Well the access to the 407 Transitway station is a good sign and something that is not solely dependent on Oakville Transit/Town of Oakville decisions and intra-city transit usage, which gives me hope. It is something with more backing behind it, which, if situated near an employment area would be an asset for daily commuters (to this I am curious how many people who work in Mississauga use the BRT for their daily commutes).
Google was so kind as to provide me with this
10 year old report on ideas to improve public transit usage in Oakville, looking at options in routes, design, and technology/modality. Beginning on the bottom of page 12 and onto page 13, integration with regional transit, including "The Big Move" 25-year plan by Metrolinx is discussed - and page 15 the GO Transit Inter-Regional Transitway is briefly discussed.
I had a question about the document in a wider context. On the bottom of every page there is a symbol that resembles a chilli pepper with the words "Live it! Vision 2057" (which reminds me of people encouraging someone to find their groove -
C'MON GUYS! GET IN TO IT! 
) I could not find an explanation to this in the document, but found a separate document on the Town of Oakville's website highlighting it as one pillar of the Town's
Vision 2057 master plans and key planning initiatives also concerning environmental and historical preservation, culture, and affordability (the kicker here is that the text reads under this point "to keep our community affordable" - I'm sorry, but when was Oakville affordable at any point in the last 20-30 years? Already I am skeptical. My family had moved to Oakville from Mississauga in 2003 and even then it was considered one of the most expensive suburbs of Toronto).
I just wonder if plans like these, which project 40+ years into the future (keep in mind, the transit report issued as part of Vision 2057 was published in 2013) might to some extend be seen as a response to the "flavour of the month" and may or may not hold much water: it is a way of deferring current concrete political decision-making to a fictitious future town council which will faithfully carry out these plans whilst simultaneously maintaining the "feel" of established low-density neighbourhoods. It resembles responsibility and transformative action for the present whilst maintaining the status quo. In the 10 years since this report has been issued, there have been numerous extremely car-dependent new developments in Oakville, acquiesce to NIMBY demands concerning density (building height, reduction of parking requirements, etc.). Has density in more-established neighbourhoods been encouraged or allowed? I am sure homes with large backyards could support garden suites or someone could theoretically* demolish a McMansion and built a semi-detached or triplex on that property.
(*I struggled here and wanted to write "easily" or "comfortably fit" but then thought of the potential backlash and bureaucratic barriers and figured that this endeavour would be anything but "easy" and "comfortable").
Whilst there have been improvements, there are still many new McMansions (just with smaller plots of land) and what I think of as half-done attempts at
proper urban density consisting of condos and traditional and stacked townhouses, these neighbourhoods are still very much car-dependent because retail and other essential services still take place in big box store developments with large carparks. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that none of the condos growing up along Dundas have any retail component at their bases (only some low-rise buildings along neighbourhood corridors do which, for some reason are mostly hair and nail salons). It isn't ambitious enough to curb auto-dependency. Walking along or crossing Dundas or Trafalgar as a pedestrian is extremely uncomfortable. Here in Germany it is rare to find restaurants, retail and often office space without apartments on top unless you are in city outskirts where you will find the factories, large office complexes, and/or those forms of retail which often require more space (such as a car dealership or a large hardware store). And this is also true for smaller cities with under 100,000 residents also. It is not that Germany is a terribly progressive or ambitious country, we're not. In the way of efficient politics, digitisation, or creative architecture there is still so much to be desired, however there is a pragmatic approach to land use and environmentally-sustainable development. The predominate forms of NIMBYism are usually "that building will block views of the old church" and "we need more park space".
(A number of years ago when I lived in Münster there was a referendum if we should allow shoppes to be opened on Sundays 4-times a year and most people were passionately against this form of "capitalism run amok":
four Sundays a year? What will become of our city?!)
