Hon. Prabmeet Sarkaria…

Hon. Prabmeet Sarkaria
Minister of Transportation of Ontario
7700 Hurontario Street, Unit 402
Brampton, ON L6Y 4M3

Good day Minister Sarkaria and representative staff,

This comment is directed at the proposal of Bill 212, the “Reducing Gridlock, Saving You Time Act.” Below, I will address Schedule 4 outlined in the bill relating to the Highway Traffic Act.

PREAMBLE

Having lived most of my life in the City of Toronto and City of Ottawa, I’ve observed the consequences of the rapid population growth since 2021. As someone that commutes by car, TTC, train, bike and walk, I believe there should be great consideration of the rights granted to municipalities to plan their cities. Businesses and residents have to grapple with the consequences of the drastic growth of an already strained social infrastructure. As recent studies have shown, it was concluded that direct actions taken by the federal and provincial government’s policies on temporary foreign workers and international education programs, and other recent schemes to have accelerated strain or “gridlock” the bill claims to want to address.

It was found that the application of policies of strategies in programs to increase immigration of students and temporary foreign workers indiscriminately caused a surge in the population specific to the City of Toronto and surrounding municipalities as these are in-demand locations. Recent provincial and federal mandates have also identified significant deficiencies with housing, population displacement, and public infrastructure to support the rapid population growth. It goes without saying that immigration of asylum seekers and giving opportunities to educate individuals to lift our communities is fundamental to the functioning of Canada and Ontarians of metropolitan populations. Toronto is revered for it’s vibrant culture, with a progressive economic ideology for city planning that caters to the businesses and residents of the city. The municipality is best equipped to balances the intricate needs of it’s residents, businesses, and their employees.

The amended provisions seeks to transfer certain rights from municipalities to the Province regarding matters affecting the pedestrians, cyclists and motor vehicles otherwise reserved to the municipality to plan for it’s residents. These amendments are required for the Province to remove popular bike infrastructure in heavily populated areas of town where the consequences of passing the amendments will a) increase congestion of already congested roads of the City, b) allow the Province to make decisions on matters affecting the diverse needs of the neighbourhoods, and c) continue to endanger cyclists, pedestrians and all in between.

CAUSES OF “GRIDLOCK” IN TORONTO

Population increase, rapid immigration, housing deficiencies, and strained public transportation have led to the reliance of vehicular transportation as commuters are forced out of living where there jobs are, businesses having to transport goods to support the population and is the driving factor of gridlock on motor roads, as claimed by the bill.

Residents of the City are less likely to have ownership of personal-use vehicles and instead elect to use the TTC, cycling, or alternate means to transport themselves to their destinations. Vehicles owned for personal use tend to be by individuals or families that have to leave the City on a regular basis or for jobs that require driving in the City. Motor vehicles are the cause of majority gridlock of all other modes of transportation, with the exception of special events hosted by the City, an understanding I hope the Ministry recognizes as well.

As cars, vans, and trucks don’t typically offer the same occupancy density as walking, cycling or taking public transportation, bike lanes used by couriers, commuters, and for leisure, offers more of the population to get to their destinations. Investing in providing housing to people of a variety of socio-economic backgrounds, paying them adequately to live closer to their place of work will decrease gridlock. Reducing commuters depending on cars to come into the City’s core (Yonge, University, College, and Bloor) will be the only sustainable mode that will alleviate congestion for transportation vehicles and residents.

Therefore, decreasing access of protected lanes, which supporting denser flow of non-vehicular traffic, will lead commuters to rely on taxis and cars more often which will only increase congestion.

OVERREACH OF PROVINCIAL POWERS

Although, information sharing of key highway infrastructure granted by the Municipal Act, 2001, should be expanded to ensure proper disclosure and collection of engineering data to help make informed decisions based on research and science. An argument can be made that the Province is not equipped to require large municipalities to require the approval of the Province for the construction or decommission of bike lanes, as the concerns of local communities are the ones using the infrastructure, and not typically used by visitors or commuters in other parts of the province or have the diverse needs addressed for municipalities, such as Ottawa, Toronto or Thunder Bay.

Supporting the growing population, expanding the Province’s rights to require the approval of the municipality would result in stagnation of key development of boroughs and cities. There would be an significant delay from one government to review the needs of the people at this scale. Powers are already granted to cities to conduct projects affecting it’s businesses and residents based on democratic, localized, and studied communities using the infrastructure. Existing bike lanes already go through careful consideration and local oversight by governments, associations and residents before approving construction.

Approval of this amendment will result in additional bureaucracy, expense, and regulation from a provincial government for such complex degree on a provincial scale. As mentioned, the City of Toronto is unique and requires careful, thoughtful, and detailed consideration localized outside of the Province’s ability to provide at this scale. The Province would be able to focus instead on improving the transportation requirements of trans-urban infrastructure like rehabilitation of the Gardiner and Don Valley parkways, continue making GO trains better adapted to reduce reliance of single-occupied vehicle commuters, and provide funding to municipalities to expand local public transportation with greater efficiency than having the Province conduct construction themselves as with the ongoing costly16 year Eglinton Crosstown Line and the ongoing of the almost 6 year Ontario Line construction.

SAFTEY OF BOTH MOTOR VEHICULAR AND NON-MOTOR VEHICULAR TRAFFIC

The climate crisis is worsening, and cars have a reliance on fossil fuels or precious metals which continue to endanger the future of the population. While the abolition of fossil fuels is not possible with our current infrastructure, removing safe access to commuters, businesses, and residents will not help with the country’s emission goals. We’ve seen the affects of climate change in the City, with floods, wind, and fires accelerating the destruction of our environment, affecting biodiversity, along with the economic cost to residents and businesses.

Motor vehicles when compared with other forms of transportation cause the most injury on highway roads. Mixing various modes of transportation increases this risk. Combining bike lane traffic with pedestrian traffic also leads to an increase risk of injury. Segmenting traffic of motor vehicles from cyclists (delivery, e-bike, accessibility devices) from pedestrians (walking, running or using accessibility devices) is the only way to maximize safety in congested areas of metropolitan municipalities.

The health implications of having the population rely on using single-occupied motor vehicles is also affected. Having the population cycle or walk has profound health benefits and decreases the number of vehicles polluting denser local communities.

The removal of bike lanes or adding bureaucratic barriers to any municipal study supporting for proper segmentation of traffic will only increase injury and deaths. Therefore it is not the place of the Province to overrule these municipal determinations. The amendment of this bill will decrease in the adoption of using the other forms of transportation as motor vehicles will continue to pose an increased risk on the growing population of cyclists, pedestrians, and all commuters in between.

CONCLUSION

Existence of these lanes gives all people greater access to their municipality. Those without the financial means to own a car, pay for insurance, parking, gas, more people are able to traverse their municipality for work, recreation, and to support the local economy. A car-centric community is a community that closes itself off to a considerable portion of its population making the roads less safe, have municipalities lose their autonomy to serve their population, and all while not addressing the problem of gridlock.

Thank you for your time in taking our considerations regarding the amendments to the Highway Traffic Act as outlined in Schedule 4 of the bill. For the reasons outlined in this commentary, I oppose Bill 212.

Regards,

A City of Toronto and City of Ottawa resident.