This legislation appears,…

This legislation appears, from what information has been made publicly available, to be myopic and misguided in the extreme. The only proven method to reduce traffic congestion is to reduce the trip share by single-occupancy vehicles. This means increasing modal share of active transportation, transit, and micro-mobility users. How will this bill achieve an increase in non-vehicle travel mode share? What data or reporting was used in formulating this legislation? Please listen to the experts who are significantly concerned that this bill will worsen traffic congestion in the near term due to construction impacts; in the medium term due to induced demand; and in the long term by making it unsafe for non-vehicle users to use the roads and decreasing long-term adoption of non-vehicle modes. Finally, while I am in favour of reducing red tape in order to accomplish projects quicker, the type of red tape being cut matters. Cutting review and input from experts will likely lead to lengthier construction, more disruptions, changes in the field, cost overruns, and poorly planned and implemented projects that ultimately do more harm than benefit considering opportunity costs of how money could be more appropriately allocated.

In short, please listen to the experts and their comments on this proposed bill. Legislation should be supported with facts and clear evidence of the expected impacts. This bill does the opposite and should be rescinded or significantly amended until greater thought can be put into achieving the intended outcomes. Thank you.