Dear Government of Ontario,…

Dear Government of Ontario,
I read the information in the above link (https://ero.ontario.ca/notice/019-9266). I am astounded by the shortsighted and biased approach to transportation that this proposed legislation entails. It seems that for every so-called problem that the Act tries to address, it is doing the exact opposite of what needs to happen. For example, municipalities are the experts on what is needed locally, and many have invested a lot of time, money and resources into making cycling (and other light vehicular transportation - scooters, etc.) safer, more accessible and more enjoyable for tens of thousands of people. The province, by giving itself a retroactive veto to many completed infrastructure projects, would be operating with a very heavy-handed, top-down and ill-informed approach. It reeks of politics, not sense. I am a cyclist and, though I don't actually agree with all of the infrastructure put in, I very much appreciate that efforts are being made to reduce rather than accommodate and increase the capacity for motor vehicles. And let us be clear, the four points outlined in the Act:

(The Government of Ontario:
-Recognizes the need to build priority highways faster as our province grows in order to get people and goods out of gridlock and save drivers and businesses time and money.
-Recognizes that accidents and lane closures can worsen traffic congestion and impact the quality of life of Ontarians.
-Is speeding up the delivery of broadband projects that will connect people in all parts of Ontario, including rural areas, with reliable internet access.
-Is building Highway 413, recognizing the importance of this highway to millions of drivers from across Ontario.)

indicate very clearly the governments goals and philosophy, that is, to expand capacity for motor vehicles at a great rate. To this end, I ask - what are the actual problems facing Ontarians (most of the world, really) when it comes to transportation and motor vehicles? Here are a few:

- Motor vehicles create traffic, gridlock, long commutes, lost time, stress and other problems.
- Motor vehicles are responsible for the dangers of transportation.
- Bicycles and pedestrians do not cause the traffic on Ontario's streets, though they do experience it with all its dangers and delays.
- Motor vehicles cause massive amounts of pollution which a) reduces air quality for all Ontarians, including those who do not drive, and b) has devastating effects on the province's ecology. The gravity of these problems cannot be overstated.
- New and expanded highways cause massive damage to the province's ecology through destruction of habitats.

Granted, what to do about Ontario's expanding population and it's desire to be mobile is no simple puzzle and there is no solution that will please everybody. However, what is at the heart of this Act can be summarized as 'More'. More roads, more motor vehicles, more pollution, more habitat destruction, more expectations from citizens that they can drive without consequence and more encouragement from their government to do so, more normalization of the idea that we need 'More'. I challenge the government instead to think about the uncomfortable you ultimately inevitable question of how to do 'Less'. How do we get people out of motor vehicles? How do we encourage working near home to reduce commuting? How do look at our environment and see something that desperately needs to survive rather than something that is expendable at a human whim? Indeed, how do we tackle the environmental (habitat destruction, pollution) and societal (gridlock, lost time, stress, lost money) problems we face when governments contribute to the already-present culture of 'More'? through legislation? 'More' cannot go on indefinitely, no matter what our short-sighted and self-centred human brains tend to trick us into believing. So I challenge the government not to give in to this way of thinking that causes such long-lasting harm, despite the comforts we currently enjoy so greatly. Instead, think about whether we really need more. Think hard about the word 'need' and what it really means. Think about what people living one hundred years from now will think about our decisions to expand despite knowing how harmful it is.