I am hardly an activist, nor…

I am hardly an activist, nor am I of any particular political bent, nor am I prone to hyperbole, but I feel forced to comment on this proposal.

It is appalling - starting with the cynical name of the bill. There is no evidence that building more highways reduces congestion. Numerous studies have shown that any relief is temporary. Usage will gradually increase to the new capacity. A ten percent increase in highway capacity will lead to a ten percent increase in vehicles on the road.

As this is the ERO comment site, I would suggest that there are only environmental downsides - chewing through the Greenbelt and agricultural land, both for the highway and the land used for urban/suburban sprawl, as well as the increased number of cars on the road and their attendant emissions.

Sadly, there are no upsides. And it goes way beyond environmental concerns. This bill will not achieve its stated purpose. In fact, in the long term it will likely make things worse. The government cannot be unaware of the numerous studies that show real, effective ways of reducing traffic congestion (See attachment) - none of which include building more roads.

In this light, a more appropriate name for the proposed bill might be "Reducing Responsibility - paving the way for our friends the developers to get richer quicker".

Sorry for the cynicism. I would welcome some advice on how to see it any other way.