate, which includes staffing, fuel, maintenance, insurance, and the vehicle
leasing costs, all of which are administered by the contractor.

Figure 1 illustrates the cost sharing model, while Table 7 illustrates five different
scenarios of how this cost allocation formula is applied.




Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Wellington Counties
Service Delivery and Governance Report



6.0 Cost and Funding Allocation Model 48

Figure 1: Proposed Route Funding Model




Table 7: Fixed-Route Variable Cost Allocation Scenarios

 Scenario                                       Illustration
 Scenario 1 – Service in multiple partner
 counties: Apportionment of variable cost
 is divided between partner counties
 based on the ratio of revenue service
 hours spent in each county. In this
 example, if County A has 70% of the
 service hours within its county and            Example: A route between Owen Sound
 County B has 30%, then County A would          and Orangeville would be split between
 pay 70% of the cost and County B would         Grey County and Dufferin County based
 pay 30%. The fixed cost is split equally       on the hours of service operated in each
 between the two counties.                      County.
 Scenario 2 - Service fully within one
 partner county: Apportionment of
 variable and fixed cost is fully applied to
 the county. In this example, County A
 would pay the entire cost of the route.

                                                Example: A route between Shelburne and
                                                Grand Valley would be entirely paid for by
                                                Dufferin County.




Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Wellington Counties
Service Delivery and Governance Report



6.0 Cost and Funding Allocation Model 49

Scenario                                      Illustration
Scenario 3 - Service not within partner
counties: The portion of the route
outside of the partner counties is equally
apportioned between all route partners.
In this example, County A and County B
each pay their respective amounts of the
variable cost (30%) and divide the cost of    Example: A route between Owen Sound
time spent in County X evenly (40%).          and Guelph would be split between Grey
County A: 30% + 20% = 50%, County B:          County and Wellington County for service
30%+20% = 50%. The fixed cost is split        within their jurisdiction. The portion in
equally between the County A and B.           Guelph would then be divided equally
                                              between the two Counties.
Scenario 4 - Service along County
boundaries: Equally apportioned
between counties. In this example, the
variable cost of the segment of the route
along the boundary would be evenly
divided between County A and County B.        Example: For example, a service between
                                              Wiarton and Owen Sound operates along
                                              the Highway 6 corridor, which is the
                                              boundary between Bruce and Grey
                                              counties. This portion of the route service
                                              hours would be split between the two
                                              counties.
Scenario 5 – Service in multiple partner
counties that only benefit one County: If
County B does not benefit from the route
and a decision is made to move forward,
100% of the variable cost would be paid
by County A, but the fixed cost would be      Example: A short seasonal route from
split equally.                                Sauble Beach to Owen Sound has a
                                              primary benefit to Bruce County. If Grey
                                              County chooses not to prioritize this
                                              corridor, they would not pay the variable
                                              cost but would pay their share of the fixed
                                              cost.




Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Wellington Counties
Service Delivery and Governance Report



6.0 Cost and Funding Allocation Model 50

6.1.3.1   Other Funding Model Considerations
          Through scenario analysis, several models were assessed but not chosen when
          determining the apportionment formula:

          A ridership-based funding model allocates costs to each funding partner based on the
          number of passenger boardings that occur within its municipal boundaries. One issue
          with this funding model is that ridership is variable, changing seasonally and annually,
          which would limit the funding predictability for each partner. Specialized technology
          would be required to track ridership data by passengers’ origin and destination, which
          causes challenges. In the future, a ridership-based model may be appropriate if it
          allocates service by the origin of each passenger’s trip (e.g., someone travelling from
          Dundalk to Orangeville in the morning, then back in the evening, could be apportioned
          to Grey County since it is a benefit to a resident of Grey County). This funding model
          would also require constant reassessments based on observed ridership figures, which
          can lead to less financial predictability for funding partners.

          A purely service-hour apportioned model allocates costs purely based on the amount
          of service that operates in each funding partner municipality. With no fixed cost portion
          of service costs (the 25% share of total individual route costs under recommended
          model), this model does not satisfy the principle of creating a fair cost-sharing
          arrangement for all parties in some operating scenarios. This would be the case if
          service were extended to a small municipality. In this scenario, the new municipality
          would only pay for a small share of the entire operating cost and would not equitably
          contribute towards the overall impacts of the service change, including shift scheduling
          and connections to other routes. In the recommended model, the addition of a fixed-
          cost “buy-in” to be connected to the route helps offset some of the costs evenly
          between partners, while still biasing the funding toward the service levels each
          municipality receives.

          A purely equally split model allocates cost evenly between each funding partner,
          regardless of the level of service received in each municipality. This model does not
          create scalable, nor flexible, funding arrangements, as the costs of any service changes
          are equally borne by all municipalities on the route.




          Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Wellington Counties
          Service Delivery and Governance Report



6.0 Cost and Funding Allocation Model 51

6.1.4   SMART Funding Model
        At present, SMART services are funded at the local municipal level rather than through a
        centralized levy for each benefiting county. This localized funding model supports
        specialized mobility for residents with disabilities within participating municipalities in
        Grey and Bruce counties. The funding requested from each municipality is based on
        historical agreements that were in place, which have since been revised to reflect a
        funding formula that allocates system-wide net cost of the service to each partner
        municipality based on 70% ridership from each municipality from the previous year and
        30% based on the municipal population.

        One of the challenges with this funding structure is that there is no consistent fare
        structure and certain member municipalities can reduce their contribution or increase
        the level of service by increasing the per kilometre fare charged to clients. For example,
        the Township of Chatsworth has a per kilometre fare that is $0.39 cents higher than
        other partners. This creates a challenge under the Regional Transit Authority due to the
        need to have a consistent fare to maintain fare parity with the Phase 1 and Phase 2 on-
        demand conventional service (see Section 10.1.5 and Section 10.3.2 of the Primary
        Report).

        It is recommended that funding for specialized transit services remain with SMART and
        continue to be funded at the local municipal level within Bruce and Grey counties. This
        will help reduce any perceived risk of SMART being disbanded if the Regional Transit
        Authority does not continue once OTIF funding ends. This is discussed in Section 7.3.

        The working group is exploring the opportunity to contract on-demand transit to
        SMART, where it can be comingled with its existing service. This includes municipalities
        within Bruce and Grey counties that currently utilize SMART specialized transit, as well
        as the potential to expand to new municipalities that have an interest in investing in
        SMART.

        For contracted on-demand service within Grey and Bruce counties, the MSB would
        request SMART to provide a quote to provide the requested service. This could be a per
        trip or hourly cost that meets certain service level and accessibility requirements
        determined by the MSB. This includes:




        Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Wellington Counties
        Service Delivery and Governance Report



6.0 Cost and Funding Allocation Model 52

        • Use of a mobile app to book, track, and pay for integrated trips between on-demand
          and inter-community and commuter fixed-route services;
        • Comingled service where SMART currently operates;
        • The potential to extend service to other municipalities where SMART does not
          operate;
        • Ability to guarantee connections to fixed-route services;
        • The ability to book rides within a pre-specified trip booking window; and
        • Fare parity between SMART customers and the Phase 1 and Phase 2 on-demand
          service (lowering the fare from $12 to $10). Fare parity is only applied to these types
          of trips as referenced in Section 10.1.5 and Section 10.3.2 of the Primary Report.

        In addition to this, the MSB would be willing to support any software upgrade costs that
        would allow SMART to move to a brokerage model with other specialized and
        community transportation operators in the area, recognizing the importance that this
        would have on mobility across the MSB service area. This would be dependent on the
        results of separate Stream B Specialized Transit Study.

        The Stream B Specialized Transit Study would help to determine the cost to meet the
        MSB requirements. The cost would include:

        • Costs associated with any upgrades to the trip booking/scheduling software;
        • Costs for new vehicles and vehicle lifecycle based on the additional service;
        • Cost for new drivers where existing vehicles cannot accommodate the demand;
        • Cost of additional administrative support required to provide comingled service or
          the brokerage model; and
        • Any reduction in fare to ensure fare parity between on-demand and SMART service.

        If there is a desire to extend the SMART service to Dufferin County, this could either be
        done at the County or local level. Since Wellington County already has an accessible on-
        demand service, it is not necessary to extend SMART into this County.

6.1.5   On-Demand Transit and Ridesharing/Taxi
        For on-demand transit or a subsidized ridesharing or taxi contract (on-demand), the
        service plan identifies zones where one or more vehicles will be assigned for a specific
        duration (e.g., 10 hours a day). These zones will be centered around an inter-community




        Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Wellington Counties
        Service Delivery and Governance Report



6.0 Cost and Funding Allocation Model 53

        fixed-route transit hub. This is more fully discussed in Section 10.2.5 of the Primary
        Report.

        When allocating costs between partners, the following should be considered:

        1. Software Costs: Where upfront software costs or annual licensing fees for on-
           demand software are separated as part of the service contract, these should be
           shared.
        2. among partners that benefit from the on-demand transit or ridesharing/taxi
           partnership. Where software is owned by SMART, the MSB would fund any
           additional costs required to upgrade the software over the agreed term of the
           contract. The features of the upgraded software that the MSB would fund would
           need to be discussed and agreed to prior to moving forward.
        3. Operations/Service Hours: The operating cost to provide the vehicle and driver
           should be incurred by the benefiting partner that the on-demand or taxi/ridesharing
           subsidy service is located in. Should an on-demand zone include one or more
           counties, the following formula should apply:
           • Zone that extends to a partner county: If the zone crosses a political boundary
              that represents less than 25% of the geographic area or population of the entire
              zone, the county with the largest benefit continues to pay for the service.
           • Zone shared between counties: If the on-demand zone crosses one or more
              county boundaries, that represent 25% or more of the geographic area or
              population of the entire zone, the cost of the service will be split equally between
              benefiting partners.

        The above breakdown of costs for shared zones is meant to allow flexibility to cross
        county boundaries where it makes sense from a cost or passenger perspective, without
        requiring multiple counties approval. It should be noted that initial software license
        costs as well as operations are an eligible OTIF expense.

6.1.6   Private Sector Fare Subsidy
        The service plan identifies opportunities to subsidize the fare of private sector carriers
        to match the public transit fare when it is more cost effective to subsidize the fare
        rather than provide the service through the Regional Transit Authority. In this situation,
        a passenger would pay the public transit fare on the private carrier, and private carrier
        would invoice the MSB for the cost difference.



        Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Wellington Counties
        Service Delivery and Governance Report



6.0 Cost and Funding Allocation Model 54

        In this instance, the allocation of cost of the fare difference would be treated no
        differently than if the Regional Transit Authority were providing the service, both in
        terms of on-demand transit or ridesharing/taxi service and an inter-community bus
        route.

6.1.7   Cost Allocation Summary
        Table 8 below provides a cost allocation summary. More details for each are included in
        the section above.

        Table 8: Summary of Recommended Cost Allocation

         Cost                                            Allocation
         Overhead Cost     • Share costs between all partners.
         (Section 6.1.1)   • Based on share of service hours.
         Bus               • Bus Stop: Each partner pays for stop(s) within their jurisdiction.
         Infrastructure    • Snow Removal: Each partner pays for removal in their
         (Section 6.1.2)     jurisdiction.
                           • Terminal/Facility: Each partner pays based on inter-community
                             routes that utilize the facility. This uses the same formula as inter-
                             community routes.
         Fixed-Route       • 25% of hourly cost split equally between partners that benefit
         Operating Cost      from the route. 75% of hourly cost split based on service hours
         (Section 6.1.3)     within the jurisdiction of each partner.
         SMART            • Net costs are allocated to participating local municipalities under
         Specialized        the municipal tax levy based on a recommended formula that
         Transit (Section   includes 70% ridership from the previous year and 30% of the
         6.1.4)             population of the municipality relative to the total service area.
                            This is a recommended revision from the existing formula that
                            better reflects the travel time/cost impacts of geographically
                            larger municipalities.
         On-Demand         • Separated software fees or annual licensing split equally between
         Transit or          benefiting partners.
         Ridesharing /     • Operating Cost: If 75% to 100% of the zone is in a single county,
         Taxi (Section       100% of hourly cost to benefiting partner.
         6.1.5)            • Operating Cost: If < 75% of the zone is in a single county, hourly
                             cost split equally between benefiting partners.




        Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Wellington Counties
        Service Delivery and Governance Report



6.0 Cost and Funding Allocation Model 55

         Cost                                            Allocation
         Private Sector    • Fare subsidy uses the same funding formula as fixed-routes and
         Fare Subsidy        on-demand.
         (Section 6.1.6)

6.2     Revenue and Funding Allocation
        The following section proposes a methodology to allocate the various revenue and
        funding sources used to fund the Regional Transit Authority.

6.2.1   Fare Revenue
        Since transit operates as a network and passengers can transfer between different
        services (e.g., on-demand to fixed-route), it is difficult to offset the fare revenue for
        each specific service and allocate to each county, as it would add considerable
        administrative burden for little benefit. Advertising revenue would be also difficult to
        allocate based on the vehicle or jurisdiction that the advertising revenue was generated
        from, as vehicles and passengers’ cross municipal boundaries. Therefore, it is
        recommended that fare and advertising revenue be collected for the entire system and
        split based on the percent of cost incurred by each county. The net operating cost would
        then be allocated to each partner.

        Fare revenue collected by SMART would stay within the organization, as it represents a
        contracted service provider in the Regional Transit Authority. No change is
        recommended from the current model.

6.2.2   Provincial Gas Tax and OTIF
        Provincial Gas Tax and OTIF funding requires a host municipality to apply for and receive
        funds from the project. Provincial Gas Tax is based on the combined ridership and
        population of the participating partner municipalities, as well as the municipal spending
        and fares received from prior years.

        A municipality that already accesses Provincial Gas Tax for local service (e.g., Orangeville
        and Owen Sound) would not be included in this formula as double counting population
        is not permitted.




        Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Wellington Counties
        Service Delivery and Governance Report



6.0 Cost and Funding Allocation Model 56

        For local municipalities that access the Provincial Gas Tax on behalf of SMART, it is
        recommended that the option to combine all Provincial Gas Tax allocations into one
        County (Grey or Bruce) be considered as part of the unified Gas Tax formula that takes
        into consideration both services provided by the MSB and SMART. This will help
        leverage new ridership, population, and minimum municipal spending requirements to
        take full advantage of the Provincial Gas Tax and potentially increase the amount
        received. However, the proportion of funding used to currently fund SMART should
        continue to be maintained to offset the need to increase municipal contribution.

        Once the full Provincial Gas Tax revenue is received, both OTIF and the Provincial Gas
        Tax should be allocated to each partner county based on the same distribution of costs.
        This is a similar approach as the fare/advertising revenue.

        For OTIF, the distribution would only go towards the partner counties, and not any
        contracted services (e.g., SMART).

6.2.3   Grants / Donations

        Grants and donations received by the MSB should be split proportionally based on the
        share of operating costs. Should there be a surplus, this can be placed in a reserve for
        future use, to be used for key elements of a service including capital, technology
        upgrades, studies, etc.

6.2.4   Reserve Management Strategy
        To support financial stability, risk management, and long-term sustainability, it is
        recommended that the MSB establish a formal Transit Reserve Framework at the outset
        of the Unified Transit Network. It should be noted that this reserve would be established
        by the MSB, which would be different from the reserves each county may employ to
        smooth their own allocations towards the MSB.

        The reserve framework is intended to:

        • Smooth short-term cash-flow volatility arising from fare revenue variability, service
          adjustments, and timing differences in funding receipts;
        • Provide emergency capacity to address unplanned service disruptions or cost
          pressures without requiring immediate Council funding approvals; and




        Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Wellington Counties
        Service Delivery and Governance Report



6.0 Cost and Funding Allocation Model 57

• Support an orderly transition from time-limited provincial funding (e.g., OTIF) to
  longer-term municipal funding arrangements.

Recommended Reserve Structure

The MSB should establish and maintain the following reserves:

1. Operating Stabilization Reserve

• Purpose: To manage normal ebbs and flows in annual operating cashflow.
• Eligible uses include:
  o Temporary fare revenue shortfalls; and
  o Timing gaps between expenditures and receipt of OTIF, Gas Tax, or grant
      funding— smoothing year-over-year operating cost fluctuations.

• Target balance:
  o During the OTIF period, add to the reserve fund for the current year to limit
     projected increases in following year to 10% or less; and
  o Following OTIF, add 5% to10% of annual net operating costs to reserve fund,
     established progressively.

• Use of funds:
  o At the discretion of the MSB within approved financial thresholds; and
  o Draws and replenishment to be transparently reported to participating Councils.

2. Service Continuity and Emergency Reserve

• Purpose: To protect service continuity in the event of unexpected disruptions.
• Eligible uses include:
  o Contractor failure or service interruption;
  o Significant unplanned cost increases (e.g., fuel spikes, insurance, regulatory
      changes); and/or
  o Short-term continuation of priority services during funding uncertainty.

• Target balance:
  o One to two months of gross operating costs, subject to affordability.

• Use of funds:
  o Limited to clearly defined emergencies or continuity events; and/or



Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Wellington Counties
Service Delivery and Governance Report



6.0 Cost and Funding Allocation Model 58

   o Use beyond predefined thresholds to be reported to Councils.

