Kingston Transit Service Review

This memo outlines the recommended service guidelines for Kingston Transit, based on the preliminary investigation of service guidelines and Kingston Transit’s current practices. These guidelines are an initial recommendation, that could be further developed in future years to adapt to changes in the Kingston Transit network.

Service Classifications

Different routes and services fit into a family of services offered by Kingston Transit. Service classifications are used to identify the preferred operating model for different services.

Minimum Service Span

The following service spans identify minimum hours of operation for different service classifications. Routes can exceed the minimums, but the minimum span sets a target for introducing new service or updating existing services.

Maximum Service Headway minutes

Maximum service headways (the inverse of minimum service frequency) define the maximum wait time between vehicles that should be experienced by passengers on any given service classification. Service headways are defined for regularly scheduled fixed-route services in the urban area. Services within each classification can operate at shorter headways than the maximum, but the maximum defines the lowest service level that should be provided for a route with that classification.

Night routes do not have a maximum headway, and should be provisioned based on what can meet the minimum service productivity target for those classifications. Main, local, and express routes may not operate during all periods identified, so the headways apply only as service is added in those periods.

Maximum Service Productivity (boardings per service hour)

Minimum service productivity defines effectiveness of routes (in boardings per service hour) on different days for different service classifications. No minimum is identified for on-demand services, which are intended for any area where demand is not high enough to provision fixed-route service.

Productivity standards allow Kingston Transit to determine if a route is effectively serving passengers. If a route is not meeting the minimum service productivity standard after an established period of time, other options may be explored including re-routing or reclassifying service to better match demand.

Access and Coverage

Access and coverage guidelines allow Kingston Transit to set a standard guideline for stop placement, helping plan new stop infrastructure that is placed consistently across routes.

Vehicle Capacities

Vehicle capacities set a standard for the expected passenger comfort levels at different times of day. It is generally expected that:

• Seated capacity is the preferred comfortable occupancy during off-peak service.
• Peak capacity is the preferred comfortable occupancy during weekday peak service.
• Seated capacity is the maximum occupancy for any service operating on Highway 401 or other controlled-access highways. When seated capacity is reached, frequency along the route or vehicle sizes should be increased to accommodate the additional demand.
• Maximum capacity is the maximum occupancy for any service operating on other roads. When maximum capacity is reached, frequency along the route or vehicle sizes should be increased to accommodate the additional demand.

Vehicle size: 40-foot conventional

Seated capacity (100%): 38

Peak capacity (125%): 48

Maximum capacity (150%): 57

Amenities

Stop amenity guidelines identify where to best place different amenities, to balance improving passenger comfort with the cost behind installing and maintaining amenities at different stops.

Performance Indicators

Additional performance indicators define the operational and financial performance of the service, providing other benchmarks for Kingston Transit to monitor as it expands services or identifies areas of improvement.

Infrastructure

Reliability at intersections and along road segments should be monitored to review their impact on on-time performance for different routes, and infrastructure improvements should be explored in different scenarios. Transit signal priority should be explored at intersections with highly variable performance, particularly along frequent service corridors.

Service Changes

Introducing new services often requires an adjustment period for passengers to adapt to changes, particularly if they were not already transit users. Similarly, service may overperform or underperform expectations and reach a point where it needs to be reassessed under a new classification.

• Services in new areas should reach 50% of the minimum productivity target after 9 months, and 100% of the minimum productivity target after 18 months.
• New services that fall below the minimum productivity target after 18 months, or existing services that have been in places for at least 18 months, should be assessed under a new classification, re-routed, or discontinued.
• On-demand service should be reviewed for conversion to fixed-route once it sustains a minimum of 6-10 boardings per hour over a 3-month period.

This memo briefly outlines the potential for on-demand ridership in the rural areas of the City of Kingston. The City requested Dillon to identify the potential ridership attraction in the rural areas in Kingston. To complete this task, Dillon undertook the following steps:

• Identifying the conceptual zones that would be feasible to run an on-demand service.
• Generating high-level ridership estimates based on peers.
• Identifying how many vehicles would likely be required to run an on-demand service.
• Providing a high-level cost estimate for operating this service.

Potential Zones

The conceptual zones proposed as part of this project are identified in Figure 1. Two zones are proposed that could form the basis of an on-demand service in the rural areas:

• West: Areas west of the Cataraqui River, plus some small communities on the east side of the river. Possible transfer locations would include the INVISTA Centre, Bayridge Centre, the Kingston Train Station, King’s Crossing North, Montreal Park and Ride, and Innovation Park and Ride.
• East: Areas east of the Cataraqui River minus the communities described above. Possible transfer locations would include Innovation Park and Ride and CFB Kingston.

