Commentaire
This bill is nonsensical, and my arguments against it are as follows:
1. The provincial government shouldn't be adding red tape and bureaucracy to slow down local governments trying to increase transportation options.
2. I use bike lanes every day and consider them essential transportation infrastructure.
3. The provincial government should be concerned with guaranteeing the safety of ALL road users, particularly those most vulnerable, like cyclists and pedestrians.
4. When I drive, I would much rather cyclists be out of the way in their own bike lane - this bill will put them in the road.
5. In this day of growing inactivity, should the government not be encouraging any form of physical activity for its citizens? Biking is a low cost and accessible option for transportation that frankly, gets people off the couch. Making biking safer and encouraging more to be doing it safely should be supported not discouraged. When much of the world outside of North America is investing in biking infrastructure for all the reasons mentioned above, how can you justify removing bike lanes and in so doing, encouraging inactivity?
6. Finally, bike lanes are a low-cost investment that supports pre-existing transport infrastructure by making it easier to get to train stations and bus stops.
The people of Ontario need more transportation options as opposed to more red tape and bureaucracy.
Soumis le 5 novembre 2024 7:46 AM
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
113092
Commentaire fait au nom
Statut du commentaire