3. Capital and Transition Reserve

• Purpose: To support longer-term system resilience and planned transitions.
• Eligible uses include:
  o Transit infrastructure lifecycle costs not fully eligible for grant funding;
  o Technology refreshes and system upgrades;
  o Transitional costs associated with the end of provincial programs (e.g., OTIF
      sunset); and
  o Studies or implementation work required to adapt service levels or funding
      models.

• Funding sources may include:
  o Annual operating surpluses;
  o Unallocated grant or contribution balances; and/or
  o One-time revenues.

• Use of funds:
  o Board- approved and aligned with multi-year financial planning.

Reserve Funding and Governance Principles

• Surpluses Retained: Annual operating surpluses should be retained in reserves
  rather than redistributed, except in wind-down or exit scenarios defined in the
  participation agreement.
• Transparent Reporting: Reserve balances, draws, and replenishment plans will be
  reported annually to participating Councils as part of the MSB’s financial reporting.
• No Structural Reliance: Reserves are not intended to mask ongoing structural
  deficits; persistent operating pressures must be addressed through service design,
  funding adjustments, or Council direction.
• Threshold-Based Use: Clear thresholds will be defined for when the MSB may
  independently deploy reserves versus when Council approval or notification is
  required.

This reserve strategy ensures the Unified Transit Network can operate with financial
resilience and predictability, particularly during early implementation and as provincial




Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Wellington Counties
Service Delivery and Governance Report



6.0 Cost and Funding Allocation Model 59

funding transitions. By retaining modest reserves at the regional level, the MSB can
respond quickly to short-term pressures without repeated emergency funding requests,
while maintaining transparency and Council oversight.

Importantly, this approach:

• Reduces financial risk to individual municipalities;
• Supports continuity of service for residents; and
• Reinforces the MSB’s role as a stable, long-term regional governance body rather
  than a program-by-program administrator.




Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Wellington Counties
Service Delivery and Governance Report



7.0 SMART Mandate & Integration Strategy 60


7.0     SMART Mandate & Integration Strategy
        This section reviews the current mandate, governance structure, and operational model
        of SMART to assess how they could participate as a contracted comingled on-demand
        service within a Unified Transit Network serving Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, and Wellington
        counties.

        Consistent with the recommended governance structure, this review considers SMART
        as one of several operators delivering specific components of the regional network,
        rather than as the governing authority for the unified network. The objective of this
        review is to identify:

        • Elements of SMART’s existing model that can be leveraged regionally; and
        • Targeted mandate clarifications or amendments required to enable SMART to
          operate within a regionally governed transit framework.

        An important clarification to note is that SMART’s current operations and governance
        structure would continue in its current form, and SMART would be retained as a
        contracted on-demand service under a service agreement with the MSB.

7.1     SMART’s Current Governance Structure and Mandate
        SMART is a municipally governed, not-for-profit corporation established to deliver
        specialized and community transportation services primarily for persons with disabilities
        within participating municipalities in Grey and Bruce counties.

7.1.1   Governance Structure

        SMART is governed by:

        • A Board of Directors comprised of elected municipal representatives from
          participating municipalities; and
        • A governance framework that emphasizes municipal accountability, with funding and
          service decisions closely tied to individual municipal participation.

        The MSB provides strategic direction, approves budgets, and oversees organizational
        performance, while day-to-day operations are managed by a General Manager and staff
        team.



        Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Wellington Counties
        Service Delivery and Governance Report



7.0 SMART Mandate & Integration Strategy 61

7.1.2   Mandate and Service Focus
        SMART’s mandate is primarily oriented toward:

        • Delivering specialized, accessible transportation for eligible clients;
        • Supporting medical, social, and essential trips; and
        • Coordinating services across multiple municipalities through a shared platform.

        SMART does not currently:

        • Plan or govern conventional public transit services;
        • Exercise authority over system-wide fare policy, service standards, or capital strategy;
          or
        • Operate across all four counties included in the regional transit study.

        Importantly, SMART’s mandate is municipality-driven, with services customized to the
        needs and funding commitments of participating lower-tier municipalities.

7.2     Key Aspects of SMART’s Operations That Can Be Leveraged Regionally
        While SMART’s mandate is focused on specialized transit rather than conventional
        transit, several aspects of its existing operational model are well aligned with the needs
        of a Unified Transit Network and could be leveraged more broadly.

        1. Experience Operating Across Municipal Boundaries

        SMART has demonstrated long-standing experience delivering services across multiple
        municipal jurisdictions under a single administrative and operational framework. This
        includes:

        • Managing different service geographies;
        • Coordinating trips that cross municipal boundaries; and
        • Allocating operating costs among multiple funding partners.

        This experience is directly transferable to a regional transit environment that operates
        across four upper-tier municipal jurisdictions.




        Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Wellington Counties
        Service Delivery and Governance Report



7.0 SMART Mandate & Integration Strategy 62

2. Mature Scheduling, Dispatch, and Booking Functions

SMART currently operates centralized client eligibility administration, as well as uses a
software tool to conduct centralized trip booking, scheduling, and dispatching across all
participating municipalities.

These capabilities are particularly well suited to:

• On-demand and demand-responsive transit services;
• Feeder services connecting rural areas to inter-community transit routes; and
• Integrated specialized and general-public on-demand services, where appropriate.

SMART’s operational orientation toward trip optimization and vehicle utilization aligns
with the efficiency objectives of the Unified Transit Network.

3. Strong Accessibility and Client-Centered Service Design

SMART’s services are designed around:

• Accessibility requirements;
• Individual mobility needs; and
• Service reliability for vulnerable populations.

As identified through engagement, accessibility is a core priority for stakeholders and
Councils. SMART’s operational practices provide a strong foundation for embedding
accessibility standards into the regional system—particularly for specialized transit and
on-demand components.

4. Contract Management and Performance Oversight

SMART has existing experience in:

• Managing third-party operators;
• Monitoring service performance; and
• Reporting on operational metrics.

This positions SMART to function effectively as a contracted service provider within the
regional system, operating under performance expectations established by the Regional
Transit Services Board.




Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Wellington Counties
Service Delivery and Governance Report



7.0 SMART Mandate & Integration Strategy 63


7.3   Key Mandate Changes Required for Participation in a Unified Transit
      Network
      To participate as an operator within a regionally governed transit system, SMART does
      not require a fundamental transformation of its governance model. However, targeted
      mandate clarifications and enabling amendments would be required to support
      expanded operational roles under regional governance.

      1. Explicit Authority to Operate Under Service Delivery Agreements

      SMART’s mandate would need to explicitly permit the organization to:

      • Enter into service delivery agreements with a MSB; and
      • Deliver services on behalf of the MSB governing body, as well as at the direction of
        individual member municipalities.

      This clarification ensures alignment with a governance structure where planning,
      funding, and policy for the Unified Transit Network are centralized, while SMART
      provides contracted service delivery.

      2. Clarification of Role as an Operator within the Unified Transit Network

      To avoid governance ambiguity, SMART’s mandate should clearly distinguish between:

      • Their operational responsibilities (service delivery, dispatch, reporting) as a
        contracted service provider in the Unified Transit System; and
      • SMART’s ongoing independent governance responsibilities, which would remain in
        the current state for their specialized transit operations.

      3. Alignment with Regional Service Standards and Reporting

      As one of numerous contracted service delivery providers for the Unified Transit
      Network, SMART would need to formally commit to the following for services provided
      on behalf of the MSB:

      • Regional service standards;
      • Common performance metrics; and
      • Standardized reporting requirements.




      Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Wellington Counties
      Service Delivery and Governance Report



7.0 SMART Mandate & Integration Strategy 64

      These requirements would be established by the Regional Transit MSB and applied
      consistently across all service providers.

      4. Geographic Flexibility Subject to Board Authorization

      SMART’s mandate would need to accommodate service delivery outside its current
      municipal footprint (e.g., if it is contracted at full cost recovery to provide an accessible
      trip outside of a SMART funded municipality), subject to SMART Board direction and
      funded service agreements.

      This enables SMART to operate in additional counties (e.g., Dufferin) where service
      delivery efficiencies or integration opportunities are identified.

7.4   Summary Assessment
      SMART is well positioned to act as a key service delivery partner within a Unified Transit
      Network, particularly for specialized and on-demand services. Its governance structure,
      operational expertise, and accessibility-focused service model represent strengths that
      align with the broader objectives of regional integration.

      However, SMART’s mandate and governance model are not suited to system-wide
      governance, nor is such a role necessary under the recommended MSB structure.
      Instead, targeted mandate clarifications would enable SMART to participate effectively
      as an operator, delivering services under contract with regional direction while
      maintaining its municipal accountability, operational integrity, and current
      organizational governance structure.

      This operator-based role in the regional system allows the Unified Transit Network to:

      • Leverage SMART’s strengths;
      • Avoid duplicating operational capacity; and
      • Maintain clear separation between MSB governance and SMART’s function as one of
        many contractors in service delivery.

7.5   Draft By-Law Amendments
      To enable SMART’s participation as a contracted operator or on-demand service
      provider within a unified, regionally governed transit system, a set of targeted by-law
      amendments has been identified. These amendments are intentionally narrow in scope



      Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Wellington Counties
      Service Delivery and Governance Report



7.0 SMART Mandate & Integration Strategy 65

and are designed to clarify SMART’s authority to operate under service delivery
agreements with a regional transit authority, provide geographic flexibility where
directed, align with regional service standards and reporting requirements, and explicitly
distinguish SMART’s operational role from system-wide governance responsibilities.
Importantly, the amendments preserve SMART’s core mandate to deliver specialized
transit services while enabling its operational capabilities to be leveraged more broadly
within the regional network. The proposed amendments are enabling in nature and do
not reposition SMART as a regional governance body. A detailed description of the draft
by-law amendments is provided in Appendix B for reference.




Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Wellington Counties
Service Delivery and Governance Report



8.0 Governance and Operational Risk Assessment 66


8.0     Governance and Operational Risk Assessment
        This section identifies and assesses key governance and operational risks that may
        impact governance effectiveness under the recommended Regional Transit MSB model.
        It also outlines mitigation strategies and contingency plans to manage uncertainty,
        including scenarios where participation or long-term funding commitments vary among
        the four counties.

        The intent of this section is not to suggest that the recommended model is risk-free, but
        rather to demonstrate that risks are understood, manageable, and preferable relative to
        alternatives once appropriate safeguards are established.

8.1     Governance Risk Assessment

8.1.1   Risk 1: One or More Counties Choose Not to Participate
        The recommended governance model assumes participation by Grey, Bruce, Dufferin,
        and Wellington counties. There is a risk that one or more counties may elect not to
        participate at implementation or may withdraw participation over time.

        Potential Impacts

        •   Reduced geographic coverage and network connectivity.
        •   Higher per-capita or per-trip costs for remaining participants.
        •   Loss of scale efficiencies envisioned under the four-county model.
        •   Reduced political legitimacy as a regional service.

        Risk Assessment

        • Likelihood: Moderate
        • Impact: High

        Mitigation Strategies

        • Establish the MSB with variable participation provisions, allowing the MSB to be
          constituted by fewer than four counties at launch.
        • Define clear entry and exit conditions in the participation agreement, including
          notice periods and financial settlement principles.



        Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Wellington Counties
        Service Delivery and Governance Report



8.0 Governance and Operational Risk Assessment 67

        • Adopt a phased service design, where routes and on-demand zones can be scaled or
          deferred without destabilizing the entire system.
        • Ensure communications emphasize the system as an open and expandable regional
          framework, rather than a fixed four-county construct.

        Contingency Plan If one county does not participate:

        • Governance proceeds with remaining counties via MSB by-laws.
        • Cost allocation and service scope are recalibrated based on participating geography.
        • Non-participating counties retain the option to join in later phases without
          restructuring governance.

8.1.2   Risk 2: Lack of Consensus on Cost Allocation Methodology
        Disagreement among counties on how costs are shared (e.g., population-based vs.
        service-based vs. blended models) could undermine trust and delay decision-making.

        Potential Impacts

        • Delays in budget approval.
        • Perceptions of inequity among partners.
        • Reduced willingness to sustain funding over time.

        Risk Assessment

        • Likelihood: Moderate
        • Impact: High

        Mitigation Strategies

        • Approve a principles-based cost allocation framework at governance launch, rather
          than attempting to perfect a single formula.
        • Use a blended approach that incorporates:
          o Base participation contribution;
          o Service hours operated;
          o Benefit to participating counties; and

        • Commit to scheduled reviews (e.g., in the final year of OTIF funding and every two to
          four years thereafter) to adjust the model based on actual service use.



        Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Wellington Counties
        Service Delivery and Governance Report



8.0 Governance and Operational Risk Assessment 68

        Contingency Plan If consensus cannot be reached:

        • Apply a temporary default allocation model for pilot years.
        • Defer refinement of allocation until sufficient operational and ridership data exists.
        • Limit financial exposure through capped contributions during the initial phase.

8.1.3   Risk 3: One or More County Councils Decline to Support Ongoing Tax Levy Funding
        Stakeholder engagement indicates that a shared concern across all counties is the low
        probability of Council support for significant incremental transit funding through the
        property tax levy once provincial funding ends.

        Potential Impacts

        • Service reductions when external funding sunsets.
        • Inability to meet ridership or service expectations.
        • Loss of public confidence if services are withdrawn.

        Risk Assessment

        • Likelihood: High
        • Impact: High

        Mitigation Strategies

        • Design the governance model to enable early, transparent conversations about
          post-OTIF funding expectations.
        • Require development of a multi-year financial plan that explicitly models:
          o Gradual municipal contribution increases;
          o Fare policy adjustments;
          o Provincial Gas Tax increases; and
          o Service prioritization scenarios.

        • Clearly distinguish between base network preservation and service expansion,
          ensuring Councils are not asked to fund unsustainable growth.

        Contingency Plan If levy funding is not supported:

        • Implement a scaled-back core network focused on highest-performing corridors.
        • Maintain governance structure while adjusting service scope.



        Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Wellington Counties
        Service Delivery and Governance Report



8.0 Governance and Operational Risk Assessment 69

        • Use the established MSB and the WOWC to advocate jointly for renewed provincial
          or federal funding, rather than fragmenting efforts across counties.

8.1.4   Risk 4: Governance Paralysis Due to Consensus-Based Decision-Making
        A multi-county governance structure may experience slower decision-making if approval
        thresholds are unclear or overly restrictive.

        Potential Impacts

        • Delayed service adjustments.
        • Missed funding or partnership opportunities.
        • Frustration among partners and staff.

        Risk Assessment

        • Likelihood: Low–Moderate
        • Impact: Medium

        Mitigation Strategies

        • Clearly define delegated decision authorities for:
          o Service changes within approved budgets;
          o Contract administration; and
          o Minor fare or schedule adjustments.

        • Establish voting thresholds that balance consensus with efficiency.
        • Separate strategic decisions (Board level) from operational decisions (executive
          level).

        Contingency Plan

        • Conduct a governance effectiveness review after Year 1.
        • Adjust Board decision thresholds if required through by-law amendment.




        Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Wellington Counties
        Service Delivery and Governance Report



8.0 Governance and Operational Risk Assessment 70


8.2     Operational Risks Affecting Governance

8.2.1   Risk 5: Inconsistent Operational Performance Across Service Providers
        The recommended model retains multiple service delivery partners. Inconsistent
        performance may undermine confidence in governance oversight.

        Potential Impacts

        • Erosion of Council trust.
        • Increased pressure for political intervention.
        • Public perception of governance failure.

        Risk Assessment

        • Likelihood: Moderate
        • Impact: Medium

        Mitigation Strategies

        • Implement standardized regional service standards and KPIs.
        • Require consistent reporting across all operators.
        • Use contracts to enforce accountability rather than ad hoc governance intervention.

        Contingency Plan

        • Escalation protocols for underperforming operators.
        • Option to consolidate service delivery where necessary.

8.2.2   Risk 6: Insufficient Central Administrative Capacity
        Under-resourcing the central governance function could result in poor coordination,
        weak financial oversight, and reactive decision-making.

        Potential Impacts

        • Over-reliance on county staff.
        • Inconsistent reporting.
        • Reduced strategic focus.




        Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Wellington Counties
        Service Delivery and Governance Report



8.0 Governance and Operational Risk Assessment 71

      Risk Assessment

      • Likelihood: Moderate
      • Impact: Medium–High

      Mitigation Strategies

      • Phase in a lean but dedicated central staff structure.
      • Prioritize governance, contract management, and financial oversight roles.
      • Use shared services or contracted expertise where appropriate.

      Contingency Plan

      • Temporary secondments from counties.
      • Outsourcing of specific administrative and service planning/monitoring functions
        until scale is achieved.

8.3   Overall Risk Position
      While the recommended MSB model carries identifiable governance and operational
      risks, these risks are:

      • Known and predictable;
      • Largely mitigable through design; and
      • Preferable to the unmanaged risks of fragmented or informal governance.

      The MSB model provides the structural tools needed to manage risk (delegated
      authority, transparency, financial oversight, and adaptability), whereas continued
      reliance on informal or lead-municipality approaches concentrates risk without
      providing equivalent mitigation capacity.

8.4   Summary Conclusion
      The recommended governance model is not dependent on perfect participation,
      unanimous funding decisions, or indefinite provincial subsidy. It is explicitly designed to
      manage uncertainty, support phased service delivery and enable informed
      decision-making under fiscal constraint. By identifying risks upfront and embedding
      mitigation strategies and contingencies into the governance framework, the Regional




      Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Wellington Counties
      Service Delivery and Governance Report



8.0 Governance and Operational Risk Assessment 72

Transit MSB positions the Unified Transit Network to adapt, stabilize, and mature over
time regardless of changes in participation or funding conditions.