Within each zone, the transfer locations would encourage passengers originating in rural areas to transfer to the fixed-route service to continue their trip. Possible arrangements could include limiting passengers to the nearest transfer locations to minimize longer deadhead periods.

Ridership Estimates and Vehicles

To generate an estimate for ridership in each of the zones, the following assumptions were used:

• Based on peer systems in Ontario, a general ridership per capita for rural on-demand service (i.e., with no large settlement areas in the rural areas) can be between 0.05 and 0.20 trips per capita annually. 0.14 annual trips per capita was used to generate the starting ridership forecast, which assumed that service was only operated on weekdays.
• Service would be provided all day (loosely 6 am to 11:30 pm), based off the hours that the connecting routes generally operate from at the transfer locations.
• Population in each of the zones would generally mirror those measured in the constituent dissemination areas from the 2021 Census.

Figure 1: Conceptual Rural Zones and Hubs (Transfer Locations)

The population of the West zone was around 9000 residents in 2021, and in the East zone was around 5500 residents. Exact numbers may differ since the dissemination areas do not perfectly correlate to the zone boundaries.

Using the 0.14 annual trips per capita, it was determined that there would be around 1230 annual weekday trips in the West zone and 760 annual weekday trips in the East zone. On a daily basis, this translated to around 5 daily trips in the West zone and 3 daily trips in the East zone. It is assumed that one vehicle in each zone (two total) would be sufficient to support this service, and could potentially be reduced to one vehicle overall in very low-demand periods.

High-Level Cost Estimate

Similar to other rural on-demand services in Ontario, hourly operating costs generally are between $100 and $150 per hour. If this service were provided every weekday for the assumed period (17.5 hours), for both vehicles, it would be assumed that the service would cost between $474,250 and $711,375 annually to operate. A further assessment of the costs and ridership with more detailed forecasting would be able to determine a more specific expected cost and ridership than is provided through this memo.

Introduction

Project Background

Kingston Transit operates local, seasonal and express services that serve the urban areas of the City of Kingston and the neighbouring community of Amherstview. Over the last ten years, the system’s ridership has grown significantly, reaching 6.1 million annual riders in 2023. Kingston Transit will need to adapt to the new transportation landscape­­­­.

To respond to these needs and to prepare for the future, Kingston Transit has initiated a Transit Service Review (the “Review”). The Review will include a comprehensive evaluation of the City’s transit system and the creation of new service guidelines which set out standards for service delivery such as frequency, service boundary, and system accessibility. The goal of the Review is to lay the groundwork for a modern transit system that is as accessible, available, direct and as reliable as possible.

The Review is being undertaken in two phases. The first phase, which took place from September to November 2025, included the project launch, the first round of public and stakeholder engagement and the initial development of service guidelines. The second phase will take place during the winter of 2026 and include a second round of public engagement, the preparation of a draft transit network report and final service guidelines. The network report and service guidelines will then be finalized during Phase 3, in the spring of 2026.

Figure 1-1 Project TimelineAt the centre of the entire process is a commitment to inclusive, transparent and accessible consultation through two rounds of public and stakeholder engagement. This report summarizes the feedback received during the first round of public engagement in Phase 1 of the project which focused on gathering feedback on current service and exploring the potential of introducing on-demand transit to the rural areas of the City. To date, opportunities to engage have included a virtual Public Information Centre (PIC) and an online community survey. These have been used to gain insight, ideas and perspectives that will inform the Review, the development of service guidelines and ultimately improvements to the City’s transit network.Engagement and communications plan

An Engagement and Communications Plan was developed to outline the approach to gathering input from the public and stakeholders over the course of the project. It emphasizes the need to use a variety of methods and set clear expectations for the feedback being sought from the public. The goal of the plan is to identify the needs and lived experienced of those who use, interact with and depend on transit to move around Kingston. The engagement activities outlined in the plan will enable the project team to understand local priorities, uncover gaps and develop an informed vision for the future of transit in the City.

Report purpose

This report documents the findings of engagement activities in Phase 1 and the feedback from the public and stakeholders. Section 2 of this report provides an overview of the engagement and communications activities that have taken place since the project was launched. Section 3 summarizes the input and identifies key themes that emerged through the engagement process including the survey. Section 4 outlines the project’s next steps and future engagement activities.

The findings of this round of engagement will inform the network modifications and service guidelines that will be proposed during the second round of the project.

