Bill ties transit to bike share and housing

Summary#

Bill 70, the Supporting Mobility, Affordability and Reliable Transportation in Ontario Act, 2025, would amend the Metrolinx Act, 2006 and the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act. Its stated goal is to support mobility, affordability and reliable transportation.

  • Metrolinx would have a new object: promoting and facilitating the integration of routes, fares and schedules of municipal bike share systems with the regional transit system.
  • If Metrolinx or a subsidiary sells or otherwise disposes of assets to build homes, it must ensure at least 20 per cent of the units are affordable residential units, as defined in the Development Charges Act, 1997.
  • The Minister of Transportation would have to ensure that all of Highways 11, 17 and 69—including two-lane portions—meet specific snow, ice and pothole standards.
  • The Minister would have to develop and publish a plan to change those highways to a defined “2+1” configuration: three lanes, with a centre passing lane that changes direction about every two to five kilometres.
  • The plan must be developed in consultation with affected local communities, set construction timelines, and be followed by annual public reports on progress, costs, timelines and procurements.

What it means for you#

  • People using transit or bike share: Metrolinx would have to promote and facilitate integration of bike share routes, fares and schedules with regional transit. The bill does not require a particular combined fare or schedule.
  • People buying or renting homes on affected Metrolinx land: If Metrolinx or a subsidiary disposes of land for residential construction, at least 20 per cent of the units must meet the referenced definition of affordable residential units. The bill does not set a separate affordability level.
  • Drivers on Highways 11, 17 and 69: The Minister would have to ensure snow is cleared from the entire pavement within four hours after snowfall ends. Ice must be cleared within three hours after the Minister becomes aware of it. Potholes larger than 600 square centimetres and deeper than eight centimetres must be repaired within four days after the Minister becomes aware of them.
  • Communities affected by the highway changes: The Minister must consult them while developing the plan. The bill does not set out how that consultation must work.
  • Taxpayers: The bill does not create a new agency or directly change taxes or fees. It does require government work on highway maintenance, planning and reporting.

Money#

No cost information is in the available material.

  • The bill requires the Minister to develop and publish a plan and annual reports, and to ensure the specified highway maintenance standards are met. It gives no estimate for staffing or other costs.
  • The plan must set construction timelines, but the bill provides no construction cost estimate or appropriation (specific public funding approved by law).

What is unclear#

  • The parent Acts were not supplied, so it is not possible to verify the current rules for Metrolinx asset sales, affordable units, bike share integration or highway maintenance.
  • The bill refers to the definition of “affordable residential units” in the Development Charges Act, 1997, but that Act was not supplied. The definition and how it would apply to these units could not be checked.
  • The bill does not specify how highway conditions must be monitored, how the Minister’s awareness of ice or potholes is recorded, or what happens if a standard is missed.
  • It does not explain how affected communities must be consulted or how their input must be considered.
  • The bill requires the plan to set construction timelines, but does not separately state what happens if construction does not start or finish on those timelines.

Case for#

  • A possible argument for the bill is that clear snow, ice and pothole deadlines could make highway maintenance expectations more specific and publicly understandable.
  • Requiring a published plan and annual reports could give the public information about construction progress, delays, costs and procurements.
  • Integrating bike share routes, fares and schedules with regional transit could make it easier to connect those services. This is an aim of the bill, not a guaranteed result.
  • Requiring affordable units when Metrolinx or a subsidiary disposes of assets for residential construction could tie some housing affordability to those land deals.

Case against#

  • The bill sets firm maintenance deadlines but does not specify how compliance will be checked or what remedy applies when a deadline is missed.
  • It sets a demanding construction schedule in the required plan but provides no cost estimate or funding. The bill does not explain how the schedule would be adjusted if costs or other barriers arise.
  • The affordability requirement depends on a definition in another Act. Without that definition, the available material does not show what would count as an affordable unit or how affordability would be maintained.
  • The bill requires consultation but leaves its process and effect unclear; it does not say whether communities can change or delay the plan.

Votes

Second Reading of Bill 70

For (38%)
Against (62%)