Thank you for the…

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Transportation Plan for Northern Ontario.

Goal 2 Enabling Economic Opportunity

Point #23 - “Ensure the needs of the tourism industry are addressed in planning for the modernizations of Northern Ontario’s transportation network.”

The primary oversized and overweight (O/O) trucking route, as well as increase in transportation of goods using roadways will discourage tourism potential (by road travel) for northern towns and possibly impact people driving north to visit the Lake Superior National Marine Park Conservation Area, which is an area requiring visitors to travel by car to experience the site, and between Nipigon and Thunder Bay corridor.

Goal 3 Keeping People Safe and providing Reliable Transportation Options

Human trafficking is a serious issue. Pleased it was given attention in this plan yet it is not the only pressing safety issue related to transportation.

According to Sudbury.com, February 21, 2019, the OPP reported 7,674 collisions involving transport trucks in 2018. The total number of collisions for that year was 72,060. Transport trucks then, make up about 10.6% of total collisions. This plan predicts that transport trucks will make up about half of the volume on the northern highway network in 2041. Therefore, this plan is setting up an even worse case scenario for accidents involving transport trucks on Ontario roads. It is good the plan will aim to streamline inspection stations and add a new one, as mechanical failure is a danger. However, the OPP reported that truck drivers were at fault for over half the reported collisions due to improper lane changes and following too closely behind. How will this danger be addressed as truck traffic increases?

The Northern Ontario Transport Plan estimates 8400 truck trips everyday.

According to the Environmental Burden of Cancer Care in Ontario report by CancerCare Ontario and Public Health Ontario, the three carcinogens estimated to be responsible for over 90% of all environmental cancer cases in Ontario are Solar UV radiation, Radon, and Particulate Matter (PM2.5). Interventions include traffic reduction strategies like investing in public transportation and supporting active transportation. These interventions are among the weakest actions mentioned in Ontario's Transportation Plan.

The Transportation Plan says that "each truck travels an average of 350kms a day on northern Ontario roads” and plans to increase this amount. How is this contributing to intervention measures from the government’s own Cancer Care in Ontario Report?

There was clearly support for expansion of active transportation cycling networks. However, if the government was serious, there would be funding and action attached to this part of the plan.

As the Plan suggests, “Ontario’s roads may be among the safest in North America…right now. However, “transport trucks are expected to make up about half of the volume on the northern highway network in 2041.” Safest will no longer be the case. This does not even include Oversized Overweight (O/O) vehicles, road maintenance vehicles or other large service vehicles using Northern roads.

It is the goal of the Plan to enable more, faster, and more efficient transportation of goods which translates to more trucks on the roads. And these trucks are not just in Northern Ontario, they are coming from somewhere and going back to where they came from so this concerns all of Ontario. Our northern roads in the future will be packed and dangerous. It has been suggested in the past and dismissed, that freight trains are the answer.

The Plan observed that “most residents use the highway networks as their primary means of daily travel.” It appears that this Plan puts residents directly in harms way. Improving the road network will meet objectives to move goods. Residents, or tourists will enjoy this new infrastructure but at a cost to their personal safety. Improving the passenger train system would be a viable option to get people safely off the roads and to where they need to be.

An argument exists against train travel because of low ridership in the past. There may be a reason for low use of train and bus services other than reasons such as scheduling. Studies about violence or harassment on public transit have shown that these experiences severely impact ridership over the long term. How might this be addressed?

Goal 4 Preparing for the Future

Point #41 is about helping people to travel safely. Having tech tools to navigate (to call for assistance and plan a trip etc.) are great but when the roads are heavily used by transport trucks and other vehicles, how can these crowed roadways possibly help someone to travel safely?

Goal 5 Maintaining a Sustainable Transportation System

Point 54 says “Protect the long-term operation and economic role of strategic marine and rail facilities and ensure they are not impacted by sensitive land uses through the implementation of the Provincial Policy Statement. This will protect opportunities to increase the movement of goods to major markets by boat and rail and enhance connectivity among transportation modes and improve efficiencies.”

What does this mean? Does it mean expand the marine and rail facilities at the expense of the natural environment? If this is the case, why does this not apply to transforming roads? This point, if understood correctly, is very inconsistent with Goal 5 - Point 56 -“Continue to conserve natural heritage…while balancing transportation needs.”
There are grave concerns that Northern Ontario will lose its wetlands and valuable ecosystem services through road networking just as southern Ontario has. Without a comprehensive and strategic northern Ontario protection plan, of which a transportation plan would play a part, the character of Northern Ontario and its wildlife will be destroyed especially supported by recent changes in Ontario Bills 197 (eliminating need for environmental assessments) and 108 aptly named “pay to slay” referring to Ontario’s spaces and species. I don’t want to lose our natural heritage. This plan does not demonstrate any significant protection of Ontario’s natural spaces and species and subsequently, low resilience to climate change.