I’m an engineer and…

I’m an engineer and University of Toronto alumnus. In my life, I’ve had to opportunity to live and travel across the globe and have taken an interest in city planning and infrastructure as a result. Back at home, I have lived in both Mississauga and Toronto. Through my experiences, I’ve seen the successes and shortcomings of urban design. As a result, I am writing to express my opposition of Bill 212.

Firstly, I wanted to discuss the congestion problems we face in the GTA. The design of much of the cities in the GTA is poor. Most people (outside of Toronto) are required to drive a car for basic necessities. A forgotten ingredient for a cookie recipe results in a last minute “run to the store”, ironically requiring a car to drive 10 minutes to the nearest Walmart for a pack of eggs. Congestion in Mississauga is bad and has gotten much worse in the past few years. Major corridors such as Burnhamthorpe, Eglinton, and Dundas are riddled with traffic. Note that none of these streets have bike lanes that take away from normal car lanes (in fact, hardly any of Mississauga does).

On the other hand, one of the biggest benefits of living in Toronto is the alternative modes of transport. It’s what makes it an attractive city to live in. It is also clear that Toronto has less emphasis on single occupancy vehicles than its neighbouring cities, with useable public transit and biking infrastructure.

I don’t believe the solution to congestion is to continue to prioritize single occupancy vehicles in the same way most of the GTA does, as it’s clear in our own province that it does not scale with the inevitable expansion of cities. Away from home, Kuala Lumpur a city that is relatively rich due to oil money. There, it is frequent that a 45 minute drive can take upwards of 2.5 hours. I experienced this first hand on my way to the airport, where I had to get out of the car and run to a nearby train station to catch my flight. Kuala Lumpur has a lacking public transit system because of its historic focus on prioritizing single occupancy vehicles. This is the same issue seen in LA or Manila. These cities have historically put focus on single occupancy vehicles and are now facing even worse congestion issues than we have. All 3 are scrambling to design and install public rail and infrastructure to combat their issues.

It’s also clear that advanced global cities (NY, London, Paris, Hong Kong, Tokyo) have actively worked to prioritize better ways of moving people, with large infrastructure projects that help combat the use of single occupancy vehicles. In this bill, it is clear that there is an attack on public infrastructure in an effort to prioritize single occupancy vehicles. This is a regressive policy that counters what most of the developed (and developing) world is doing. Removing bike lanes turns what could be a global city back in time, and helps lead us down the path towards the major issues we see in Kuala Lumpur, LA, or Manila.

If we want to be a truly global city, we need to continue to enable more efficient forms of transportation. This is even more important with the great expansion of housing we expect over the next few years. This bill does the opposite and is counter-intuitive towards building better more globalized cities. If traffic is bad now, it will only get way worse without proper alternatives. Removing or red taping bike lanes is not the solution.

Secondly, I do believe this is an overreach of provincial power. I do not believe that the province has understanding in these municipal issues. If a small town near Sudbury wants to create a park, why would the whole province, including MPPs from Ottawa, Windsor, and Toronto, have authority over the matter? None of those representatives have any knowledge or understanding of the culture and norms of that municipality. I believe the same goes with bike lanes.

Lastly, I want to discuss helpful alternatives and solutions. The province has proven they are willing to accelerate infrastructure planning (with up to $73M in spending to accelerate the Gardiner repairs). I also appreciate the province having contributed additional funding to the Relief Line to enable additional stops to the Science Centre and Exhibition. I don’t think we should stop there.

I believe GO electrification will be a major driving force in easing congestion, but we’re staring at 5+ years at best. In California, the electrification of their CalTrain has resulted in a major boost of usage, largely because of the increase in speed and the state of their road congestion. Every person on that train is saving tons of space on the roads. If a tiny amount of people, say 1000, decide to take Lakeshore West into Toronto for work because it’s slightly more convenient, that’s 1000 less cars. At 8 metres per car (accounting for spacing), that’s 8km of cars off the road! This logic extends to other transportation projects. The Ontario Line should be completed 2 years before we estimate, and we should be spending money to enable that acceleration.

I propose that we should be prioritizing spending on these kinds of projects, forcing them through to be completed years before their original estimates, the same way we are doing with the Gardiner.

I appreciate you taking the time to read all this and am happy to discuss further if you are so inclined.