Commentaire
This is terrible legislation on multiple levels.
Firstly, I would like to begin by pointing out the absurdness of using provincial power to micro manage municipalities. The premier has been steadfast in his unwillingness to require increased municipal development, so it begs the question why bike lanes are receiving different treatment.
Second, ripping out existing bike lanes is a waste of money.
You want to reduce gridlock? Reduce the number of people in cars. That's it. That is literally the only way. There is endless data demonstrating this. You will not solve gridlock with new lanes, or by wasting billions of dollars on a tunnel. You need to
a) Divert people away from high density areas. People should not be driving THROUGH Toronto unless their destination is in Toronto
b) Providing effective alternative transport methods such as robust public transit and avenues for active transport (LIKE BIKE LANES), so people can do things other then drive.
c) Change zoning laws to allow for more mixed use neighbourhoods so more people can live close to where they work so they don't have to commute, or at the very least, live close to shops and services so they can access the majority of what they need either without a car, or with a very short drive.
Blatantly ignoring evidence based solutions because the Premier has decided he has a beef with bike lanes for some reason will make gridlock worse, not better, and your time and tax payer money would be better spent addressing issues like Healthcare and Education, that are actually the province's responsibility, instead of micromanaging municipal affairs. If the Premier wants to be mayor of Toronto so badly, he should resign and run in the next election, and leave being Premier to someone who knows what they are doing.
Soumis le 2 novembre 2024 12:37 PM
Commentaire sur
Projets de loi 212 – Loi de 2024 sur le désengorgement du réseau routier et le gain de temps – Loi de 2024 sur la construction plus rapide de voies publiques
Numéro du REO
019-9265
Identifiant (ID) du commentaire
110966
Commentaire fait au nom
Statut du commentaire