A Note about Bill 98

Since the writing of this report, the Provincial Government introduced Bill 98 (Building
Homes and Improving Transportation Infrastructure, 2026), which recently passed Royal
Assent. This act includes Schedule 4 (Fare Alignment and Seamless Transit Act, 2026).
The Bill proposes:

•   Increased provincial authority over fares, service integration, and priority routes;
•   Mandatory participation in unified fare and booking systems;
•   New cross-boundary service requirements, including for specialized transit; and
•   Expanded reporting and oversight requirements.

Based on correspondence from the MTO Integrated Policy and Planning Division, the
current focus for this new legislation is on the GTHA. Should this area be expanded in
the future to include the regional transportation area as defined by the Metrolinx Act,
2006, both Wellington and Dufferin counties would be impacted by it. This would mean
half of the Unified Transit Network would be in the service area impacted by the Act.

In this scenario, there is no geographic limitation in the proposed statute that would
prevent a transit system that operates outside of the geographic area of the Metrolinx
Act from being prescribed and therefore subject to the new statute or its regulations. If
adopted, this new statutory regime may impact the counties differently; however, it is
likely that it would be the MSB that would be prescribed rather than individual counties.

To mitigate any potential risk, contracts that are set up with transit operators and on-
demand technology providers should include a clause regarding potential changes to
regional integration from the Act, including an appropriate provision to adjust the
service or terminate the contract should the act result in a significant change in fares,
technology, or operations.




Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Wellington Counties
Service Delivery and Governance Report



A–1




     Appendix A
A    Summary of CAO Interviews




    Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Wellington Counties
    Service Delivery and Governance Report



A–2


Summary of CAO Interviews
Approach to Stakeholder Consultation
As part of the regional transit governance review, KPMG conducted one-on-one,
semi-structured interviews with the CAOs of Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, and Wellington
counties. Interview guides were developed in advance to ensure consistency across
discussions while allowing flexibility to explore county-specific contexts. Interviews
focused on governance effectiveness, funding and accountability considerations,
inter-county coordination, and lessons learned from prior inter-community transit
initiatives. The intent was to capture executive-level perspectives on what would be
required for a regional transit governance model to be viable, durable, and politically
sustainable.

Key Themes Across CAO Interviews
1. Clear regional authority is more important than speed of implementation
Across all four counties, CAOs emphasized that past challenges with inter-community
transit were not primarily operational, but governance-related. Informal or bilateral
arrangements were consistently described as fragile, particularly when funding
conditions changed. There was general agreement that a regional system requires a
governance body with the authority to make decisions in the interest of the network,
rather than relying on route-specific or county-by-county approvals.

2. Council confidence hinges on equity and predictability, not control
CAOs were clear that Councils do not require day-to-day control over transit decisions,
but they do require confidence that:

• representation is balanced;
• cost-sharing is defensible and transparent; and
• material service or funding changes will not occur without appropriate notice and
  escalation.

The absence of these safeguards was identified as a key reason previous services were
scaled back or discontinued.




Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Wellington Counties
Service Delivery and Governance Report



A–3

3. Financial risk after provincial funding sunsets is the central concern
All CAOs flagged the end of time-limited provincial funding as the single greatest risk to
regional transit. While there was openness to piloting or expanding services, there was
limited appetite for large, unplanned tax-levy impacts. Governance structures that
support multi-year financial planning, gradual adjustments, and early warning of cost
pressures were consistently viewed as essential.

4. Strong separation between governance and operations is critical
CAOs consistently cautioned against governance models that blur the line between
strategic oversight and service delivery. There was clear support for:

• regional governance focused on planning, standards, funding, and accountability;
  and
• service delivery through contracted operators or existing providers (including
  SMART), under clear agreements.

This separation was viewed as a proactive approach to governance, safeguarding
operational decision-making while improving overall system resilience.

Notable Differences in County Perspectives
While alignment was strong on overarching governance needs, several differences in
emphasis emerged:

• Variation in tolerance for financial exposure: Some counties expressed greater
  openness to incremental increases tied to demonstrated performance, while others
  stressed the importance of strict cost caps during early implementation.
• Different starting points for integration readiness: Counties with more established
  inter-community or on-demand services tended to focus on governance refinement,
  whereas others emphasized the need for clarity before committing to service
  expansion.
• Different views on the pace of formalization: While all supported stronger
  governance in principle, some CAOs favoured a cautious, phased approach to
  delegating authority, whereas others emphasized the risks of delaying formal
  governance structures.




Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Wellington Counties
Service Delivery and Governance Report



A–4

Despite these differences, none of the CAOs advocated for a return to informal or
lead-municipality arrangements as a long-term solution.

Overall Insight
Taken together, the CAO interviews reinforce that the success of a Unified Transit
Network will depend less on service design and more on governance clarity, financial
predictability, and sustained inter-county trust. Importantly, CAOs were aligned that
governance structures must be designed for the system they want to preserve, not just
the service they are willing to pilot.




Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Wellington Counties
Service Delivery and Governance Report



B–1




     Appendix B
B    SMART By Law Amendments




    Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Wellington Counties
    Service Delivery and Governance Report



B–2


SMART By-Law Amendments
The proposed by-law amendments set out in this Appendix are intended to support
SMART’s participation as a contracted on-demand service operator within a Unified
Transit Network, while preserving its existing governance structure, municipal
accountability, and core specialized-transit mandate.

These amendments are explicitly limited in scope. They apply only to services delivered
by SMART under a Service Delivery Agreement with a Regional Transit Municipal Service
Board and are not intended to alter or affect SMART services delivered outside the
Unified Transit Network, including specialized medical or community transportation
services funded and governed independently by participating municipalities.

Collectively, the amendments:

• Clarify SMART’s role as an operator, not a governance authority;
• Establish how funding flows through the Regional Transit MSB, while maintaining
  local municipal responsibility for funding decisions;
• Preserve SMART’s ability to continue delivering specialized services independently of
  the regional system; and
• Protect municipal and SMART Board confidence by clearly defining authority,
  accountability, and boundaries.

The detailed draft amendments for consideration by the SMART Board are presented
below.

1. Amendments to Section 1 – General

Add the following definitions to Section 1.01 (Definitions):

“Integrated Transit System”
means a multi-jurisdictional public transit system serving more than one municipality or
county, within which certain transit services may be planned, funded, and governed
under a Unified Regional Transit framework.




Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Wellington Counties
Service Delivery and Governance Report



B–3

“Regional Transit Authority”
means a Municipal Services Board, joint board, or other public body established by one
or more upper-tier or lower-tier municipalities for the purpose of governing, planning,
funding, and overseeing a regional transit system.

“Service Delivery Agreement”
means a written agreement under which the Corporation is contracted to provide
defined transit-related services—including specialized transit, on-demand transit
services, booking, dispatch, scheduling, reporting, and related operational functions—
on behalf of a Regional Transit Authority or a municipality.

“Specialized Transit Services”
means accessible transportation services designed to meet the mobility needs of
persons with disabilities or other eligible clients, including eligibility determination, trip
booking, scheduling, dispatch, and service coordination.

“On-Demand Transit Services”
means demand-responsive shared-ride services that are provided to any resident within
the service area. Passengers request a ride using a mobile app, desktop app, or through
a call centre. Accepted trips are scheduled in real-time, and dynamically routed to take a
passenger to their requested destination, picking and dropping off other passengers on-
route if required.

“Comingled Service”
means a service where specialized and on-demand transit trips are booked using the
same application and could be delivered using the same vehicle, where warranted.

2. Clarification of Corporate Purpose and Scope

Replace (or supplement) the existing Objects/Purpose section with the following
clarification:

Purpose of the Corporation

The purpose of the Corporation is to plan, coordinate, deliver, and support specialized
and community transportation services for participating municipalities and other public
entities, in a manner that promotes accessibility, efficiency, fiscal responsibility, and
service quality.




Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Wellington Counties
Service Delivery and Governance Report



B–4

Without limiting the foregoing, the Corporation may:

• Deliver Specialized Transit Services as an operator within an Integrated Transit
  Network where expressly authorized by a Service Delivery Agreement; and
• Provide Comingled Transit and On-Demand Transit services under contract to a
  Regional Transit Municipal Services Board or participating municipality.

For greater certainty:

• The Corporation is not a regional transit governance authority and does not exercise
  system-wide policy, funding, or planning authority unless expressly delegated under
  a Service Delivery Agreement; and
• Nothing in this by-law alters or limits the Corporation’s authority to deliver
  specialized or community transportation services outside an Integrated Transit
  Network, including services that are not funded, governed, or coordinated through a
  Regional Transit Authority.

3. Authority to Act as an Operator under Regional Governance

Add a new subsection under Section 2 (Corporate Powers or General Provisions):

Participation in Integrated Transit Systems

The Corporation may participate in an Integrated Transit Network as a contracted
service provider by entering into one or more Service Delivery Agreements with a
Regional Transit Municipal Services Board.

Under such agreements, the Corporation may:

•   Deliver Specialized Transit Services and related operational services;
•   Provide Comingled Transit and/or on-demand transit services where directed;
•   Integrate scheduling, booking, and dispatch functions with other transit services; and
•   Collect, manage, and report service performance data in accordance with regional
    requirements.

Participation in an Integrated Transit System shall be service-specific and shall not apply
to all services delivered by the Corporation.




Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Wellington Counties
Service Delivery and Governance Report



B–5

4. Funding Flow and Municipal Financial Responsibility

Add the following new section to explicitly address funding:

Funding and Financial Administration

Where the Corporation delivers contracted services under a Service Delivery Agreement
with a Regional Transit Municipal Services Board:

• Funding for those services may be administered through the Regional Transit
  Municipal Services Board in accordance with the applicable Service Delivery
  Agreement;
• Participating lower-tier municipalities shall remain responsible for funding the cost of
  services delivered to their residents, based on common funding criteria established
  by the Regional Transit Authority and/or approved by the Corporation’s Board; and
• Nothing in this by-law shall be interpreted as transferring permanent funding
  responsibility for Specialized Transit Services from participating municipalities to the
  Corporation or the Regional Transit Municipal Services Board.

This section applies only to services delivered within an Integrated Transit Network and
does not affect funding arrangements for services delivered independently by the
Corporation outside of that system.

5. Geographic Scope of Operations

Amend or add the following provision:

Geographic Scope

The Corporation may deliver services within or beyond the geographic boundaries of its
current member municipalities, provided that:

• Such services are authorized through a Service Delivery Agreement; and
• The financial, operational, and risk implications of such services are approved by the
  SMART Board.

This provision does not require that all municipalities served by the Corporation become
members of the Corporation, nor does it require that all services be delivered through
an Integrated Transit Network.




Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Wellington Counties
Service Delivery and Governance Report



B–6

6. Preservation of Independent Specialized Services

Add the following scope-limiting safeguard:

Independence of Non-Regional Services

The Corporation may continue to deliver specialized, community, or medical
transportation services that are not part of an Integrated Transit Network, including
services delivered beyond the region or funded directly by participating municipalities.

Such services shall:

• Remain subject to existing governance, funding, and accountability arrangements;
  and
• Not be subject to Regional Transit Municipal Services Board standards, funding flow
  requirements, or reporting obligations unless expressly agreed through a Service
  Delivery Agreement.

7. Alignment with Regional Standards and Reporting

Retain and amend Section 6 as follows:

Service Standards and Reporting

Where the Corporation operates under a Service Delivery Agreement, it shall comply
with:

• Regional service standards applicable to the contracted services;
• Performance measurement and reporting requirements; and
• Data-sharing, privacy, and information-management protocols established by the
  Regional Transit Municipal Services Board.

Compliance with such requirements shall be strictly limited to the scope of services
delivered under the applicable Service Delivery Agreement.

8. Board Authority and Delegation

Amend the MSB powers section to include:

Approval and Oversight of Service Delivery Agreements




Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Wellington Counties
Service Delivery and Governance Report



B–7

The Board of Directors may:

• Approve the Corporation’s participation in Integrated Transit Networks on a
  service-by-service basis;
• Approve Service Delivery Agreements with Regional Transit Municipal Services Board
  or municipalities; and
• Delegate authority to the General Manager to negotiate and administer such
  agreements within parameters approved by the MSB.

9. No Expansion of Governance Responsibilities

Retain and reinforce the interpretive safeguard:

No Expansion of Governance Authority

Nothing in this by-law shall be interpreted as conferring on the Corporation:

• Regional transit planning authority;
• Fare-setting authority for services not operated by the Corporation; or
• Authority to allocate or redistribute municipal funding, except to the extent expressly
  authorized in writing through a Service Delivery Agreement.




Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Wellington Counties
Service Delivery and Governance Report



E–1




    Appendix E
E   Requirements for On-Demand Software




    Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
    Unified Regional Transit Network Study
    September 2026 – 25-2330



E-2


Requirements for On-Demand Software
Base Service Recommendation 6 identifies an initial step to produce an on-demand
software solution that can support integrated scheduling, booking, and dispatching
across multiple transit service providers. The following requirements are recommended
to be included in a procurement document, whether the Municipal Services Board
(MSB) decides to move forward with a competitive Request for Proposal (RFP) or extend
one of the existing contracts for specialized/on-demand services that are already in
place.

Functionality of the Software
The following are core requirements that describe the functionality of the software, in
terms of the types of services that it will provide.

1. Co-mingling of On-Demand and Specialized Transit
Objective: Enable a single fleet of vehicles to blend specialized door-to-door trips and
public on-demand trips to maximize vehicle efficiency without compromising service
standards.

•   Co-mingling: The Unified Transit Network’s dispatching engine shall possess the
    algorithmic capability to simultaneously schedule and manage distinct service
    streams; specialized door-to-door transit and public curb-to-hub or stop-to-stop on-
    demand services, within the same active fleet.
•   Multi-Priority Itinerary Optimization: The System shall dynamically optimize vehicle
    routing to combine these varying trip types on a single vehicle when geographically
    efficient. The algorithm must be able to automatically prioritize specialized transit
    scheduling guarantees (e.g., hard appointment drop-off times) over public trip
    flexibility.
•   Passenger-Specific Accommodation Adjustments: When co-mingling trips, the
    System shall automatically adjust trip sequencing and dwell times at stops to account
    for the specific mobility needs and loading/unloading times of specialized passengers
    on board, ensuring public bookings do not disrupt specialized care.




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study



E-3

•   Differential Booking Windows for Specialized Services: The System shall support the
    configuration of distinct, service-specific booking windows that allow specialized
    transit passengers to reserve trips further in advance (e.g., up to 14 days) than the
    public on-demand riders (e.g., 2 to 3 days in advance).

2. Real-Time Fixed-Route Integration & Connection Protection
Objective: Ensure the demand-responsive software dynamically communicates with
fixed-route transit to prevent missed transfers.

•   Real-Time GTFS-RT Integration: The System shall process real-time General Transit
    Feed Specification (GTFS-RT) data, including trip updates and vehicle positions, from
    fixed-route transit services within the MSB or connecting local transit systems.
•   Dynamic Connection: The System’s scheduling algorithm shall dynamically schedule
    trips to connect to inter-community and commuter fixed-route schedules in real-time
    and adjust on-demand pickup/drop-off times or dispatch holds if a connecting fixed-
    route vehicle is delayed, guaranteeing passenger transfers.
•   Operator & Passenger Alerts: The System shall automatically alert both the on-
    demand driver (via the driver app) and the passenger (via the rider app/ text
    message) regarding any connection adjustments or delays.
•   Responsiveness: The System should have the ability to respond to immediate
    requirement for replacement vehicles if/when a vehicle breaks down or if an
    emergency causes a delay in timings for transfers to fixed-route services. This
    includes the System's ability to assign new rides to drivers to respond to the
    situation, and the ability to send out messages to all.

3. Multi-Agency Brokerage & Cross-Booking Model
Objective: Allow independent agencies to operate under their own licenses while
sharing visibility and booking capabilities across a unified network.

•   Multi-Tenant Brokerage Architecture: The System should have the capability to
    support a brokerage model enabling multiple independent transit agencies,
    operating under distinct software licenses, to coexist within a shared network
    ecosystem.




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study



E-4

•   Cross-Agency Fleet Visibility: Authorized dispatchers and administrators from
    participating agencies shall have the ability to view real-time vehicle locations and
    capacities across all participating agency fleets, subject to configured permissions.
•   Inter-Agency Ride Booking: The System shall allow authorized users (dispatchers,
    and riders based on agency policy) to book trips on vehicles operated by a different
    participating agency within the brokerage network.

4. Volunteer Driver Management and Integration
Objective: Enable use of volunteer drivers where vehicles do not have standardized
schedules.

