LETTER: Bradford Gets Around ‘Egregious Misuse’ of Government Funds

BradfordToday and InnisfilToday welcome letters to the editor at (email protected) or through the website. Please include your full name, daytime phone number and address (for authorship verification, not for publication). The following is from Bill Foster, chairman of Forbid Roads Over Green Spaces, in response to ‘Significant project’: Bradford Bypass moves one step closer to reality’ published on 9 May.

Yesterday, the province proudly announced that it has awarded a detailed design contract for the western portion of the Bradford Bypass. We find this most surprising as it still addresses serious archaeological and subsurface issues in the adjacent core segment of this proposed highway.

This ad is about 90% propaganda and 10% significant fact. The only facts that were announced were the $16 million cost to design the western 6.5 kilometer portion of this 16km freeway and the name of the contractor, not surprisingly, is the same contractor that worked on this project in 2019. This is an easy section of the highway from an ecological perspective. The middle portion will be significantly more difficult. We have to wonder why they only contracted for the light portion of the highway at this time. What are they not telling us about the rest of this planned highway? Probably its cost is the most important factor. We still have no idea of ​​the cost of construction for any part of this highway. It is also intentionally dishonest for our politicians to try to minimize the impact of this freeway by referring to it as a four-lane freeway, as they did in yesterday’s announcement. We have already been informed that the expressway is planned as an eight-lane structure. This will significantly increase the overall cost, environmental and human impact. If this propaganda is what “end it” means, Ontarians should have no part of it.

The Bradford Bypass is a blatant misuse of limited government funds. This highway received environmental assessment (EA) approval in 2002 on the explicit basis that the Ministry of Transport (MTO) would only address solutions within its mandate to serve long-distance travel. “The appropriate municipal government, not the province, is responsible for intra-municipal transportation.” At that time, MTO’s stated policy was not to mix local with long-distance travel.

The environmental assessment law requires proof of both the need for the highway and justification that the proposed solution is justified. The solution must be the least environmentally intrusive option after all reasonable alternatives have been evaluated.

The 1997 EA study was done for policy reasons to protect a freeway corridor for an anticipated future freeway. A highway of this magnitude was not needed at that time. Therefore, reasonable alternatives other than four-lane, controlled-access highways were not considered in the 1997 Study. To meet the EA Act, the 2002 EA approval included a condition requiring MTO to undertake a study of class EA before the highway was built. This study was initiated in 2019.

A Class EA study specifically requires an update of the need for the highway, the current natural environment, and a new study of all reasonable alternatives. These alternatives must include alternative means of meeting demand, such as the Barrie Go Transit train, as well as two regional, municipal and private roads and all reasonable combinations thereof. In response to our request for these updated studies, the province issued the Exemption Regulation in October 2021. This regulation confirms the 2002 EA approval, but removes the requirement for the Classroom EA Study.

The Ravenshoe Road connection to Simcoe Line 13 and the Queensville Sideroad to Bradford’s 8th Line via Hochreiter Road and Bathurst Street are such reasonable alternatives. York Region and Simcoe County want Bradford bypassed so they don’t have to pay for needed bridges over the Holland River. If the province paid for two regional road-grade bridges over the Holland River, the Bradford Bypass would no longer be needed, freeing up about $3 billion to $3.5 billion.

Absent these reasonable alternative studies, this highway violates the Lake Simcoe Protection Act. Such infrastructure is permitted only if there is no reasonable alternative. Also missing is an Assessment of the long-term impact of this highway on Lake Simcoe. Not only is this required by law, but it has been formally requested by nine local councils to no avail. The lake is currently projected to reach critical sodium (road salt) concentrations within 37 years. This time frame will be dramatically shortened as a result of the salt spill from the eight-lane Bradford Bypass.

So, we are now at the point where we will spend about $4 billion or more to build a 16km, eight-lane, seven-junction expressway to serve local traffic. The government’s current justification for this motorway is: “Construction of the Bradford Bypass is necessary to reduce existing congestion on local east-west local roads and to meet expected long-term travel demand in the area.” Nowhere is there even a mention of long-distance travel.

Why should all Ontarians pay $4 billion to support unsustainable sprawl in Bradford and Queensville? This money can be much better spent on healthcare, education and support systems for old age. Premier Doug Ford says he’s listening to Ontarians, about 70 per cent of whom see the Bradford Bypass as a misuse of government funds. From our perspective, the only Ontarians the province is listening to about the Bradford Bypass are the developers. This has all the makings of another “developer friendly” Greenbelt scandal.

Bill Foster
Seat
Prohibit roads over green spaces