Commentaire
This whole bill needs to be stopped and amended.
I am strongly against the bill allowing government “to take possession of certain land for the purposes of a priority highway project.” That is completely unacceptable in the current state of wording without proper assessment, compensation, and ability to delay for reasonable grounds. It is unacceptable that it should over-ride any rights of individuals. This is egregious over stepping of the government.
Second; I have worked near university and bloor since 2011, and can tell you first hand about half my colleagues have started taking bikes and whether I drive or take public transit that area has become safer for pedestrians and easier traffic flow SINCE the bike lanes. Where’s your evidence and data? All the facts point to disagreeing with this bill!
Third: I disagree with the highway 413 exemption for environmental impact assessment. It should be held to the same environmental impact standard of everything else. If the review finds the tradeoffs worth it then that will come out. But exempt is unacceptable for government to try and pass off. I fully disagree.
Fourth: disagree with addition tow trucks access. To actual reduce gridlock the evidence is clear: needed alternatives to driving. make extra bike lanes a priority including maintenance for winter on them that a truly connect in a city network (see Netherlands, snowy country AND bike forward mentality) and added public transit routes and mandate tax incentives for companies to have their staff work from remote as much as possible. extra tow trucks cause additional bottlenecks. Again stick to the facts!
Soumis le 3 novembre 2024 8:05 AM
Commentaire sur
Projets de loi 212 – Loi de 2024 sur le désengorgement du réseau routier et le gain de temps – Loi de 2024 sur la construction plus rapide de voies publiques
Numéro du REO
019-9265
Identifiant (ID) du commentaire
111787
Commentaire fait au nom
Statut du commentaire