•   Volunteer Portal and Scheduling: The System shall provide a dedicated interface
    (mobile app or web portal) for volunteer drivers, allowing them to access a trip
    itinerary on a mobile phone or tablet.
•   Mileage Reimbursement Tracking: The System shall automatically calculate and log
    precise trip mileages, travel times, and deadhead miles for volunteer drivers to
    facilitate accurate agency mileage reimbursement.
•   Personal Vehicle Profiles: The System shall allow administrators to create unique
    volunteer driver profiles that link specific personal vehicle attributes (e.g.,
    accessibility) to the driver for matching purposes.
•   One-on-One Pre-Planned Itineraries: The System’s dispatch engine shall support a
    dedicated service model for one-on-one, non-commingled trips. This must allow a
    single volunteer to be assigned a comprehensive, pre-planned passenger itinerary—
    including the origin pickup, destination drop-off, and eventual return trip—delivered
    clearly to the driver's mobile device.
•   Integrated Passenger Waiting Time: To support medical appointments and
    specialized community trips, the system shall allow dispatchers to hard code an
    extended "waiting time" or dwell period into the volunteer’s itinerary. This feature
    must ensure the assigned volunteer driver remains paired with the passenger at the
    destination venue and is not returned to a general dispatch pool.




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study



E-5

5. Mixed-Fleet Accessibility Matching & Capacity Constraints
Objective: Ensure passengers with specific physical needs are automatically and strictly
matched only with vehicles that can accommodate them.

•   Mixed-Fleet Capability Profiling: The System shall support the configuration of
    diverse vehicle types within a single fleet, allowing administrators to define specific
    accessibility features for each asset (e.g., rear-ramp, side-lift, low-floor, standard
    sedan).
•   Automated Accessibility Matching: The System’s routing and scheduling engine shall
    automatically match passenger mobility profiles (e.g., power wheelchair, service
    animal, ambulatory with walker) with vehicles possessing the required certifications
    and equipment.
•   Space Allocation: The System shall dynamically recalculate remaining vehicle
    capacity in real-time when a specialized client is booked, accounting for the physical
    footprint of a wheelchair slot (e.g., reducing standard seating capacity by two seats
    when one tie-down position is occupied and makes the rear seat inaccessible for
    ambulatory passengers).

6. Advanced Specialized Dispatch (Subscriptions, Stop-Overs, and Dwell/Wait
Times)
Objective: Equip dispatchers with the tools necessary to handle complex, multi-leg, and
recurring specialized medical or long-distance trips.

•   Subscription Booking: The System shall allow dispatchers to create, modify, and
    suspend subscription or "standing order" trips (e.g., recurring dialysis trips three
    times a week) without requiring manual daily entry.
•   Multi-Leg & Stop-Over Booking: The System shall support the booking of multi-leg
    itineraries (stopovers) within a single trip creation workflow, preserving the
    passenger's continuity of care and tracking individual arrival/departure times for
    each leg.
•   Long-Distance Waiting Time Configuration: For long-distance or regional specialized
    trips, the System shall allow dispatchers to schedule and allocate a configurable
    "waiting time" or extended dwell time for a vehicle at a destination, ensuring the
    driver remains paired with the passenger for the return leg rather than being


Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study



E-6

    released back into the general pool. At the same time, the System would be able to
    schedule a driver for a short trip during this wait time period.
•   Service-Based Premium and Flexible Fare Structures: The System shall support the
    configuration of distinct, variable fare structures based on the specific service criteria
    of a specialized trip.

7. Inter-Agency Billing & Cross-Boundary Cost-Sharing
Objective: Automatically calculate, allocate, and reconcile costs when a specialized trip
crosses jurisdictional boundaries or uses another agency's vehicle.

•   Automated Cost-Allocation Engine: The System shall feature a configurable financial
    engine capable of automatically calculating and allocating trip costs between
    participating agencies based on customizable, predefined rules (e.g., proportion of
    distance traveled within each jurisdiction, flat-rate per transfer, or hourly vehicle
    utilization).
•   Jurisdiction Tracking: The System shall utilize Geographic Information System (GIS)
    mapping to track when a trip is made within the Unified Transit Network Service Area
    or when it is a specialized trip that goes outside of the service area for the purposes
    of tracking trip type and funding.
•   Integrated Reporting: The System shall provide monthly financial reports detailing
    "credits" owed to agencies providing cross-booked rides and "debits" charged to the
    originating home agencies.

8. Multi-Modal Fare Collection and Financial Reconciliation
Objective: Allow passengers to pay via multiple methods (e.g., cash, tickets, in-app, or
post-trip invoicing) while ensuring the revenue is accurately tracked and routed to the
correct agency.

•   Payment Acceptance: The System shall support multiple payment methods for a
    single trip, including cash-on-board, secure in-app mobile payments
    (credit/debit/digital wallets), and post-trip agency invoicing.
•   PRESTO: The System should be configured to allow future use of the PRESTO Card,
    should the MSB or the Province transition to this payment platform.




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study



E-7

•   On-Board Cash and Fare Tracking: The driver interface shall allow operators to
    record cash or tickets collected on board, tracking exact amounts against the
    passenger’s profile and generating an electronic receipt record within the central
    system.
•   Automated Post-Trip Invoicing and Accounts Receivable: For authorized passengers
    or corporate sponsors (e.g., medical facilities, social services), the System shall
    automatically aggregate trip costs and generate monthly or periodic invoices.
•   Inter-Agency Revenue Routing: In a brokerage model where a passenger of "Agency
    A" pays via app or invoice for a ride fulfilled by "Agency B," the System shall
    automatically log the transaction to ensure the revenue is appropriately routed or
    credited to the fulfilling agency during monthly reconciliation.
•   Technology Support: The system shall be able to support technology as required;
    that includes the ability to set fare discounts, fare caps, and promotional fare
    programs, with all adjustments tracked for audit, reporting, and financial
    reconciliation purposes.

9. Customer Service
Objective: To establish a high-quality, dependable, and professional customer
experience across the Unified Transit Network. This section outlines operational
standards for front-line delivery, defines a framework for resolving public inquiries and
complaints.

•   Customer Service Resolution Timelines: The Operator must log, investigate, and
    respond to all standard public inquiries and complaints within a mandatory 48 hour
    window from initial intake.
•   Customer Call Centre: The Operator must operate a customer call centre and email
    to allow the public to ask questions or submit feedback on the service. The call
    centre should be open between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM, Monday to Saturday,
    excluding statutory holidays.
•   Complaint Handling and Escalation: All incoming public complaints must be
    classified by severity upon receipt by the Contractor (e.g., Level 1: Minor scheduling
    delays; Level 2: Operator conduct issues; Level 3: Immediate safety/accidents).




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study



E-8

•   Escalation Requirements to the MSB: While the Contractor must act as the primary
    resolution team for Level 1 and Level 2 issues, specific triggers require immediate
    escalation to MSB staff:
    o   Any incident involving on-board personal injury, property collision, or
        police/emergency service dispatch.
    o   Written allegations of human rights violations, structural discrimination, or
        blatant AODA non-compliance.
    o   Any persistent, un-resolved complaint that is actively elevated by a lower-tier
        municipal official or County Councillor.

Data Reporting and Requirements
The following section identifies recommended requirements for data gathering, privacy
and sharing.

10. Real-Time Operational Data and Alerting
Objective: Provide continuous, real-time data across passenger, driver, and dispatch
interfaces to ensure immediate responsiveness to changing network conditions.

•   Predictive Estimated Time of Arrival (ETA) and Live Map Tracking: The System shall
    calculate accurate, continuously fluctuating ETAs and display real-time, live vehicle
    locations on a graphical map interface within the passenger application.
•   Instantaneous Driver Turn-by-Turn Adjustments: The mobile data terminal (MDT) or
    driver application shall deliver instantaneous visual and audio updates for trip
    adjustments, re-routing instructions, or cancellations directly to the operator without
    requiring manual driver interaction.
•   Real-Time Dispatch Alerts and Monitoring: The dispatcher interface shall feature a
    real-time alerting system that instantly flags system events, including sudden trip
    cancellations, and driver no-shows, allowing for immediate operational intervention.

11. Data Ownership, Dashboards, and Reporting Export
Objective: Legally protect the MSB's data rights and provide the graphical and tabular
tools necessary for reporting.




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study



E-9

•   Sole Data Ownership: All data generated through or collected by the software
    platform—including but not limited to passenger metrics, trip histories, financials,
    and KPIs—shall remain the sole and exclusive property of the MSB.
•   Web-Based Graphical Dashboard: The System shall provide a secure, web-based
    administrative dashboard that displays live operations, vehicle productivity metrics,
    and system performance via intuitive graphical charts and live maps.
•   Data Export: The System shall include native reporting tools that allow
    administrators to easily query and export raw, tabular source data into standard file
    formats, specifically comma-separated Values (CSV) and Microsoft Excel (.xlsx), to
    support reporting and independent audit requirements.

12. Data Privacy & Confidentiality (Multi-Agency Isolation)
Objective: Maintain strict data silos so agencies cannot see or access each other’s
sensitive passenger data.

•   Logical Data Isolation: The System shall employ strict multi-agency logical isolation to
    ensure that Passenger Personally Identifiable Information (PII), trip histories, and
    proprietary agency data are completely inaccessible to other agencies utilizing the
    software.
•   Role-Based Access Control (RBAC): The System shall feature robust RBAC, restricting
    access to passenger records exclusively to authorized personnel within the specific
    originating agency, unless explicit cross-agency sharing consent is configured.
•   Compliance and Security: The System shall comply with relevant data protection
    standards to guarantee that cross-booking actions do not expose unauthorized
    passenger details to the fulfilling agency. This also requires storage of data on a
    server located in Canada.
•   Canadian Data Residency Preference: Preference will be given to software solutions
    that store and process all data, including backups and disaster recovery
    environments, on servers located in Canada. Respondents should identify the
    geographic location of all hosting, storage, and support environments, and describe
    any circumstances where data may be accessed, stored, or processed outside of
    Canada.




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study



E - 10

13. No-Show and Late Cancellation Policy
Objective: Automatically track policy rules for missed or late-canceled trips to protect
agency capacity, including the ability to penalize or bill passengers and agencies.

•   Automated Cancellation Windows: The System shall allow administrators to define
    configurable time windows for "late cancellations" (e.g., less than two hours before
    the scheduled pickup) and automatically apply designated penalties or fees based on
    the passenger's profile.
•   Driver No-Show Verification Workflow: The driver interface shall enforce a
    mandatory verification process before a trip can be marked as a "No-Show." This
    must include GPS verification that the vehicle is at the designated stop and a wait-
    time countdown timer.

Flexibility of the Software Solution
The following requirements are recommended to ensure the System is expandable, and
to facilitate the growth of the System.

14. Scalability & Seamless Expansion
Objective: Ensure the system can easily onboard new agencies in the future without
requiring major software overhauls.

•   Modular Onboarding: The System shall be architected to allow the addition of new
    transit and community transportation agencies, geographic service zones, and
    additional software licenses during the contract term without causing disruption to
    existing agencies.
•   Scalable Application Programming Interface (API) Capacity: The System’s underlying
    infrastructure and APIs shall scale dynamically to accommodate increases in
    concurrent users, vehicles, and API requests as new agencies are onboarded or
    existing agencies are removed.
•   Configurable Fleet Onboarding: The System shall provide administrative tools that
    allow for the seamless onboarding of new agency vehicle profiles, driver accounts,
    and localized fare structures.




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study



E - 11


Optional Requirements
The following optional requirements have also been identified, recognizing that many
on-demand transit software providers do not currently have this feature.

15. Ridesharing and Third-Party Network Integration
Objective: Provide open integration protocols to connect the core on-demand software
with external private Transportation Network Companies (TNCs) or taxi ecosystems for
seamless multimodal trip planning.

•   Open API Architecture for TNC Integration: The System shall provide secure,
    standard interfaces capable of adding external third-party transportation providers
    (e.g., Uber, Lyft, local taxi fleets, or non-emergency medical transportation networks)
    to the on-demand app. The goal is to provide multiple travel options available to the
    customer using one application.
•   Third-Party Booking and Dispatch Overflow: As an optional administrative
    configuration, the System shall support the ability to automatically or manually
    overflow trips to authorized third-party ridesharing or taxi networks if internal fleet
    capacity is exceeded or if a passenger's unique trip parameters (e.g., extreme long
    distance) are better optimized by an external provider.




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study



F–1




    Appendix F
F   Fixed-Route Provider and Fleet Plan




    Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
    Unified Regional Transit Network Study
    September 2026 – 25-2330



F-2


Fleet-Route Provider and Fleet Plan
One of the first steps moving forward will be to send out an RFP to retain a transit
service provider to operate the fixed-route portion of the service. The recommendations
below were informed by research on other transit operation's RFPs, as well as
interviews conducted with existing service providers that currently operate the GTR and
the GOST service. Based on this assessment, recommended inputs into an RFP
document to operate the inter-community and commuter fixed-route service plan are
included below. Both short-term and long-term provider solutions were considered.

Guiding Principles for the Selection of a Contracted Operator
The following guiding principles were developed to serve as the framework for the
technical specifications and legal terms of a RFPs for the fixed-route bus operation.

1. Customer-Driven: The RFP should include requirements and mechanisms that
   identify how the contractor will provide a customer-focused service, including KPI to
   measure performance and address under performance. This should also include their
   role in addressing customer complaints and inquiries.

2. Safety and Security: The RFP should include provisions that focus on how the
   operator will focus on passenger and operator safety and well-being, including driver
   qualifications and training requirements as well as an incident management plan. An
   integral part of exceeding safety and security requirements will be articulated
   through fleet selection, maintenance and upkeep of the fleet.
3. Legislative and Accessibility Compliance: The RFP should include requirements for
   the operator to meet the AODA, Commercial Vehicle Operator Registration (CVOR),
   Highway Traffic Act, and other applicable legislative requirements.
4. Operational Agility and Service Flexibility: The RFP should identify a contract
   structure that allows the contractor to adapt to adjustments, seasonal service
   variations, and the reduction or addition of new municipal members of the MSB.
5. Transparent Data Reporting: The RFP should clearly articulate a requirement to
   track and make data available to the MSB. This would include the data collection of
   KPI (Section 12.1 of the Main Report and Section 1.2 (Reporting and Data) of this




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study



F-3

    appendix), as well data collection of reporting requirements required for the MSB to
    receive Provincial Gas Tax (as applicable) and meet legislative requirements.

6. Cost Effectiveness: The RFP should balance the need to receive competitive pricing
   that is affordable to the MSB. This means striking a balance between optional
   requirements of the contract that add cost but not significant value.
7. Environmental Sustainability: The RFP should request that the contract identify key
   strategies to reduce the environmental footprint of their operations.
8. Market Openness and Proponent Attraction: The RFP should be structured to
   reduce prohibitive structural entry barriers, inviting a high volume of competitive,
   premium private sector bids.
9. Technology Support: The RFP should indicate that the system shall be able to
   support technology as required that includes the ability to set fare discounts, fare
   caps, and promotional fare programs, with all adjustments tracked for audit,
   reporting, and financial reconciliation purposes.

Key Inputs for Procurement Documents
Based on the above noted guiding principles and discussions with existing service
providers, the following technical and operating specifications are recommended to be
included in an RFP for the operation of inter-community and commuter fixed-route
transit services.

1. Fleet Size, Deployment, and Spare Ratio
Objective: Ensure the Contractor provides a sufficient fleet to operate the service as
described in the service plan and adheres to standards that ensure safety, accessibility
and comfort.

•   Peak Vehicle Requirements: The Contractor must provide, maintain, and deploy a
    dedicated vehicle fleet of sufficient size to fully satisfy the scheduled inter-
    community and commuter transit routes. This includes the following peak vehicles
    requirements:
    o   Route 1 – Owen Sound to Guelph: 2 peak vehicles
    o   Route 2 – Wiarton to Orangeville: 2 peak vehicles
    o   Route 3 – Kincardine to Collingwood: 2 peak vehicles


Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study



F-4

    o   Route 4 – Shelburne to Grand Valley via Orangeville: 1 peak vehicle
    o   Route 5 – Bruce County Seasonal Route (Victoria Long-weekend to Labour Day
        Long weekend): 1 peak vehicle

The vehicles should be available during peak bookout periods as noted in the service
plan schedule.

•   Spare Ratio: Proponents must include additional vehicles in their fleet plan to
    accommodate routine preventative maintenance, unexpected mechanical
    breakdowns, and emergency roadside replacements. The proposed spare pool must
    be clearly expressed as both a fixed number of buses and a percentage (%) of the
    total fleet.
•   Permitted Asset Condition: Proponents may propose either brand-new vehicles or
    high-quality, recent model used vehicles with less than 200,000 kilometres or less
    than four years old. Used vehicles should include a safety rating. Details on how to
    sustain the vehicle through the contract term and a replacement plan should be
    included for used vehicles.
•   Reliability Standard: The Contractor is solely responsible for managing the spare
    pool to guarantee that zero (0) scheduled runs are missed or cancelled due to vehicle
    unavailability.

