To the MTO: I am writing to…

To the MTO:
I am writing to express my opposition to the provisions in Bill 212, designated the "Reducing Gridlock, Saving You Time Act, 2024". After thoroughly examining the text of the bill, there are significant issues that should be addressed before such a bill should be passed.

- The government is adding additional red tape and bureaucracy that will slow down the ability of municipal governments to implement additional transportation options, forcing them to have everything approved at the provincial level. Removing existing bike lanes does not make financial sense and is a huge waste of taxpayer dollars.

- The argument that bike lanes are underutilized is poor. I only drive because I have no alternative to reach my place of employment. If bike lanes existed that I could use, I would use them, but the ones where I live are incomplete and only supported by car infrastructure. Cars are one of the most inefficient means to move large volumes of people, which could be accomplished much better using cycling, public transportation, train, or subway. The number of cars on our streets continues to grow annually, and our roads cannot support this continued increase in volume without considering other possibilities. Global studies show bike lanes can ease congestion, reduce emissions and are a boon to businesses (see linked article)

- Removing bike lanes will not remove cyclists from the road, as should not even need pointing out. It will just make cycling less safe and ensure that cyclists are in the way of traffic rather than contained to a designated area. How could you possibly think that mixing bicycles and car traffic will reduce gridlock on city streets? There is no data to support this notion.

- Bike lanes support other forms of transit traffic by making it easier to commute to these locations and not having to leave a vehicle sitting in a parking lot where it could be broken into or vandalized.

- Bill 212 overemphasizes expanding road infrastructure, which through induced demand, will likely have no effect on the level of traffic on the road. There is no magic number of lanes that will make traffic flow smoothly, and Ontario's highway system is becoming a laughing stock. The 401 highway, at 18 lanes at its widest point, is considered to be the widest highway in the entire world, and it still has not solved traffic congestion issues. The province needs to consider alternatives that will reduce the number of vehicles on the road, not add to the problem.

- The environmental consequences of the act should not be underestimated. More roads will lead to higher carbon emissions, in direct contradiction to Ontario's climate goals. Air quality issue pose a significant health hazard to the citizens of our city and will further burden our struggling healthcare system. It also encourages urban sprawl along transportation corridors, which reduce green space and put significant pressure on municipal services in new development areas.

- The bill makes no mention of approaches such as congestion pricing, which attempt to decrease demand in high traffic areas during peak hours. It's a similar concept to how pricing is done for energy and utilities. If you want to reduce demand, you need to disincentivize travel during times where it is already too high.

- I do not agree with the provisions of the bill allowing the government to bypass the Environmental Assessment process (Schedule 3: "the schedule enacts the Highway 413 Act, 2024. Section 2 of the Act provides an exemption from the Environmental Assessment Act for enterprises, activities, proposals, plans and programs for or related to Highway 413, including the Highway 413 Project and the Highway 413 early works projects."), nor do I agree with the expanded powers for expropriation without sufficient public consultation. These provisions undermine landowners' rights and due process, with no regard for community impacts. There are countless case studies of instances where highways were rammed through large city areas and the negative effects that followed. Environmental assessments exist to make sure that the citizenry can participate fully in the process, and by unilaterally overruling them, as this government has been so fond of doing via the use of the 'notwithstanding clause', is undemocratic and not something I support.

In conclusion, I believe this bill requires significant revision before being passed, and while I applaud the goals of addressing traffic congestion, the approach being adopted by the bill does not align with the current body of knowledge regarding modern civic engineering principles, and seems to ignore innovative transportation alternatives that are better suited to address modern urban transportation issues.