Good afternoon, I have…

Good afternoon,

I have submitted a formal letter to the editor of Engineering Dimensions - the magazine for Professional Engineers Ontario - detailing my opposition to Bill 212 on the grounds that it contravenes public safety, and requesting that PEO leadership denounce the Ontario government's proposed amendments as part of Bill 212. The submission, with personal information removed, reads as follows:

"Letter to the editor, Engineering Dimensions Magazine,

Subject: Concerns Regarding Bill 212 – Reducing Gridlock, Saving You Time Act, 2024

Good afternoon,

I am writing in my capacity as a licenced professional engineer to express my concerns regarding the Ontario Government's proposed Bill 212; "Reducing Gridlock, Saving You Time Act, 2024". As specified in the Professional Engineers act, it is my duty as a licensee to report situations that may endanger the safety of the general public, and I strongly believe this bill poses significant risks in that regard.

Primarily, my concerns revolve around the complete lack of safety input specified in the proposed bill. The amendment as written fails to mention the use of metrics related to the safety of vulnerable road users when assessing bike lane installations. The only apparent metrics, aside from the Ministry's unspecified judgment, is the reduction of marked lanes for motor vehicle traffic and whether the proposed bike lane would "unduly diminish the orderly movement of motor vehicle traffic". This is a clear prioritization of the convenience of motor vehicle traffic over the safety of more vulnerable road users, particularly those for whom no alternative protected roadways exist. Road users who are unable or opt not to use motor vehicles must in such instances travel alongside larger, faster, and heavier vehicles at great personal risk to themselves. In many instances where few available roadways exist (such as expressway overpasses, viaducts, and bridges), protected infrastructure is imperative to allow all road users - not just motorists - to safely reach their destination.

In my capacity as a licenced engineer, prioritizing convenience and ease of movement over the physical well-being of the public would not only constitute gross negligence, but arguably professional misconduct as well. I am frankly appalled that Transportation Minister Prabmeet Sarkaria - the highest provincial authority in matters of transportation safety - would support, let alone propose, a bill which will impede road safety, and almost certainly result in increased near-misses, injuries, and deaths on Ontario's roads.

As exemplified by the six cyclists who were killed on Toronto roads in 2024 thus far, it is crucial that we install more protected infrastructure to ensure the health and safety of the general public. Instead, Mr. Sarkaria's bill adds layers of bureaucracy, costs, and baseless requirements to the installation of such infrastructure, directly contravening decades of effort by municipal governments to make roads safer for all users.

Moreover, the provincial government’s public statement committing to the removal of already-installed, paid-for, and well-utilized bike lanes on Yonge St., Bloor St., and University Ave. at the taxpayer's expense is particularly shocking. In this instance, the Premier appears willing to spend public funds in an effort to reduce safety and remove infrastructure which is actively preventing accidents. Increases in injuries or deaths along these corridors following the removal of bike lanes will have been facilitated by the provincial government, and made possible by taxpayer dollars. As a provincial taxpayer, road user, and licenced engineer, I feel it is imperative to voice my opposition to this bill, and to the Premier's proposed actions.

I urge Professional Engineers Ontario to take a strong stance on this matter and engage with government officials to ensure that any legislation enacted does not needlessly undermine the safety of Ontario's road users. To maintain the integrity of our profession, we must advocate for policies that prioritize public safety over speed and convenience."

As exemplified by the above letter, I am more concerned with the safety of road users in Ontario than I am about the speed and convenience of motorists. As an engineer, it is my duty to speak out for public safety, particularly when it is so egregiously contravened. I do not expect the Premier or the Transportation Minister to be held to that same standard, though I am profoundly disappointed in their lack of care for public safety. As elected officials, one would think they would be concerned with the physical safety and well-being of their constituents.

Evidently, they are not.

I am also dissatisfied at the haste with which the Premier and Transport Minister have opted to remove installed lanes. One would think that issues such as underfunded health care, housing affordability, homelessness, child care affordability, and the cost of living would be higher up on their list. But apparently, that is not the case. Instead, the Premier has chosen to kick off the fall legislative assembly by going after vulnerable road users. Not only is this disappointing - it's head-scratchingly asinine, given that the reasons put forward for this bill, and the solutions proposed, hold as much water as a threadbare fishing net.

Using taxpayer dollars to remove already-installed bike lanes is laughable, particularly coming from the so-called party of fiscal responsibility. Not only that, it's undemocratic: it was local councilors who approved those lanes at the request of the voters who elected them. Now, Queen's Park wants to meddle in municipal politics (again) to appease outlying motorists whose only concern for local streets is how fast they can speed through them. These are not the actions of a party concerned with the safety and well-being of their constituents - this is bald-faced electioneering, plain and simple.

Supposing the provincial government does remove the lanes, where do they think cyclists will go? Demand has already been established as exemplified by Bike Share Toronto's estimates of 4.7 million trips taken at the time of writing (September 2024) - a roughly 8.5x increase from 2015's trips. Note that this number does not include trips taken with personally-owned bikes - just those taken via BST.

Removing the bike lanes will simply spit all those trips out onto the car lane. On four-lane streets with car parking on the rightmost lanes (as is the case on many major thoroughfares in Toronto), cyclists will end up taking the left lane for their safety so as to avoid winning the door prize. As per the Highway Traffic Act, motorists must leave 1 meter between their vehicle and the bicycle's left-most extremity in order to pass safely - something most modern vehicles cannot do due to their ever-expanding width. Thus, in attempting to appease suburban voters, Bill 212 and the associated removal of installed bike lanes will inevitably result in further congestion, lowered safety standards for vulnerable road users, and frustrated motorists.

Oh, and the slight inconvenience of dead cyclists' bodies hindering the flow of traffic.

It does not require an engineering degree to see that Bill 212 is flawed, callous, and ineffective in its supposed goal of improving traffic flow. It will do just the opposite; increase congestion by mixing incompatible transport modes, cost tax payers more money, increase road deaths, and introduce unnecessary red-tape to infrastructure planning.

Funny, I recall a certain Premier promising they would cut red tape, and now they are laying it on by the roll.