2. Vehicle Dimensions, Capacity, and Comfort
Objective: Vehicles proposed for conventional inter-community service must bridge the
gap between heavy conventional transit buses and flexible cutaways, matching the low-
density, long-distance nature of the corridor network. The service area also presents
unique operational challenges, including high-speed provincial highways and severe
winter weather. Proponents must demonstrate that their proposed vehicles are
structurally and mechanically optimized for this environment:

•   Seating Capacity: Each vehicle must feature a fixed passenger seating configuration
    capable of comfortably carrying 12 to 18 seated passengers.
•   Dedicated Wheelchair Positions: Every vehicle must feature a minimum of two
    forward-facing, dedicated wheelchair positions equipped with four-point heavy-duty
    tie-down securement systems and three-point occupant restraint belts. Restraint
    systems compliant with applicable AODA/CSA/CMVSS accessibility standards. The


Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study



F-5

    space allocated to the wheelchair positions should also account for “tilted”
    wheelchairs like Bariatric Manual Tilt Wheelchairs, which take more physical space
    than normal wheelchairs.
•   Boarding Mechanisms: Proponents may propose either:
    o   A low-floor chassis configured with an electronic, flip-out boarding ramp at the
        primary passenger door, or
    o   A high-floor body equipped with a fully enclosed, heavy-duty side-entry hydraulic
        wheelchair lift assembly.
        •   If a proponent is proposing a low-floor chassis, there needs to be an
            acknowledgement of how these vehicles will perform along long rural highway
            and County Road corridors that experience high winds and snow drifts.
•   Interior Space Clearance: Internal floor plans must maintain a continuous,
    unobstructed turning radius and tracking path from the entry door to the
    securement pockets, allowing users to maneuver mobility devices independently.
•   Seatbelt Configuration: Every passenger seat must be equipped with a functional
    three-point lap/shoulder seatbelt assembly. The Contractor must also describe/meet
    legislative requirements to secure wheelchairs on the vehicle.
•   Winter Traction: Every revenue vehicle must be equipped with dedicated,
    commercial-grade winter tires. If available, the triple peak snowflake rated tires
    should be utilized with a minimum tread depth specified in the Contractor’s fleet
    policy. The type of winter tire and safety rating to be used should be specified in the
    RFP response.
•   Tread Depth Safety Thresholds: The Contractor must enforce a strict fleet
    maintenance standard where steering axle tires are replaced when tread depth falls
    below acceptable standards. These tire standards (condition, tread depth, etc.)
    should be noted in the RFP response.

3. Vehicle Branding and Livery Wrap
Objective: The Contractor must deliver and maintain a unified, high-visibility visual
identity on the exterior of each bus using Unified Transit Network brand that will be
provided by the MSB.




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study



F-6

•   Exterior Livery: Every vehicle must include a visible logo of the Unified Transit System
    using graphic material specified by the MSB. The graphic identity will feature the
    regional network logo, localized color palettes, and accessibility iconography.
•   Maintenance of Exterior Condition: The Contractor is solely responsible for replacing
    torn, faded, or peeling vinyl sections within 48 hours of discovery to ensure the
    public image of the service remains pristine.
•   Exterior Commercial Framing: Buses should include designated, standardized areas
    on the street-side and curbside panels to accommodate temporary commercial
    advertisements. Either for wrap style ads, or placards, depending on local ad agency.
•   Interior Communication Zones: The vehicle interior must include at least one high-
    visibility acrylic poster frame(s) to display public announcements, schedule
    adjustments, fare policies, or advertisements (to be supplied by the MSB).

4. On-Board Transit Technology Integration
Objective: The Contractor is responsible for outfitting the fleet cab and passenger entry
with technology necessary to operate the transit service.

•   Fare Collection Infrastructure: The Contractor shall be able to support technology as
    required; that includes the ability to set fare discounts, fare caps, and promotional
    fare programs. To this end, vehicles must be equipped with non-registered fare boxes
    as well as room to accommodate future mobile smartcard data terminals (e.g. Presto
    2.0), mobile app QR code payments, and tap-to-pay credit/debit transactions.
•   Use of Technology and Real-Time Coordination: The Contractor must equip all
    revenue vehicles with a Computer Aided Dispatch and Automatic Vehicle Location
    (CAD/AVL) system that provides real-time vehicle location data accessible to MSB
    staff and, through a data-sharing integration, to the on-demand software platform
    procured under Appendix E. Because on-demand and fixed-route services are
    delivered under separate contracts, a formal data-sharing protocol must be
    established between the Contractor and the on-demand software provider to ensure
    that on-demand vehicles can see the real-time location of fixed-route buses and hold
    connecting passengers at fixed-route stops where required.
•   Two-Way Radio: All vehicles must be equipped with two-way radio communication
    enabling direct contact between drivers and a dispatch supervisor. The Contractor
    must maintain a staffed dispatch function during all revenue service hours capable of


Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study



F-7

    receiving and acting on real-time operational events, including breakdowns,
    passenger incidents, and schedule deviations.

5. Storage Requirements
Objective: The storage and overnight parking of transit vehicles is a critical operational
consideration that directly affects vehicle availability, maintenance scheduling, and long-
term fleet condition. As the Contractor will be responsible for fleet storage, it must be
clearly defined in the procurement documents to ensure accountability and service
continuity. The RFP response should include location (address) for parking and features
explaining the reasoning for the choice. Three options were considered:

Option 1: Outdoor/Unsecured Parking
Under this approach, transit vehicles are stored on open, unenclosed land without
fencing, access controls, or dedicated security measures. Parking locations may include
municipal lots, operator-owned properties, or informal arrangements with local
landowners.

•   Capital Cost: No infrastructure investment is required, making this the lowest-cost
    option at the outset.
•   Vehicle Exposure: Vehicles are fully exposed to weather conditions, including
    precipitation, freeze-thaw cycles, and road salt accumulation, which may accelerate
    corrosion and reduce the operational lifespan of the fleet.
•   Winter Operations: Cold-start challenges are most pronounced under this model.
    Vehicles may require extended warm-up periods during winter months, which can
    affect on-time performance at the start of service.
•   Security Risk: Without physical barriers or access controls, vehicles are at greater risk
    of vandalism or unauthorized access.
•   Operator Responsibility: The Contractor is responsible for securing a suitable parking
    location. The RFP should establish minimum site requirements, including
    confirmation that the site is legally accessible and does not create liability for the
    MSB.




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study



F-8

Option 2: Storage in a Secure Lot
Under this approach, transit vehicles are stored in an enclosed outdoor compound with
physical security measures such as perimeter fencing, gating, and controlled access.
Vehicles remain exposed to weather conditions but are protected from unauthorized
access.

•   Capital Cost: Moderate upfront investment is required for fencing, gates, and access
    controls. Costs vary depending on site size and the level of security infrastructure.
•   Vehicle Exposure: Vehicles remain fully exposed to weather. Corrosion risk and cold-
    start challenges are comparable to unsecured outdoor parking.
•   Security: A secured perimeter significantly reduces the risk of unauthorized access
    and vandalism, providing a meaningful improvement over unsecured outdoor
    storage.
•   Contractor Responsibility: The Contractor is responsible for maintaining the secure
    perimeter and access control systems. The RFP should specify minimum standards
    for fencing type, gate operations, and access logging.
•   Suitability: This option represents a practical balance between cost and security for
    regional operations. It is well suited to the dispersed depot model anticipated for this
    network and aligns with the storage requirements referenced in the existing SMART
    service area.

Option 3: Indoor Parking
Under this approach, transit vehicles are stored in enclosed structures such as dedicated
transit garages, leased commercial buildings, or shared municipal facilities. Vehicles are
fully sheltered from weather and secured from unauthorized access.

•   Capital Cost: This option carries the highest capital cost, whether through facility
    construction, purchase, or lease. Costs include building infrastructure, climate control
    systems, lighting, and ongoing facility maintenance.
•   Vehicle Protection: Indoor storage offers the highest level of protection from
    weather, vandalism, and theft. Reduced exposure to freeze-thaw cycles and road salt
    can extend vehicle lifespan and reduce long-term maintenance costs.




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study



F-9

•   Winter Operations: Pre-conditioning of vehicles is possible under this model, which
    can reduce cold-start delays, improve morning service reliability, and support on-
    time performance targets.
•   Maintenance Integration: An enclosed facility can more readily accommodate on-
    site preventative maintenance, inspection bays, and vehicle cleaning operations,
    reducing the need for off-site servicing.
•   Contractor Responsibility: The Contractor is responsible for securing an appropriate
    indoor facility and maintaining it to the standards specified in the RFP. Where the
    Contractor proposes using a MSB-supplied facility, responsibilities for building
    maintenance and capital renewal must be clearly delineated in the service
    agreement.
•   Suitability: Indoor parking is most appropriate for primary hub locations where a
    concentration of vehicles justifies the infrastructure investment. In the context of this
    network, it may be best considered for the Owen Sound terminal, which serves as
    the central transfer point for all three primary inter-community routes.

Procurement Recommendation
Based on the above options, it is recommended that the procurement document allow
the Contractor to propose their solution for vehicle storage, which should include how it
will address vehicle reliability, security and cleanliness, start-ups, and cost. The
following text can be included:

    “The RFP does not prescribe a single storage model. Instead, proponents must
    propose their own storage solution, including the civic address of the proposed
    location, the storage type, and a written rationale explaining how the proposal
    addresses vehicle reliability, cold-weather start-up performance, security, cleaning
    operations, and cost. Where multiple depot locations are proposed across the
    network, each must be identified and described separately.”

All storage proposals must demonstrate at minimum that:

•   The proposed site is legally accessible and does not create liability for the MSB; and
•   Vehicles can be ready for revenue service at the scheduled pullout time under typical
    winter conditions. The site meets minimum security standards, including reasoning
    for the proposed storage solution.


Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study



F - 10

Given the volume of vehicles converging at the Owen Sound transit hub daily,
proponents deploying vehicles in that area are encouraged to consider whether an
indoor or partially enclosed facility is warranted to support pre-conditioning, on-site
maintenance, and cleaning. The MSB will assess the feasibility of providing a MSB-
owned facility in Owen Sound as part of a future capital planning process, with building
maintenance and capital renewal responsibilities clearly defined in the service
agreement.

6. Maintenance Requirements
Objective: A well-structured Preventative Maintenance (PM) program is the
cornerstone of any high-performing transit bus operation. Without it, agencies face a
compounding cycle of reactive repairs, unplanned downtime, escalating costs, and
compromised passenger safety. Conversely, a disciplined PM program transforms the
maintenance function from a cost centre into a strategic asset — one that extends
vehicle lifespan, optimizes fuel efficiency, reduces emissions, and keeps buses on the
road when riders need them most. For transit operators (the Contractor), fleet reliability
is not merely a mechanical concern; it directly shapes public trust, environmental
accountability, and long-term fiscal sustainability. As bus fleets grow more complex and
ridership demands intensify, the importance of proactive, data-driven maintenance has
never been greater. A robust PM program is not optional — it is the foundation upon
which safe, efficient, and sustainable transit service is built.

•   Preventative Maintenance — Fuel Performance & Emissions: The Contractor should
    identify preventative maintenance targets and how they will be enforced to ensure
    vehicles consistently operate at peak fuel efficiency, reducing both operational costs
    and environmental impact. Adherence to scheduled service intervals directly
    correlates with lower emissions output and compliance with applicable
    environmental standards.
•   Preventative Maintenance — Safety, Uptime & Lifespan: The PM program should be
    designed with three core priorities: maintaining the highest standards of vehicle
    safety, maximizing fleet availability and uptime, and extending the useful service life
    of each bus. The Contractor should identify how scheduled inspections and
    component replacements are structured to proactively address wear before it results




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study



F - 11

    in failure or safety risk using a minimum industry best practice of 10,000 km interval
    between inspections.
•   Connected Bus & Predictive Maintenance: The Contractor should describe any
    telematics and connected vehicle platforms in place (e.g., Intangles, Geotab,
    Samsara, or Motive) to enable condition-based and predictive maintenance,
    identifying potential failures before they occur. Real-time vehicle health data allows
    maintenance teams to prioritize work orders intelligently, reducing unplanned
    breakdowns and improving overall fleet reliability.
•   Transparent Record Keeping & Auditing: All maintenance activities will be
    documented in a centralized system, ensuring complete traceability of every
    inspection, repair, and parts replacement across the fleet. A prescribed auditing
    program will be conducted on a defined schedule to verify compliance, identify gaps,
    and drive continuous improvement in maintenance practices. Audits will be
    completed by the following:
    o   MSB-owned fleet will be audited by the MSB (or 3rd party); and
    o   Contractor-owned fleet should provide documented proof of internal auditing.
•   Cost Controls & Cost Approvals: Approaching fleet costs can be done through a
    hands-off approach (simply a cost per km/cost per hour) or a more structured,
    monitored approach. A structured cost approval framework will govern all
    maintenance expenditures, ensuring repairs and parts procurement are authorized at
    appropriate levels before work proceeds. Defined spending thresholds and approval
    hierarchies protect against cost overruns while maintaining the agility needed to
    address urgent maintenance needs promptly.
•   Cleaning Protocols — Corrosion Prevention & Vehicle Condition: The Contractor
    should identify how comprehensive cleaning protocols will be maintained for both
    interior and exterior surfaces, with particular attention to undercarriage and
    structural areas susceptible to corrosion from road salts, moisture, and
    environmental exposure. Consistent application of these protocols preserves the
    visible condition of the fleet and protects long-term asset value.
•   Maintenance KPIs: The Contractor should track and report to the MSB on a monthly
    basis the following Maintenance KPIs.
    o   Cost per KM: This metric tracks total maintenance expenditure relative to
        distance operated, providing a normalized measure of fleet efficiency and


Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study



F - 12

         enabling meaningful benchmarking against industry standards and peer
         operators.
     o   Breakdowns per 10,000 KM (IBBG / MBDF): Measured against the In-Service Bus
         Breakdown Guidelines (IBBG) and the Mean Bus Distance to Failure (MBDF), this
         KPI captures fleet reliability and the effectiveness of the PM program in
         preventing road calls and service interruptions.
     o   On-Time Metrics — Overdue Inspections & PMs: Tracking the percentage of
         inspections and preventative maintenance tasks completed on schedule ensures
         that no vehicle exceeds its prescribed service interval, reducing regulatory risk
         and maintaining the integrity of the overall maintenance program.

7. Operations Plan
Objective: A structured operations plan is the foundation of a reliable, safe, and
passenger-focused transit network. The following requirements define the operational
standards and accountability framework that the Contractor must maintain across all
fixed-route inter-community and commuter services. These standards draw from the
Canadian Urban Transit Association (CUTA) best practices and applicable Ontario
regulatory requirements.

•    Pre-Trip Safety Checks and Circle Inspections: Pre-trip circle checks are a legislated
     requirement under Ontario Regulation 199/07 of the Highway Traffic Act and a
     universal standard in North American transit operations. The Contractor must ensure
     that all drivers conduct a systematic walkaround inspection before every pullout to
     identify defects that could compromise passenger or public safety. The inspection
     must follow a standardized checklist format aligned with Commercial Motor Vehicle
     Inspection Regulations identified in Ontario Highway Traffic Act1 including brakes,
     steering, lights, tires, mirrors, doors, emergency exits, lifts and/or ramps, fire
     suppression equipment, and first aid supplies. Completed inspection records must be
     retained for a minimum of six months and made available to the MSB upon request.
•    Commercial Vehicle Operator Registration (CVOR): The Contractor is responsible for
     maintaining a valid CVOR certificate in good standing throughout the term of the
     agreement. Accountability for daily CVOR log completion must be clearly assigned


1
    https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/070199

Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study



F - 13

    within the Contractor's management structure, with a designated compliance officer
    responsible for ensuring all records are accurate, current, and accessible for audit by
    the Ministry of Transportation. Driver Vehicle Inspection Reports (DVIRs) must be
    submitted daily, reviewed by a qualified mechanic or supervisor within 24 hours, and
    defects must be resolved and signed off before the affected vehicle returns to
    revenue service. The MSB reserves the right to request CVOR abstracts and
    compliance summaries on a quarterly basis.
•   On-Time Performance: On-time performance is a primary indicator of service quality
    and passenger trust. Consistent with the KPIs established in Section 12.1 of the Main
    Report, inter-community and commuter fixed-route vehicles are expected to arrive at
    scheduled stops between zero and five minutes late at least 90% of the time. The
    Contractor must employ a CAD/AVL system on all revenue vehicles to capture real-
    time adherence data. Schedule adherence reports must be submitted to the MSB
    monthly, with corrective action plans proposed by the Contractor required where
    performance falls below the established threshold for two or more consecutive
    reporting periods. Recovery time must be built into schedules at the Owen Sound,
    Guelph, and Orangeville terminals to allow operators to reset the schedule following
    minor delays without compounding lateness across subsequent trips.
•   Incident Management: The Contractor must maintain a formal incident management
    framework that establishes clear protocols for reporting, documenting, and
    investigating all route cancellations, service disruptions, collisions, near-misses,
    passenger injuries, and severe weather events. This framework must align with the
    Transportation Safety Board of Canada guidelines and Ontario's occupational health
    and safety legislation, ensuring that root cause analysis and corrective actions are
    documented and tracked through to resolution.
•   Service Cancellations: For planned or unplanned service cancellations, the
    Contractor must notify the MSB's administrative staff and activate a passenger
    communications protocol within 30 minutes of the decision to cancel. Passenger
    notifications must be issued through at minimum two channels, including the transit
    website, the on-demand booking platform, and where possible, direct SMS alerts or
    automated phone calls to registered passengers with active bookings on the affected
    trip.