Engagement and Communication Activities

The first round of engagement and communication activities in Phase 1 were designed to reach a broad and diverse audience. The project team provided multiple avenues for both stakeholders and the public to learn about the Review and provide their input on the current and future state of transit in Kingston.

The first round of engagement included the following activities, which are described in further detail in the subsections below:

• Communications and Project Launch;
• Virtual PIC; and
• Public Online Survey.

Communications Materials and Project Launch

To kick off the Review to the public, a project webpage was created on the City’s “Get Involved” platform in September 2025. The website includes an overview of the project, invites residents to “ask a question” to the project team, posts news and directs those who are interested to subscribe to receive direct updates via email. The project was also advertised through student outreach and using a post-card that was printed and handed out by the City at key locations.

Figure 2-1 Postcar to advertise Transit Service Review

Additionally, members of the project team appeared on the City’s “Tell Me More” podcast to share information about the purpose of the Review. Information about the Review was also posted on the City’s social media accounts and LinkedIn to inform the public about the project and encourage participation in the first round of engagement activities.

Online survey

An online survey was posted on the project’s webpage on October 1, 2025 and remained open until November 2, 2025. The goal of the survey was to gain insights on trip types and frequency of use, and feedback on Kingston Access bus and Kingston Transit service, routes, support for a rural on-demand transit pilot program, and general feedback. The survey received 477 total responses. The main mode of transportation of respondents was either public transit (40.6%) or driving their own personal vehicle (36.5%). Most would describe themselves as being employed (58.1%) or retired (22.6%) and as having used Kingston Transit in the past three months (75.9%). Nearly a third (31.6%) of respondents use Kingston Transit five to seven days per week in a typical week.

A detailed summary of the survey’s findings can be found in Section 3.1 and the survey results can be found in Appendix A.

Virtual Public Information Centre (PIC)

A virtual PIC was held on September 29, 2025, on Zoom. The purpose of the PIC was to share project information, gather feedback about transit service standards like frequency, hours of service, routes and coverage, and to introduce the potential for on-demand service in the rural areas of Kingston. The PIC was attended by roughly 30 members of the public and has been viewed over 65 times since being posted on YouTube. Topics of discussion included ridership volume, route changes, accessibility, the provision of real time information and weather-related transit challenges.

Key themes from the virtual PIC are summarized in Section 3.2.

What We Learned

The public and stakeholder response to the engagement and communication activities revealed several key themes related to current and future service across the City of Kingston’s transit network. These key themes have been explored in further detail below and will be used to inform the network modifications and service guidelines proposed during the second phase of the project.

Survey Overview

As mentioned above, the online survey received responses from 477 people who live across the City of Kingston and in surrounding communities. The key themes from survey respondents have been summarized in Table 1.

A detailed survey results can be found in Appendix A.

Key Feedback Themes

On-Time Performance, Frequency and Reliability

The percentage of time the bus is on time (known as on-time performance), the frequency of service and the overall reliability of transit are interconnected issues that stand out as the most critical and frequently mentioned concerns by the public. Many noted that buses are often cancelled, which impacts the reliability of the entire transit system and the ability of riders to reach their destination on time. There were also multiple requests for improved frequency and a return to pre-COVID service levels, including having buses arrive every 5 to 10-minutes during peak periods. Calls for increased frequency centered around Route 2, and on the express routes serving Queen’s University, St. Lawrence College and Highway 15.

Accessibility and Overcrowding

Though it peaks in September, overcrowding is a significant, year-round problem that has a direct, negative impact on accessibility for individuals with mobility challenges. During peak periods, some routes are often "standing room only," and cannot properly accommodate those with mobility devices. Key feedback points included the potential to use higher capacity buses, the need to define thresholds for extra bus service and increasing the frequency of service when demand is highest. Many participants wanted to ensure that accessible seats are clear for people who need them, even when the bus is crowded.

Transfer Efficiency

The efficiency and design of transfer points were repeatedly identified as a pain point for transit users, particularly at the downtown transfer station. Riders reported that transfers are not efficient, and that recent changes have increased travel times significantly. This increase in wait time makes transit disproportionately longer than driving. The project team acknowledged that achieving reliable, direct "meet up" transfers is difficult as the city's traffic grows.

Bus Stop Placement and Infrastructure

The physical characteristics and locations of bus stops were a frequent concern raised by the public. They provided extensive feedback on this with key suggestions for creating future stop standards, including:

• Spacing: Improving stop spacing where stops are currently too close or too far apart, particularly on express routes.
• Infrastructure: The need for consistent, visible signage at all stops, especially transfer points, the inclusion of shelters and benches and addressing hazards like snowbanks in winter.

