As if a party that's…

As if a party that's supposed to represent "small government" meddling in city planning decisions wasn't bad enough....

Bill 212 fails to understand the difference between a street and a road. A street is an end destination in an urban environment where business takes place and community is built. The goal of building a street is to provide a common-space platform for the facets that make up a community to be located. A good street should have:

- A speed limit of 40km/h or less dictated by more than just speed limit signs. A street should have the appropriate traffic calming features that make traveling over 40km/h feel difficult and uncomfortable.
- A medium to high density of mixed-use buildings; small businesses, residential buildings, religious institutions, schools, libraries, community centers, etc...
- The appropriate traffic modal filters to discourage motor vehicle traffic from using the street (start or end destination) as a road (thoroughfare)
- Bicycle lanes, if required, can be installed directly next to the street or might not be needed if vehicular speeds are slow enough and traffic volumes are low enough.

This is in contrast to a road whose purpose is not to be an end-destination but rather an efficient link between places. A good road design therefore should have:

- Minimal to no entrances to private/public buildings - these should be located on streets instead. A good road should minimize the number of places of potential traffic conflicts.
- "Forgiving design features" such as wider lanes, gentle curves, and clear-zones protected by shoulder rumble strips to make driving at higher speeds safer.
- Signalized intersections with protected turn signals and turning lanes
- Bicycle paths should be separated from the higher speed traffic on the road

Bill 212 unfortunately makes no acknowledgement of the differences between streets and roads and presumes everything to be a "stroad" - a combination of a street and a road which does neither a good job of fulfilling the goals of a street nor of those of a road. Stroads:

- Are intended to carry high volumes of motor vehicle traffic at relatively high (instantaneous) speeds
- And provide a platform for the places that make up a community to be located.

Unfortunately:

- The high speed and high volume traffic on a stroad combined with the large number of entry and exit points makes the stroad dangerous - especially for those outside of a motor vehicle
- As many feel unsafe and uncomfortable walking or cycling along a stroad, large parking lots need to be built for the businesses located along a stroad as arriving there by car is the only viable and comfortable option for a large majority of people. The large parking lots do not provide employment opportunities and only pay a fraction of the property tax that a building located on that land would. The large asphalt surface also leads to draining and flooding problems.
- While the instantaneous speed on a stroad might be fast, due to the constant stop-and-go traffic of waiting at many intersections while driving along a stroad, the average speed can be quite slow thus the stroad does not achieve the design goal of a road - that is an efficient link between start and end destinations.

Now, when looking at Yonge Street, Bloor Street, and University Avenue we can see how over the past few years, what once were stroads, have now been turned into streets. The protected bike lanes on these streets make cycling much safer and thus the volume of bicycles on these streets have increased year after year. Small businesses in Toronto's BIAs located along these streets (such as the Bloor Street Annex) have embraced the bike lanes as it has increased the number of people who are likely to shop at these businesses since bicycles can easily stop and park without requiring a large amount of space. Even those who do not cycle can still appreciate the protected cycle tracks as the narrowing of the street and the slowing down of the motor vehicle traffic makes for a much more pleasant experience when walking or enjoying a cafeTO patio.

Furthermore, Bill 212 does not provide a map of the proposed relocations of the current bike routes if the cycle tracks on Bloor, Yonge, and University were to be removed. Since the city of Toronto is divided by - highways, railroads, large rivers and valleys, routing cyclists along "secondary roads and streets" is not a viable option. For example, I recently made a bike trip from North York to Rouge Beach in Scarborough. The shortest route would be along Sheppard Avenue and down Port Union Road for a total of about 22 km but as I wanted to avoid cycling on dangerous stroads as much as possible, my trip, deviating along secondary streets and roads was 29km - a 31% increase in distance.

The city of Toronto is a large employment center and many people who work in Toronto don't live in Toronto. The Ontario government should focus on:

- Helping the cities and towns surrounding Toronto transform from being commuter towns to being their own cities capable of providing jobs for many of their residents.
- Building efficient rail transportation into Toronto (and not just the downtown) to provide better alternatives to driving. The construction chaos of the 14 year long Eglinton LRT project needs to be sorted out and the Sheppard subway line should be extended from Port Union GO in the east to Pearson Airport in the west thus providing an efficient route for commuters on the Lakeshore East GO Train line to access North Scarborough, North York, and North Etobicoke. A light rail line similar to the one I have proposed was proposed in the 1980s under the Bill Davis government but was cancelled - I can only imagine how much less traffic there would be on Highway 401 if the project had been built.

There is a geometric limit to how many motor vehicles can fit into a city and therefore increasing the radius of the suburbia that surrounds Toronto will only make the problem worse - not better. Even with proper road design, bring more motor vehicles into the city along roads will eventually result in them flowing out into streets and causing more gridlock and wasting more time - something that this bill was supposed to eliminate.

Therefore, to effectively reduce gridlock and save peoples' time we must:

- Make cycling and walking safe and viable options for short to medium distanced trips. This includes keeping our current bike lanes and building new ones that are connected to the current ones thus building a network where complete trips can be made end-to-end without anyone ever being put in danger.
- Fix our current transit system and build new passenger rail lines to provide viable alternatives to driving for longer distance trips.
- Building more mixed-use neighborhoods where residents can live close to where they work, shop, etc... so as to avoid exceeding the capacity of arterial roads as everyone tries to get to the same place.
- Realize that efficient roads and productive streets have conflicting goals.

As all evidence shows that Bill 212 will only endanger people's lives and well being, make traffic worse, hurt small businesses, and waste taxpayers hard-earned money, I stand in complete opposition of Bill 212.

I live in a riding which has an MPP from the Ontario PC party and have voted for the Ontario PC party in the past but due to the damage that this bill will cause, if passed, to people's lives and the city I call home, I can no longer, in good conscience, vote for the Ontario PC party.