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study



F - 14

•   Severe Weather Protocol: A severe weather protocol must be documented and
    approved by the MSB prior to service launch. This protocol must define the decision-
    making authority for service suspension, the communication chain between drivers,
    dispatch, and supervisors, and the threshold conditions under which service may be
    safely curtailed or rerouted. Given that routes operate predominantly along
    provincial highways and primary county roads, the protocol must account for the
    road closure and winter maintenance standards applicable to these.
•   Incident Reporting: All incidents involving passenger injury, vehicle collision, or
    regulatory notification requirements must be reported to the MSB within 24 hours
    using a standardized incident report form. Root cause analysis and corrective actions
    must be documented and tracked through to resolution.
•   Cleaning Protocols: Consistent with the maintenance standards, the Contractor must
    maintain interior and exterior vehicle cleanliness to a standard that reflects positively
    on the Unified Transit Network brand. Interior cleaning must be completed at
    minimum at the end of each daily revenue service cycle and must include sanitization
    of passenger contact surfaces, seat cleaning, floor sweeping and mopping, and
    removal of waste. Exterior cleaning, including windshield, windows, and vehicle wrap
    surfaces, must be completed a minimum of three times per week. Deep cleaning,
    including undercarriage washing to remove road salt accumulation, must be
    completed at minimum bi-weekly during winter months. Cleaning logs must be
    maintained and made available to the MSB upon request.
•   Auditing Core Functions — Trip Inspections & DVIR Process: The Driver Vehicle
    Inspection Report (DVIR) process is a regulated requirement under provincial and
    federal commercial vehicle standards. While not required, the Contractor should
    identify how it would supplement legislative compliance with structured internal
    audit programs that evaluate the quality and completeness of Contractor-submitted
    inspections. The Contractor should identify how it would work with the MSB and
    participate in periodic supervisory ride-alongs, random DVIR reviews, and cross-
    referencing of reported defects against maintenance records to validate that the
    inspection process is functioning as an effective safety control rather than a paper
    exercise.
•   Connection Management with GO Transit and Local Transit: Given that the Owen
    Sound, Guelph, and Orangeville terminals each serve as connection points with GO



Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study



F - 15

    Transit and/or local municipal transit systems, the Contractor must designate a
    supervisor responsible for monitoring inbound GO Bus and GO Train schedules at
    these locations during all service hours. This role carries authority to approve short
    holds — not to exceed five minutes — where a connecting GO or local transit service
    is delayed and passengers are actively transferring. The Contractor must document
    all connection holds and their outcomes as part of monthly performance reporting.
•   Communication Protocol: A formal communication protocol must be established
    with Metrolinx, Guelph Transit, Orangeville Transit, Owen Sound Transit, and
    Colltrans prior to service launch. This protocol must define the contact points,
    communication channels, and decision-making authority for managing connections,
    particularly at the Owen Sound hub where all three primary inter-community routes
    converge.
•   Schedule Design: The Contractor will work with the MSB to refine the schedule for
    the service provided by the MSB to ensure the service will maintain consistent travel
    times, prioritize connections between routes and to local and GO Transit services,
    and reduce operating costs and long layover. Schedule design must incorporate
    sufficient recovery time at each terminal to absorb minor delays without cascading
    impacts on subsequent trips, consistent with the pulse scheduling model described
    in Section 10.1.2 of the Main Report. The Contractor will identify how it will work
    with the MSB to optimize the schedule to achieve these objectives.

8. Driver Requirements
Objective: The quality and professionalism of the driver workforce is the most visible
determinant of passenger experience. The Contractor must maintain rigorous hiring,
qualification, and ongoing training standards for all drivers operating under the
agreement.

•   Licensing and Qualifications: All drivers operating fixed-route inter-community or
    commuter services must hold a valid Ontario Class B or Class C driver's license, or the
    equivalent required class for the specific vehicle type being operated, in good
    standing with no suspensions. Drivers must maintain a clean abstract, defined as no
    more than two minor convictions in the preceding three years and no major
    convictions, as a condition of continued employment on the contract. The Contractor




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study



F - 16

     must verify license class and abstract at time of hire and conduct annual abstract
     reviews for all active drivers, providing results to the MSB upon request.
•    Background Checks: Given the public-facing nature of the role and the responsibility
     for the safety of vulnerable passengers, all drivers must undergo a satisfactory
     criminal record check, including a vulnerable sector screening, prior to commencing
     revenue service. Drivers must demonstrate that they have a clear criminal record
     with no outstanding charges, warrants or relevant criminal convictions on file.
     Background checks must be renewed at minimum every three years. The Contractor
     must maintain records of all completed checks and attest to their currency in annual
     compliance reporting to the MSB.

9. Onboarding and Training
Objective: The Contractor must implement a structured driver onboarding program
prior to any driver entering revenue service. At minimum, the proposal must identify the
types of training provided, which should include:

•    Defensive Driving: Defensive driving training covering hazard recognition, space
     management, adverse weather driving, and fatigue management should be provided
     to drivers operating the service. This training must be delivered in a classroom and
     behind-the-wheel format, with competency assessed prior to signing off. One
     example that the MSB would accept is the Canadian Safety Council Professional
     Driver Improvement Course2.
•    Accessibility: Accessibility and passenger assistance training compliant with the
     AODA and the Integrated Accessibility Standards Regulation (IASR), covering the safe
     operation of vehicle lifts and ramps, wheelchair securement, assistance to
     passengers with mobility aids, and sensitivity to the needs of passengers with
     cognitive or sensory disabilities.
•    Vehicle Training: Vehicle-specific familiarization, covering the mechanical systems,
     emergency equipment, farebox operation, CAD/AVL terminal use, and pre-trip
     inspection requirements for each vehicle type in the fleet. This should be with hands-
     on, vehicle-specific instruction and competency assessments to ensure operators can
     identify defects confidently and consistently across all fleet types in service.


2
    https://canadasafetycouncil.org/product/dt/professional-driver-improvement-course/

Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study



F - 17

•   Customer Service: Customer service training establishing expectations for
    professional conduct, passenger communication, service excellence, cultural
    awareness, personal safety, conflict de-escalation, and the operator's complaint
    resolution process.
•   Emergency Procedures: Emergency procedures training covering passenger
    evacuation, fire response, medical emergencies, and communication with dispatch
    and emergency services.
•   Onboarding Training Documentation: The Contractor must document completion of
    all onboarding training modules for each driver and retain these records for the
    duration of the driver’s contract.
•   Ongoing Performance Monitoring: Industry best practice, as recognized by CUTA,
    requires that driver performance be actively monitored and supported throughout
    employment, not only at the point of hire. The Contractor must assign supervisor(s)
    with a driver oversight function, responsible for conducting unannounced ride-along
    evaluations at minimum once per driver per year, reviewing CAD/AVL adherence data
    monthly, and providing documented coaching sessions where performance gaps are
    identified.
•   Refresher Training: Refresher training must be delivered at minimum annually for all
    active drivers, covering defensive driving, conflict de-escalation and personal safety,
    AODA compliance, pre-trip inspection procedures, and any updates to operating
    policies or route configurations. Where a driver is involved in a collision, passenger
    complaint, or CVOR-reportable event, targeted retraining must be completed prior to
    the driver returning to unsupervised revenue service.
•   Refresher Training Documentation: The Contractor must submit a quarterly driver
    performance summary to the MSB identifying the number of coaching sessions
    conducted, refresher training completions, and any driver-related incidents or
    complaints received during the period.

10. Customer Service
Objective: To establish a high-quality, dependable, and professional customer
experience across the Unified Transit Network. This section outlines operational
standards for front-line delivery, defines a framework for resolving public inquiries and
complaints.


Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study



F - 18

•   Mandatory Operator Dress Code: To ensure high visibility and professionalism, all
    active transit operators must wear a standardized, clean, and pre-approved uniform
    configuration while on duty.
•   Customer Service Resolution Timelines: The Contractor must log, investigate, and
    respond to all standard public inquiries and complaints within a mandatory 48 hour
    window from initial intake.
•   Customer Call Centre: The Contractor must include in their bid a customer call centre
    and email to allow the public to ask questions or submit feedback on the service. The
    call centre should be open between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM, Monday to Saturday,
    excluding statutory holidays.
•   Complaint Handling and Escalation: All incoming public complaints must be
    classified by severity upon receipt by the Contractor (e.g., Level 1: Minor scheduling
    delays; Level 2: Operator conduct issues; Level 3: Immediate safety/accidents).
•   Escalation Requirements to the MSB: While the Contractor must act as the primary
    resolution team for Level 1 and Level 2 issues, specific triggers require immediate
    escalation to MSB staff:
    o   Any incident involving on-board personal injury, property collision, or
        police/emergency service dispatch.
    o   Written allegations of human rights violations, structural discrimination, or
        blatant AODA non-compliance.
    o   Any persistent, un-resolved complaint that is actively elevated by a lower-tier
        municipal official or County Councillor.

11. Reporting and Data
Objective: The contractor should report on several KPIs to allow the MSB to understand
the performance of the service.

•   Data Reporting Requirements: The Contractor shall provide the following data to the
    MSB at a minimum. The proposal response should also identify other data that the
    Contractor will provide the MSB, including the frequency of reporting. Table F-1 to
    Table F-4 below identify KPIs that could be included in a contract.




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study



F - 19

Table F-1: Recommended Maintenance KPIs

Performance                  Key Performance Indicator                   Monitoring
Measure

Planned vs. Target 80% planned / 20% unplanned maintenance. A            Monthly
Unplanned   high proportion of reactive repairs signals a failing        (tracked
Maintenance preventative maintenance program and rising costs.           through work
Ratio                                                                    order system)

Fuel        Litres per 100 km tracked by vehicle and by fleet      Monthly
Consumption average. Deviations from baseline flag mechanical
per KM      issues, poor driving habits, or idling. Supports
            environmental reporting under the guiding principle of
            environmental sustainability.

Mean Time      Average time to return a vehicle to service following a   Monthly
to Repair      breakdown or defect. Target under 4 hours for in-field
(MTTR)         road calls; under 24 hours for depot repairs. Rising
               MTTR signals parts supply or staffing issues.

Spare Ratio    Percentage of fleet held as maintenance spares versus Monthly
               active revenue vehicles. Industry standard is 15 to 20%
               spare ratio for rural inter-community operations to
               ensure service continuity.

Road Call      Number of in-service road calls (chargeable               Monthly
Rate           mechanical failures) per 100,000 km. Tracked
               alongside MBDF as the primary reliability indicator
               reported to the MSB.

Work Order     Number of open work orders older than 72 hours. A         Weekly
Backlog        growing backlog indicates resourcing or parts
               procurement problems before they translate into
               availability failures.




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study



F - 20

Performance                   Key Performance Indicator                     Monitoring
Measure

Warranty       Percentage of eligible warranty claims submitted and         Quarterly
Recovery       recovered from OEM manufacturers relative to total
Rate           warrantable failures. Low recovery means the
               Contractor is absorbing costs the MSB should not be
               paying.



Table F-2: Recommended Service Delivery KPIs

Performance
                              Key Performance Indicator                      Monitoring
Measure
Missed Trips    Percentage of scheduled trips operated as planned.            Monthly
                Target: less than 1% of scheduled trips missed per           (CAD/AVL
                month, excluding statutory holidays and declared            and operator
                emergencies. Each missed trip must be logged with             reports)
                cause code (mechanical, operator, weather, other).
Schedule        Percentage of departures from timing points that are          Monthly
Adherence –     early (more than 1 minute ahead of schedule). Target:        (CAD/AVL)
Early           less than 5%. Early departures are as operationally
Departures      problematic as late arrivals and must be tracked
                separately.
Trip            Percentage of trips that complete their full route            Monthly
Completion      without being short-turned, cancelled mid-route, or          (CAD/AVL
Rate            significantly curtailed. Target: 99% or higher.             and operator
                                                                              reports)
Anti-Idling     Percentage of vehicle operating hours where engine            Monthly
Compliance      idling exceeds the operator's defined threshold
                (typically 5 minutes). Directly tied to fuel cost and the
                environmental sustainability guiding principle.
                Measured via telematics.




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study



F - 21

Performance
                              Key Performance Indicator                     Monitoring
Measure
Operator         Percentage of scheduled operator shifts missed due          Monthly
Absenteeism      to unplanned absence. High absenteeism is a leading
Rate             indicator of missed trips and service cancellations.
                 Target: under 5% of scheduled shifts.
Revenue          Percentage of total operator hours that are revenue-        Monthly
Hours vs.        generating versus non-revenue (deadheading to/from
Deadhead         depot, layovers). Target: deadhead to represent less
Hours Ratio      than 15% of total operating hours. Particularly
                 relevant given the dispersed depot model across this
                 network.


Table F-3: Recommended Safety KPIs

Performance                   Key Performance Indicator                    Monitoring
Measure

Collision Rate   Number of preventable collisions per 100,000              Monthly;
                 revenue kilometres. A collision is classified as          reported
                 preventable where the operator had a reasonable           quarterly to
                 opportunity to avoid it. Target established at baseline   Board
                 year and reduced annually.

Passenger        Number of passenger injuries per 100,000 boardings.       Monthly;
Injury Rate      Includes slip-and-fall on vehicle, sudden braking         reported
                 injuries, and boarding/alighting incidents.               quarterly to
                                                                           Board

Safety           Total number of reportable safety events (collisions,     Monthly
Incident Rate    injuries, near-misses, security incidents) per 100,000
                 revenue kilometres. Tracked against prior year to
                 identify trends.




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study



F - 22

Performance                  Key Performance Indicator                    Monitoring
Measure

Driver          Number of substantiated complaints or supervisor-         Monthly
Conduct         observed incidents related to unsafe driving              (telematics
Incidents       behaviour (speeding, harsh braking, distracted            and
                driving). Tracked per driver and reported in              supervisor
                aggregate.                                                reports)



Table F-4: Recommended Customer Service KPIs

Performance                   Key Performance Indicator                    Monitoring
Measure

Complaints      Total number of passenger complaints received divided      Monthly
per 1,000       by total boardings, expressed per 1,000 passengers.
Boardings       Industry benchmark for rural inter-community service
                is under 2.0 complaints per 1,000 boardings.

Complaint       Average number of business days between receipt of a       Monthly
Resolution      passenger complaint and written resolution to the
Time            passenger. Target: 100% of complaints acknowledged
                within 2 business days and resolved within 10 business
                days.

Accessibility   Number of in-service failures of lifts, ramps, or          Monthly
Equipment       securement systems per 1,000 revenue hours. Directly       (driver
Failure Rate    tied to AODA compliance obligations. Target: less than     reports and
                1 failure per 1,000 revenue hours.                         DVIR)

Vehicle         Results of random interior and exterior cleanliness        Weekly spot
Cleanliness     inspections scored against a defined checklist. Target     checks;
Audit Score     above 90%. Ties directly to the customer-driven guiding    reported
                principle and brand standards.                             monthly




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study



F - 23

Specific KPIs that are worth emphasizing include:

•   Missed trips and trip completion rate are especially critical as there are only four
    daily trips per route. A single missed trip represents a 25% service failure for that day
    on that corridor, which is far more impactful than in a high-frequency urban system.
•   Early departures are frequently overlooked by smaller agencies but are just as
    harmful as late arrivals on low-frequency rural routes, where a passenger who misses
    a bus that leaves early may wait up to three hours for the next one.
•   Revenue hours vs. deadhead ratio is particularly relevant given the dispersed depot
    model and the long distances between the Owen Sound hub and the route endpoints
    at Guelph, Orangeville, Kincardine, and Collingwood.

Financial Structure, Pricing, and Reporting
Objective: To establish a transparent, predictable, and sustainable fiscal framework that
ensures strict public accountability, mitigates operational risks, and protects municipal
investments.

•   Vehicle Lifecycle Cost Separation (Development Charge Tracking): The Contractor
    must separate all capital asset acquisition and vehicle lifecycle depreciation costs
    from day-to-day operating fees (e.g., driver wages, fuel, routine maintenance) in its
    submission. This will be used by the MSB in the potential calculation of DC by-laws.
    This should be separated for each vehicle in service, including spare vehicles.
•   Hybrid Costing Framework with Consumer Price Index (CPI) Cap and Shared Fuel-
    Risk Adjustments: The Contractor shall provide a fixed annual price based on the
    approved service plan. Pricing shall remain fixed for the initial contract term,
    excluding approved fuel escalation or de-escalation adjustments. Any contract
    extensions beyond the fixed term may be adjusted using a localized CPI methodology,
    subject to an agreed-upon cap.
•   Variable Hourly Pricing Blocks (Scalability Parameters): Pricing submissions must
    utilize a tiered hourly block structure that permits the modification of service levels
    by up to 15% to 20% annually without invalidating the contract, triggering default
    provisions, or requiring costly manual renegotiations.
•   Seasonal Adjustments and Network Detours: The Contractor must accept fixed
    mobilization rules and standard notification lead-times when executing temporary


Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study



F - 24

    seasonal modifications (e.g., increased summer lines to tourism nodes) or route
    optimization detours. Mobilization fees for scheduled seasonal route adjustments
    must be fully internalized within the base operating rate, provided the changes fall
    within the contract's standard annual volume adjustment thresholds.
•   Fuel Costing: Fuel cost adjustments shall be based on a mutually agreed fuel price
    index and baseline rate established at contract commencement. Variations exceeding
    an agreed threshold (e.g., ±5%) from the baseline fuel price may trigger a shared cost
    adjustment mechanism between the parties. The methodology, frequency of
    adjustment, supporting documentation requirements, and allocation formula for
    fuel-related increases or decreases shall be defined within the contract.
•   Transition to MSB-Owned Vehicles: The Contractor must identify a transition plan to
    move from contractor-owned vehicles to MSB-owned vehicles should the MSB
    decide to purchase vehicles for use by the Contractor during the lifecycle of the
    agreement. Required notice and any cost implications should be identified.