Communication and Signage

The need for clear, and timely communication was heavily emphasized by transit riders. They felt that the City should establish a minimum standard for notifying the public and drivers of changes to routes or schedules. Currently, riders are often not notified of route changes or a cancellation, making planning ahead difficult. Requests for better information include:

• Consistent signage with maps at stops and transfer points.
• Real-time information and digital signage at major stops.
• Improved coordination with event organizers so extra buses can be effectively communicated with and planned for at large events.

New Fare Payment Methods

The public highlighted the outdated nature of the current fare system, which contributes to loading delays. A desire exists to implement more modern payment options, specifically the ability to pay using credit/debit cards and the adoption of a system like Presto.

Route Design and Under-Served Areas

The review process gathered specific, targeted feedback on existing route issues and gaps in service.

• Route 2: The decision to change Route 2 and remove its downtown connection was a major point of contention, with riders noting the change made connections more difficult and less accessible.
• Key Destinations: There is demand for better, faster service to major employers and institutions, including Kingson General Hospital and Queen's University.
• New Service: The Westbrook service is currently a pilot program, but the community is requesting expanded, longer-term service. Furthermore, there is moderate public support for introducing on-demand service for currently unserved rural areas.

Next Steps

Public participation and input are valuable parts of the Review, and the input collected to date will help shape the future network changes and service standards that are currently being developed. As the project progresses there will be additional opportunities for in person and online engagement in Phase 2, Winter 2026. The participation of the community and stakeholders is appreciated, and feedback will continue to shape the outcomes of the Review and the future of transit in Kingston.

For more information, please visit https://getinvolved.cityofkingston.ca/kingston-transit-service-standards.

Appendix A

Survey Results

Do you have access to a personal vehicle?

What is your main mode of transportation?

How old are you?

How do you best describe yourself?

Do you have a disability that would make using transit challenging?

Are you a registered user of the Kingston Access Bus?

In a typical week how many days do you use the Kingston Access Bus?

What type of trips do you typically use Kingston Access Bus for? (Select up to three of the most frequent)

Please indicate your key destinations within the urban area and how often you would take Kingston Access Bus if available.

How would you rate the following elements of Kingston Access Bus? (If you are unfamiliar with any part of the service, choose “Unsure”)

When was the Last time you used Kingston transit?

Which Kingston Transit routes do you most frequently ride? For the routes you use, please indicate if you take them daily, weekly, rarely, or never.

What type of trips do you typically use Kingston Transit for? (Select up to three of the most frequent)

In a typical week, how many days do you use Kingston Transit?

How would you rate the following elements of Kingston Transit? (If you are unfamiliar with any part of the service, choose “Unsure”)Please indicate your key destinations within the urban area and how often you would take Kingston Transit if available.

On a scale of 1-10 (1 being poor, 10 being very good) how would you rate the following elements of Kingston Transit?

Rural areas in the City of Kingston do not currently have any transit service. Would you be supportive of the City operating a pilot on-demand (request-based) transit service to connect rural areas with the urban transit system?When asked why they selected “Yes” common answers included the following:

• Reducing car usage and traffic.
• Providing transit service to those in rural areas who do not drive, including seniors and children.
• Reaching rural destinations, like conservation areas.
• Improving environmental sustainability.

When asked why they selected “No” common answers included the following:

• A need to improve or expand existing urban transit services before providing a new service.
• A perception of high costs versus low use.
• A lack of drivers to operate rural routes.

When asked where respondents would use rural service to travel to or from common answers included:

From:

• Gananoque
• Napanee
• Glenburnie
• Odessa
• Bath
• Sydenham
• Harrowsmith
• Battersea
• Kingston Mills
• Verona

To:

• Downtown
• Kingston General Hospital
• Cataraqui Centre
• Little Cataraqui Conservation Area
• Queen’s University
• St. Lawrence College

Please rank how important each of the following is to you, 1 being most important to you and 9 being the least important.

Please provide any feedback you might have that can help in creating a draft plan in the space below:

When asked for feedback about the Transit Service Review, respondents often mentioned:

• Preventing the sudden cancellation of buses.
• Scheduling buses to coincide with the beginning or end of the school day.
• Communicating route changes at transfer points.
• Aligning bus schedules with real time operations to improve reliability.
• Addressing overcrowding on certain bus routes at peak times.
• Increasing the frequency of express buses.
• Reconfiguring inaccessible bus stops and improving stop infrastructure (shelters, benches, weatherproofing).
• Shortening trip times.
• Considering using smaller bus vehicles on routes with lower ridership.
• Reducing the length of transfers where possible.
• Offering a contactless or card-based payment option.