Subject: Closing Loopholes…

Subject: Closing Loopholes in Bill 212: Support for Highway Act Amendments

I am writing to bring your attention to potential loopholes in Bill 212 related to modifications to the Highway Traffic Act. While I support the bill's intent to limit bicycle lanes where car lanes are affected, I believe certain provisions could be exploited or misapplied without stricter definitions and processes. Below, I outline the key amendments, concerns, and areas where further clarity is needed to ensure the legislation is effective and fair.

1. Ministry Approval Requirement:
Municipalities must seek Ministry of Transportation approval for bike lane designs that reduce the number of lanes available for motor vehicle traffic.
This adds a potential bottleneck, which could delay or block bike lane projects, especially in larger municipalities with multiple proposals.

2. Traffic Flow Considerations:
The Ministry will assess whether a proposed bike lane would "unduly diminish the orderly movement of motor vehicle traffic."
The term "unduly diminish" is subjective and open to broad interpretation, which could lead to inconsistent decision making.

3. Existing Projects Exempt from New Rules:
Bike lanes already under contract or in progress before the bill’s enactment are exempt from these new requirements, creating inconsistencies across municipalities.
Some projects could bypass approval simply because they were initiated earlier, regardless of their impact on traffic.

4. Regulatory Discretion:
The Minister has the power to exempt municipalities or highways from these new rules through regulation.
For example, if Mississauga were granted an exemption, it could proceed with the Bloor Street bike lanes without needing additional data or ministry approval. This creates opportunities for projects to proceed without meeting the law's intended standards.

5. Information Requirements for Traffic Data:
Municipalities must provide traffic data to support bike lane designs, but the bill does not specify the type, quality, or relevance of the data required.
Municipalities could technically submit any data, including offpeak traffic numbers, minimal reports, or misleading statistics, to meet the requirement. This leaves room for weak or irrelevant data to influence decisions.

Identified Loopholes and Risks

1. Ambiguity in Definitions:

The bill does not clearly define what constitutes a "reduction in marked lanes for motor vehicle traffic." Municipalities could argue that certain bike lane designs do not meet this definition and avoid ministry approval altogether.

2. Broad Exemption Powers:

Section 195.2 (7)(c) allows the Minister to exempt entire municipalities or highways from the bill’s requirements.
If Mississauga or another municipality is granted an exemption, they could implement bike lanes that reduce car lanes without providing traffic data or ministry oversight, leading to unequal treatment between cities.

3. Lack of an Exemption Process:

The bill does not specify how exemptions should be requested, which gives municipalities leeway to bypass formal processes. For example:
No clear application procedures, timelines, or evidence requirements are outlined.
A city like Mississauga could informally request an exemption—for instance, through a letter—without proper public consultation or input.
The Ministry could grant exemptions without public explanation, leading to a lack of transparency and accountability.

To close these loopholes, I recommend the following improvements to the legislation:

1. Define Key Terms: Provide a clear definition for what constitutes a reduction in motor vehicle lanes to avoid misinterpretation.

2. Standardize Data Requirements: Establish specific criteria for the type, quality, and timeframe of traffic data to ensure decisions are based on relevant and accurate information.

3. Formalize the Exemption Process: Introduce clear guidelines for municipalities to request exemptions, including application procedures, timelines, and public consultations to ensure transparency.

4. Limit Discretionary Powers: Require public disclosure and justification for all exemptions granted by the Ministry to ensure fairness and accountability.

I appreciate the intent of Bill 212 to balance motor vehicle and bike lane infrastructure, but these gaps need to be addressed to prevent the legislation from being misused or inconsistently applied. I trust the Ministry will take these concerns into account and amend the bill accordingly.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.