Implementation Options for Service Operation
With the governance structure and service design framework established, the MSB must
determine the most appropriate path forward for securing an operator to deliver the
Unified Transit Network. This decision carries significant implications for service
continuity, cost control, and the MSB's ability to meet its obligations under the OTIF
funding cycle. Three implementation options have been identified, each reflecting a
different balance between speed to market, procurement flexibility, contract term, and
operational risk. The MSB's preferred approach will ultimately depend on the timeline
for service launch, the appetite for transitional complexity, and the degree to which
long-term standardization is prioritized over near-term continuity.

Option 1: Short-Term (2 year) Contract Extensions with Existing Providers
This approach focuses on executing immediate, short-term contract extensions with the
current transportation operators —Driverseat and Voyago—to bridge operations
through the end of the OTIF funding cycle in 2029. The two operators would continue
with the existing routes they operate, and a decision would be made regarding the
operation of any new routes on which operator is best positioned to provide the service
in the short-term.



Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study



F - 25

The benefits of this approach include:

•   Rapid Speed to Market: This would reduce the timeline to implement the service
    after approval from each Council in Spring 2027 and the creation of the MSB. This
    would also increase the amount of OTIF funding that the MSB would have access to
    (as the expanded service would be in place at least 2-3 months earlier).
•   Lower Initial Capital Risk: Leverages the existing local garage infrastructure,
    established driver pools, and vehicles already deployed in the area, minimizing
    upfront mobilization steps.
•   Aligned Timeline: Allows the MSB to issue a shorter operating contract (2 years, by
    utilizing existing fleet). This would allow the MSB to assess the effectiveness of the
    Unified Transit Network and identify next steps once OTIF ends. At this point, the full
    operation of the service could be issued using the requirements identified in the RFP.

The challenges with this approach include:

•   Sub-Optimal Standard Alignment: Bridging legacy contracts may mean the service
    may not immediately meet all the requirements identified above. This would require
    negotiations with the contractor(s) to identify which requirements should be
    prioritized in the short-term, particularly where it impacts customer service.
•   Vehicle Accessibility: The vehicles provided by Driverseat are not currently
    accessible. This may not meet the funding requirement for Provincial Gas Tax funding
    and would require the continued practice of having an accessible option available
    (via SMART) should an accessible trip be requested. This would add cost to the
    service in the short-term.
•   Seamless Operations: Utilizing both incumbent contractors requires complex
    dispatch coordination. There needs to be an agreement in place to ensure that both
    can coordinate, particularly when vehicles meet at the terminal in Owen Sound.
•   Extension of Service: There would need to be clear and transparent decision-making
    process that identifies which contractor is provided the new routes that neither
    currently operates.




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study



F - 26

Option 2: Issue a Full RFP for a Single, Comprehensive Contract over a Five-Year
Term
Under this approach, the MSB would initiate a competitive procurement process to
select a single private contractor to manage and operate the entire unified fixed-route
network over a three-year term starting in 2027.

The benefits of this approach include:

•   Full Customization: Allows the MSB to write a completely fresh scope of work that
    embeds all preferred performance metrics, unified branding, and direct service
    standards from day one.
•   Consolidated Management: Eliminates the administrative friction of managing
    multiple operators, creating a singular point of accountability for regional operations.
•   Market Competition: Invites competitive bidding, which may be able to reduce the
    aggregate hourly operating rate and additional operators.

The challenges with this approach include:

•   Long-term Commitment: Short Funding Horizon: Cost reductions are typically
    secured by extending the term to 4-5 years to better align with the lifecycle of
    vehicles used for the service. This would commit the MSB to a term that extends
    beyond the end of OTIF, which may not be desirable for all four County Councils.
    Reducing the term would increase costs as the lifecycle of the vehicle may need to be
    incorporated over a shorter duration. While large private sector operators may be
    able to absorb this, it may limit bids from smaller operators. To see the benefits of
    this approach, a price breakdown should be provided to the end of OTIF funding with
    existing (or equivalent) fleet with a detailed plan on how new fleet that meets future
    requirements (i.e. accessible) will be implemented.
•   Implementation Delays: A full RFP process requires significant time to draft,
    evaluate, award, and execute—delaying the physical deployment and getting the
    network off the ground when continuity of existing routes is urgently needed. This
    could be reduced if staff finalize an RFP document prior to the approval of the MSB in
    Spring of 2027.




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study



F - 27

Option 3: Fresh Contract and RFP in 2029
This approach pursues a "clean slate" procurement implemented at the natural
conclusion of the OTIF funding cycle in 2029, working in conjunction with Option 1 to
ensure uninterrupted service continuity through the bridge period. By using the two-
year interim period strategically, the MSB will be positioned to issue a comprehensive,
well-informed RFP that reflects the operational realities of the Unified Transit Network
rather than assumptions made prior to launch.

The benefits of this approach include:

•   Comprehensive Market Response: Prospective operators will have sufficient lead
    time to develop detailed, competitive service delivery proposals that are tailored to
    the specific characteristics of the unified Grey-Bruce network. Industry experience
    consistently demonstrates that RFPs issued with adequate market notice — typically
    90 to 120 days minimum — attract a broader and more qualified field of
    respondents, resulting in stronger value for money outcomes.
•   Operationally Informed Scope of Work: Two years of live network data will allow the
    MSB to define performance benchmarks, service standards, and contract
    requirements with a level of precision that is not possible at the outset. Key
    parameters such as cost per kilometre targets, breakdown thresholds, on-time
    performance expectations, and fleet specifications can be grounded in actual
    operating experience rather than estimates, producing a more defensible and
    effective contract.
•   Fleet Lifecycle Alignment: A 2029 procurement allows the MSB to structure a
    contract term — typically five years with optional extensions — that aligns with the
    natural replacement cycle of transit vehicles, which is generally 12 to 15 years for
    conventional buses. This alignment is critical for attracting competitive bids, as
    operators price fleet risk into their hourly rates when contract terms are too short to
    amortize vehicle investments effectively. A well-timed procurement also creates the
    opportunity to embed emerging fleet requirements — including full accessibility
    compliance and low or zero-emission vehicle specifications — into the RFP from day
    one.
•   Unified Single-Operator Model: Industry best practice for regional fixed-route transit
    networks of this scale strongly favours a single-operator contract over a fragmented


Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study



F - 28

    multi-operator model. A unified contract eliminates the dispatch coordination
    complexity, accountability gaps, and service inconsistencies that are inherent in split-
    operator arrangements and establishes a single point of contractual responsibility for
    network-wide performance.
•   Performance-Based Contract Structure: A 2029 RFP provides the opportunity to
    structure the contract around industry-standard performance-based incentive and
    penalty frameworks, which are increasingly common in Canadian and international
    transit procurement. These frameworks tie a portion of operator compensation to
    measurable outcomes — including on-time performance, vehicle cleanliness,
    breakdown rates, and customer satisfaction — creating shared accountability for
    service quality over the life of the agreement.
•   Competitive Pricing Conditions: A longer contract term issued through open,
    transparent competitive procurement is widely recognized as the most effective
    mechanism for driving down aggregate hourly operating costs. Operators are able to
    offer more competitive rates when they have a sufficient term to recover fleet and
    mobilization investments, and the competitive bidding environment itself applies
    downward pressure on pricing that is not achievable through direct negotiation with
    incumbents alone.
•   Opportunity to Include MSB-Owned Vehicles: The start of this new contract in 2029
    allows the MSB to decide whether to purchase vehicles through various grant
    programs and lease them to the Contractor to operate and maintain. This can reduce
    the overall operating rate of the service.

The challenges of this approach include:

•   Incumbent Dependency in the Interim: The effectiveness of Option 3 is contingent
    on the successful execution of Option 1, meaning the MSB remains dependent on
    the cooperation and performance of existing operators through 2029. Any
    deterioration in the working relationship with Driverseat or Voyago during the bridge
    period could complicate the transition.
•   Procurement Resource Requirements: A comprehensive RFP process of this nature
    requires meaningful staff or consultant capacity to draft technical specifications,
    manage the evaluation process, conduct due diligence on respondents, and
    negotiate and execute the final agreement. The MSB should anticipate initiating RFP



Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study



F - 29

   development no later than mid 2028 to ensure sufficient time for a rigorous and
   legally defensible procurement process ahead of the 2029 transition.

Summary and Recommendation of Options
Based on the options presented, the most cost-effective path forward is a combination
of Option 1 followed by Option 3.

Executing short-term extensions with Driverseat and Voyago provides the fastest route
to a unified service launch, preserves access to the maximum amount of OTIF funding,
and avoids the mobilization costs and delays associated with a full competitive
procurement at this stage. Using the two-year bridge period productively — to establish
unified performance standards, finalize a comprehensive RFP, and allow the market to
develop informed proposals — positions the MSB to issue a clean, well-structured full
tender in 2029 from a place of operational experience rather than uncertainty.

This sequenced approach avoids the risk of committing to a long-term contract before
the MSB has had the opportunity to assess the unified network in practice, while
ensuring that the eventual RFP reflects lessons learned and attracts mature, competitive
bids. It also aligns the contract term with the end of OTIF, giving all four County Councils
a natural decision point before any further financial commitments are made.




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study



G–1




    Appendix G
G   Legislative Compliance Matrix




    Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
    Unified Regional Transit Network Study
    September 2026 – 25-2330



G-2


Legislative Compliance Matrix
There are several legislative requirements that need to be adhered to when operating a
transit service in Ontario under the Municipal Services Board (MSB) governance
structure. Table G-1 below identifies the key legislative requirements, how the plan
addresses the requirements, and where legal counsel was sought (from Lerners
Lawyers) to review compliance.

Key Insights for Governance and Operations

•   Service Responsibility: The MSB is not strictly required to provide specialized
    services directly in areas served by SMART; however, it has a statutory obligation
    under the IASR to "ensure" that alternative services are available to the public. Active
    monitoring and reporting on SMART’s availability is recommended to maintain this
    compliance.
•   Fare Parity Nuances: Fare parity applies based on geographic municipal boundaries
    rather than the MSB’s total area of authority. If a conventional route has multiple
    stops within a single municipality, the fare for a specialized service (like SMART)
    within that same area cannot be higher than the conventional fare.
•   Contracting with Private Providers: To protect the MSB and ensure ongoing
    compliance, service contracts with private rideshare or taxi companies must:
    o   Allocate accessibility training and policy responsibilities to the operator.
    o   Include data-sharing provisions to provide metrics for accessibility planning and
        complaint resolution.
    o   Allow the MSB the flexibility to modify subsidies to influence service areas or
        dispatch practices to ensure "alternative accessible methods" remain viable. This
        could include having one or more accessible transportation providers available to
        request a similar ride if a non-accessible option is not available.




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study



G-3



Table G-1: Legislative Compliance Matrix

Legislation /                 Key Requirements                   Plan Alignment & Compliance Status
Regulation

Municipal       The Municipal Act provides authority for an      Not Fully Aligned
Act, 2001       upper-tier and lower-tier to pass by-laws to
                                                                 •   Wellington County has a by-law in place to operate
                operate transportation systems, including a
                                                                     the RIDE WELL program.
                public transit service. If a lower-tier
                                                                 •   Grey County has a less explicit by-law in place that
                municipality has not claimed exclusive transit
                rights within its borders, a County has the          would need to be updated.
                authority to operate a transit service.          •   Bruce and Dufferin County would need to enact a
                                                                     new by-law.

                                                                 Each County Council must pass a by-law to formally give
                                                                 them the authority to provide a transit service,
                                                                 including the sphere of service, the geographic service
                                                                 area, and how the transit system will be funded (e.g.,
                                                                 general levy across all lower-tiers, or a special levy only
                                                                 on the participating municipalities).

                                                                 The authority to operate either an exclusive or non-
                                                                 exclusive transportation service should be specified.




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study



G-4



Legislation /                 Key Requirements                   Plan Alignment & Compliance Status
Regulation

AODA (2005)     Vehicle Accessibility                            Aligned
& IASR
                Section 44 (1) of the AODA requires that         The plan utilizes accessible vehicles for inter-community
(O. Reg.
                conventional transportation service providers    service and provides an accessible vehicle option for on-
191/11)
                deploy lifting devices, ramps or portable        demand service that connects to the fixed-route option.
                bridge plates upon the request of a person
                                                                 (Reviewed by Lerners Lawyers)
                with a disability.

AODA (2005)     Accessibility of Taxis and Ridesharing           Aligned
& IASR
                While the AODA and IASR apply to transit         The recommendation to subsidise the introduction of
(O. Reg.
                agreements, to the extent that they set          taxis or ridesharing vehicles does not require the use of
191/11)
                standards for taxicabs licensed by               accessible vehicles as these are not considered public
                municipalities, there do not appear to be any    transit.
                direct obligations under these specific
                                                                 (Reviewed by Lerners Lawyers)
                regulations for non-licensed taxicabs or
                private ridesharing vehicles to be accessible.




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study



G-5



Legislation /                 Key Requirements                    Plan Alignment & Compliance Status
Regulation

AODA (2005)     Fare Parity                                       Aligned
& IASR
                Section 66(1) of the AODA identifies that         Fare parity is required for services within the same
(O. Reg.
                when conventional transportation services         municipal boundary. The SMART fare will be lowered to
191/11)
                and specialized transportation services are       $10.00 if travelling to connect to an inter-community
                provided by separate transportation service       transit hub (Phase 1) or for travel within a local
                providers in the same jurisdiction, the           municipality (Phase 2) to match the proposed on-
                specialized transportation service provider       demand fare. This will include matching concessions for
                shall not charge more.                            multiple rides and fare integration with fixed-route
                                                                  transit.

                                                                  (Reviewed by Lerners Lawyers)

MTO             Requires compliance with AODA, IASR, and          Aligned
Guidelines      the Highway Traffic Act to maintain eligibility
                                                                  The plan recognizes that the overall Transit System
(Dedicated      for funding.
                                                                  must be "fully accessible". This includes utilizing
Gas Tax
                                                                  accessible vehicles for inter-community service.
Funds)
                                                                  The MSB must include data-sharing requirements in
                                                                  contracts to demonstrate compliance for audits and
                                                                  address funding risk allocation.



Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study



G-6



Legislation /                 Key Requirements                     Plan Alignment & Compliance Status
Regulation

Highway         Sets safety and equipment standards for            Aligned
Traffic Act     accessible vehicles used in public
                                                                   The recommendations in the draft contract document
(Reg. 629)      transportation.
                                                                   identifies that all vehicles operated by or on behalf of
                                                                   the MSB must meet these standards.

Commercial      Transit systems ensure vehicles with a seating     Aligned
Vehicle         capacity larger than 10 passengers must be
                                                                   The recommended contract includes responsibility for
Operator        registered and secure a valid CVOR certificate
                                                                   the contractor to secure and maintain valid CVOR
Registration    before putting any of the following
                                                                   certificates.
(CVOR)          commercial motor vehicles into service. This
License         is the responsibility of the contractor, but the
                MSB must still ensure compliance, including
                maintaining records and complying with
                audits.




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study



G-7



Legislation /                Key Requirements                 Plan Alignment & Compliance Status
Regulation

Metrolinx       Mandates regional transportation planning     Aligned
Act, 2006       for specific areas, including Dufferin and
                                                              There are currently no specific operational obligations
                Wellington counties.
                                                              under this Act for the MSB beyond planning
                                                              participation.

                                                              (Reviewed by Lerners Lawyers)

Bill 98 (Fare   Potential future requirements for             Monitoring
Alignment &     "prescribed" transit systems regarding fare
                                                              The Bill has passed royal assent (as of June 2026). Its
Seamless        alignment and seamless service.
                                                              impacts are currently premature to fully determine. The
Transit Act,
                                                              initial Bill will only impact the GTHA, so it is not
2026)
                                                              applicable to the MSB at the time of writing this report.

                                                              (Reviewed by Lerners Lawyers)




Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Wellington Counties
Unified Regional Transit Network Study

Agenda item 7.b: PDR-CW-43-26 City of Owen Sound OP Approval

---

Attachment: Approval of City of Owen Sound Updated Official Plan (2026) - PDR-CW-43-26.pdf
Source: https://helpos.ca/attachments/05f73b089738b8e23fdc1c34d7e446d03b959c46bb043dc646e27611c4db3dad/7-b-1-approval-of-city-of-owen-sound-updated-official-plan-2026-pdr-cw-43-26-pdf.pdf

Committee Report
 To:                            Warden Matrosovs and Members of Grey County Council
 Committee Date:                September 24, 2026
 Subject / Report No:           PDR-CW-43-26
 Title:                         Approval of City of Owen Sound Updated Official Plan (2026)
 Prepared by:                   Liz Buckton, Senior Policy Planner
 Reviewed by:                   Scott Taylor, Director of Planning
 Lower Tier(s) Affected:        City of Owen Sound


Recommendation
   1. That Report PDR-CW-43-26 regarding the approval of the City of Owen Sound’s
      Updated Official Plan (2026) be received; and,
   2. That the Committee of the Whole hereby approves the updated City of Owen
      Sound Official Plan (2026) as adopted by By-law No. 2026-029, subject to those
      modifications attached as Appendix 1.


Executive Summary
In April 2026, the City of Owen Sound adopted an updated official plan. The updated plan
considers recent changes to the Planning Act, the Provincial Planning Statement, the Grey
County official plan, as well as input from members of the public and agencies. County staff are
recommending approval of the official plan, subject to several minor modifications as described
within this report. The proposed modifications have been shared with the City of Owen Sound.


Background and Discussion
The City of Owen Sound adopted an updated official plan (OP) on April 13, 2026. A link to the
adopted updated plan has been included at Appendix 2, to this report.
As part of the development of the official plan, the City hosted public consultation sessions and
circulated draft amendments to the required agencies. The OP was changed between the initial
drafts and the updated adopted version to reflect feedback received. The final adopted version
of 2026 official plan incorporates much of the feedback received, as detailed within City of Owen
Sound staff/recommendation report CS-26-023, included as Appendix 3. The local staff report
also includes an appended ‘track changes’ version of the 2026 official plan and details the
specific ways that the prior 2021 official plan has been amended.




PDR-CW-43-26                                   1                            September 24, 2026



The County of Grey is the delegated authority for approving comprehensive updates and new
local municipal official plans. Since adoption, County and City staff have been working together
to explore some very minor changes to the adopted plan, and also obtaining updated comments
from the Saugeen Ojibway Nation Environment Office for consideration as part of the County’s
review. Proposed modifications to the plan are being recommended to ensure conformity and
consistency with planning legislation and policy. The proposed modifications have been shared
with the City staff, in advance of this report. County staff understand that an update will be
provided to City Council on September 23, 2026 by City staff, with any arising comments to be
shared back to County staff, as may then inform a verbal update to County Council, alongside
receipt of this written report.
Should the County approve the updated official plan for the City of Owen Sound, notice would
be given to agencies and the public who requested notice, and there would be a 20-day appeal
period, per the provisions of the Planning Act. Approval of the plan would also have the effect of
formally repealing the former 2021 City of Owen Sound official plan, upon coming into
force/effect of the updated 2026 OP.

Public and Agency Comments
There were several public and agency comments submitted as part of the development of the
updated Owen Sound official plan. These comments are discussed within City of Owen Sound
Staff/Recommendation Report CS-26-023, included as Appendix 3 to this report and dated
March 23, 2026.
Staff note that much of the input received appears to have directly informed the content of the
adopted plan, where City staff and Council found the input to be appropriate and changes
warranted. Comments offered through the consultation process by County staff, have been
addressed by subsequent edits to the plan, prior to adoption.

Analysis of Planning Issues – Legislation & Provincial Policy
Planning authorities must have regard for matters of provincial interest, as set out under the
Planning Act, and must be consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement (PPS) 2024.
Decisions must also conform to the County of Grey OP and any provincial plans that are in force
and effect.
The updated City of Owen Sound OP (2026) has been revised to reflect recent changes to
provincial policy, the Planning Act (various) and other related legislation, among other pertinent
housekeeping matters.
Section 2 of the Planning Act sets out the matters of provincial interest which all land use
decisions shall have regard for. The matters under this section of the Act cover a broad
spectrum of interests, which will not be explored in detail in this report but form the basis for
many of the policies within the City’s OP.
Chapter 2.1 of the PPS speaks to planning for people and homes, directing that appropriate
growth management be undertaken to ensure sufficient land supply is available to
accommodate anticipated growth over a time horizon of at least 20 years, and to ensure
appropriate designated lands for residential development. The Owen Sound OP aligns its
growth horizon with that of the Grey County OP. The OP references the City’s intent to achieve


PDR-CW-43-26                                      2                             September 24, 2026



the growth allocation targets established for the City as within the County OP, while not
including the growth allocations specifically within the text of the local plan. Growth
management is an upper-tier municipal responsibility, and a recent update has been undertaken
by the County extending growth forecasts and allocations to 2051 and assessing land needs to
accommodate this growth. The updated growth forecasts and allocations arising from the recent
Growth Management Strategy update will be embedded into the Grey County OP through a
future amendment process. Owen Sound was found through this recent exercise to have
sufficient designated lands to meet growth expectations over the extended planning horizon.
Chapter 2.3 of the PPS speaks to the provision of housing, directing planning authorities to
provide for an appropriate range and mix of housing options and densities to meet project needs
of the community, now and over time. The updated City OP includes a substantially revised
Section 3.1.5 (‘Affordable Housing’), as;

      includes updated definitions of affordability;
      provides support for the goal of 30% of new housing as affordable housing; and,
      encourages the use of various tools such as Community Improvement Plans, Zoning By-
       laws, and other incentive programs to support affordable housing creation and
       maintenance within the City.
The updated plan also supports the use of land-banking of public lands and/or housing first
disposal of surplus lands, as may dovetail with other supports or incentives towards affordable
housing supply and achievement of an appropriate range and mix of housing options to meet
community needs.
Chapter 2.3 of the PPS promotes settlement areas as the focus of growth and development.
Owen Sound is designated as Primary Settlement Area within the Grey County OP. Chapter 2.3
further promotes the efficient use of land, resources, infrastructure, and public service facilities,
and promotes intensification and redevelopment to support the achievement of complete
communities and the provision of a range and mix of housing options. The updated City OP
provides policy that requires new development to be serviced appropriately, at (increased)
densities that provide for the efficient use of land and infrastructure and contemplates a range of
land uses and mix of housing types to support the community’s needs, as it continues to grow.
Chapter 2.8 of the PPS speaks to employment and economic development, and together with
definitions of the Planning Act, was revised from the PPS 2020. The new framework;

      establishes specific use prohibitions for employment areas (i.e., no residential uses,
       institutional uses, or non-ancillary retail and office uses are permitted), and
      ensures that development on lands within 300 metres avoids, minimizes or mitigates
       potential impacts on the long-term viability of those employment lands.
The updated City OP incorporates updated definitions and policies to address these changes,
being a key focus of the revisions to the OP. More specifically, the updated plan establishes a
new ‘Flexible Employment Area’ in addition to the ‘Employment Area’ core designation (as
defined within the PPS, 2024). Within the new flexible designation, a broader range and mix of
uses are permitted, while the core designation offers scoped employment use permissions per
the PPS/Act, specifically excluding non-ancillary retail/office use and any residential or
institutional uses.



PDR-CW-43-26                                     3                             September 24, 2026



Chapter 2.9 directs that planning authorities shall plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and
prepare for the impact of a changing climate, through various recommended approaches. The
updated City OP includes policies that address these matters, more specifically found within
Section 6.1.2 of the plan (‘Climate Change and Action Plan’) which includes policies and
commitments relating to climate action planning, greenhouse gas reduction, and impact
mitigation approaches and objectives with respect to infrastructure and development proposals.
Chapter 4.1 of the PPS provides for the protection of natural heritage features and areas. It
directs development and site alteration away from certain sensitive features, unless it has been
demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on those features or their ecological
functions. The updated OP contains various policies to support implementing the PPS direction.
At Section 6.1 of the plan (Environmental Management and Sustainability) policies are included
to;

      support protection and enhancement of the health of the natural heritage system and
       adjacent lands;
      develop and protect the urban forest;
      guide the preparation of Environmental Impact Studies; and
      highlight required considerations relating to ecological offsetting, lake filling, soil
       contamination, air quality, water quality & conservation, and energy conservation.
Chapter 4.6 of the PPS provides policy direction around cultural heritage and archaeology. The
OP includes policy regarding these resources and encourages consultation with Indigenous
communities through the development process and to ensure their interests are considered
when identifying, protecting and managing archaeological and cultural heritage resources, and
in relation to other interests such as potential impacts to the Natural Heritage System, etc. For
example, Section 6.1.5.8 of the City OP now identifies that where an Environmental Impact
Study is required, the City will consult with Indigenous communities and consider their rights
and interests.
Chapter 5.2 of the PPS speaks to directing land away from areas of natural hazard. The Grey
Sauble Conservation Authority (GSCA) has reviewed the proposed amended policies and
mapping and have provided their comments to the City, given their related mandate. As noted
above, these comments have generally been incorporated within the OP.
County Planning staff are satisfied that the updated OP, with the proposed modifications in
Appendix 1 to this report;

      has regard for matters of provincial interest under the Planning Act, and
      is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement.

Analysis of Planning Issues – Niagara Escarpment Plan
Comments were offered by Niagara Escarpment Commission staff relating to the plan and
reflecting policy considerations arising within the Niagara Escarpment Plan. City staff have
addressed the NEC’s submission within the Staff/Recommendation Report at Appendix 3,
though generally did not implement all suggestions offered, preferring not to duplicate or
reiterate NEP policy direction within the official plan.




PDR-CW-43-26                                    4                            September 24, 2026



One matter raised through the NEC review related to the wording of the Environmental Impact
Study test for demonstrating “no negative impacts” on natural heritage features and functions. In
the recommendation report, City staff noted that this wording reflects that within the County OP.
County staff note that this wording is grounded in specific Provincial Planning Statement
direction (Section 4.1 (5)) relating to development and site alteration in/near certain significant
natural heritage features. County staff are satisfied that, in practice, this can be appropriately
reconciled with Niagara Escarpment Plan direction for “minimal or temporary impacts” through
the scoping of study requirements, consideration of mitigation measures, and the application of
the more protective policy test where applicable.
County Planning staff are satisfied that the updated OP, with the proposed modifications in
Appendix 1 to this report, conforms, or does not conflict, with the Niagara Escarpment Plan.

Analysis of Planning Issues – County of Grey Official Plan
The City’s OP must conform to the County’s OP; however, the local plan may also provide more
detailed or restrictive policies than may be provided for in the upper-tier plan. The County OP
provides a broad policy framework for Primary Settlement Areas, but defers to municipalities to
implement their own community specific vision within their municipal OP. In this regard, the
City’s OP addresses and conforms to the designation-specific County policies applicable to
Primary Settlement Areas. It also successfully implements general policies of the County’s OP.
In some cases, it directly refers to expanded policy or more detailed mapping as found in the
County OP, rather than duplicating within the City OP (e.g., growth forecasts; Natural Heritage
System linkage policies; Significant Woodlands policies; Source Water Protection mapping,
etc.). This approach appears to align well with the provincial and County initiatives to streamline
official plans and avoiding duplication between plans.
The majority of the modifications recommended in Appendix 1 to this report are minor in nature,
largely correcting/updating Ministry references. One modification arose based on further
consultation with Saugeen Ojibway Nation Environment Office staff regarding the Official Plan.
This modification is detailed as Item #1, within the modifications table at Appendix 1, and
reflects the siting of the City of Owen Sound within ‘Saukiing Anishnaabekiing’, the ancestral,
treaty lands and territories of the Chippewas of Nawash Unceded First Nation and the Saugeen
First Nation, together known as the Saugeen Ojibway Nation (SON). A modification is also
included relating to a further minor update to Schedule A to capture an inadvertent omission of a
small area of mapped Hazard, as is recommended for inclusion on the schedule by the
Conservation Authority. An updated Schedule A, inclusive of the recommended County
modifications, is attached as Appendix 4 to this report.
Draft modifications and staff commentary/rationale were shared in advance with City staff and
discussed/refined together. County staff understand that an update will be provided to local
Council on September 23, 2026 with any arising comments to be shared back to County staff,
as may inform a verbal update to County Council on September 24, alongside presentation of
this written report.
Subject to the detailed modifications in Appendix 1, County staff consider the updated City of
Owen Sound OP to conform to the County of Grey official plan.




PDR-CW-43-26                                     5                            September 24, 2026



Legislated Requirements
Sections 17(34) and 21(1) of the Planning Act requires that the County approve, modify,
or refuse local official plans and plan amendments for which the County is the
designated approval authority.
Following a decision by County Council, a Notice is to be issued per Section 17(35) of the
Planning Act, beginning a 20 day ‘appeal period’.

Financial and Resource Implications
At this time there are no expected financial or staffing considerations beyond those normally
encountered in processing an official plan update. While there is always the possibility that the
OP could be appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal, County staff are of the opinion that the City
of Owen Sound has appropriately addressed the various comments that have been brought
forward through public outreach and consultation and via circulation of notice within the scope of
their discretion.


Relevant Consultation
☒      Internal: Planning Staff;

☒      External: City of Owen Sound; Saugeen Ojibway Nation, Grey Sauble Conservation
       Authority, Notices to public and agencies as required per the Planning Act.


Appendices and Attachments
Appendix 1 – Recommended Modifications to updated Owen Sound Official Plan (2026)
Appendix 2 – As Adopted City Official Plan (2026)
Appendix 3 – Owen Sound Staff Recommendation Report CS-26-023
Appendix 4 – Revised Schedule A, inclusive of recommended County modifications




PDR-CW-43-26                                    6                            September 24, 2026

Agenda item 7.c: Joint Municipal Services Committee minutes dated September 15, 2026

---

Attachment: Post-Meeting Minutes - JMS_Sep15_2026 - English.pdf
Source: https://helpos.ca/attachments/538442835702fa09d227769aedfa84f210f28d51c27a4640ec7960d4d37fab6c/7-c-1-post-meeting-minutes-jms-sep15-2026-english-pdf.pdf

Minutes
            Joint Municipal Services Committee
                                 September 15, 2026

Present:                Councillor Ian Boddy, Councillor Warren Dickert, Councillor
                        Shirley Keaveney, Councillor Terry McKay, Councillor Grant
                        Pringle

Staff Present:    Randy Scherzer, CAO, Rayburn Murray, Deputy Clerk, Niall
                  Lobley, Deputy CAO, Kayla Rier, Executive Advisor, Robert
                  Hatten, Communications Manager
_____________________________________________________________________



1.    Call to Order
      The Vice Chair called the meeting to order at 2:31 p.m.

2.    Declaration of Interest
      There were no declarations of interest.

3.    Delegations
      There were no delegations.

4.    Items for Direction or Discussion
      4.a        CAOR-JMS-18-26 Waste Management Services Review Update
             Councillor Boddy joined the meeting at 2:33 p.m.
             Niall Lobley, Deputy CAO, welcomed Riley Twerdun and Alida Kush from
             Dillon Consulting. The consultants summarized their review of waste
             management across the nine member municipalities and outlined how the
             review is intended to align with the Going Green in Grey program. They
             noted that current strengths include leadership in organics, high-
             performing infrastructure, established collaboration, proactive contract
             mechanisms, and local investment in recycling. Key system opportunities
             include service equity gaps, hidden costs, airspace preservation, site
             security, diversion of specialized waste streams, and shared capital
             planning. Three options were outlined: maintaining the current process; a
             full upload to the County, including administration and operational

                                           1



management of waste services; and a shared services framework using a
      hybrid model that balances local oversight with regional administrative
      scale. Next steps include a jurisdictional scan and discussions with other
      municipalities to better understand their approaches. Further
      recommendations and reporting will follow at a future date.
      Members of the Committee noted the importance of understanding
      contamination throughout the recycling process, as well as the need to
      consider end users for recycled products. Members also noted the
      importance of monitoring recent changes related to the Province assuming
      responsibility for Blue Box collection, along with other large waste items
      such as tires. In response to the information provided, members referred
      to Simcoe, Bruce, and Wellington Counties and the processes completed,
      or not completed, in those jurisdictions. Staff noted that collectors are
      required to find sustainable markets for products, however, where those
      materials ultimately end up can remain far down the line.
      An update will be provided to the lower-tier municipalities after the
      information is presented to County Council.
      JMSC05-26
      Moved by: Councillor Ian Boddy
      Seconded by: Councillor Terry McKay
      That report CAOR-JMS-18-26 regarding Waste Management Services
      Review be received for information.
                                                                              Carried

4.b   CAOR-JMS-16-26 Joint RFP on Insurance
      Niall Lobley, Deputy CAO, summarized the report and provided
      information on the process for pursuing a joint insurance program. He
      indicated that establishing and maintaining such a program would be a
      significant body of work. Further, a joint approach would need to be
      consistent across the municipalities, and would ultimately result in a large
      administrative uptake for the County, along with associated costs. At this
      time, there is no immediate financial benefit to proceeding with a joint RFP
      for insurance. Currently, risk management is ongoing through a number
      of initiatives, including cybersecurity, asset management, and other
      corporate processes, which in turn can help support the management of
      insurance costs over time. Randy Scherzer, CAO, indicated that
      recruitment for a Risk and Claims Specialist is underway. This is a new
      position, and therefore the first time a dedicated corporate resource would
      be available to manage and assess risk and help strengthen the overall
      approach to identifying and reducing exposure.




                                     2



JMSC04-26
           Moved by: Councillor Grant Pringle
           Seconded by: Councillor Shirley Keaveney
           That report CAOR-JMS-16-26 regarding joint procurement of
           municipal insurance be received for information.
                                                                              Carried


5.   Correspondence
     There was no correspondence.

6.   Other Business
     Randy Scherzer, CAO, thanked the Committee members for their attendance
     and participation on the Committee throughout the term.

7.   Next Meeting Date
     Niall Lobley, Deputy CAO, noted that this is the final meeting of the Joint
     Municipal Services Committee as the Terms of Reference indicates the
     Committee will dissolve effective September 25, 2026. Committee members
     thanked staff for their work.

8.   Adjournment
     On motion by Councillor McKay and Councillor Keaveney, the meeting was
     adjourned at 3:33 p.m.




                                         3

Agenda item 8: Closed Meeting Matters

Agenda item 9: Other Business

Agenda item 10: Notice of Motion

Agenda item 11: Adjournment