VHF report will make Toronto traffic worse: Reti
How can Toronto solve the problem of oversupply by ignoring it?
Dear Councillor Pasternak,
I am writing to you today to urge you to vote against adopting the most recent Vehicle for Hire (VFH) Staff report. It offers no solutions and is replete with recommendations that will only exacerbate the situation.
1. The report fails to address the Directives of Council: “This review will take into consideration any potential impacts on accessibility, the environment, socio-economic issues and traffic congestion. Feedback received from these consultations will be an important component of staff recommendations to Council.” The terms “consumer protection, public safety, fair competition, choice” do not even appear in the report. How can a report be issued that does not even address the Directives that initiated it? What is its purpose if not to answer those Directives?
2. It solves the problem of oversupply by ignoring it. The idea that an 80,000+ limit on vehicles addresses the problems created by oversupply is ludicrous. We originally had 5,400 taxis. Has Toronto’s population grown by over 1400%?
Even the Rideshare Drivers Association was suggesting a cap of 40,000. How can 80,000+ VFH licenses be considered anything but a capitulation to large foreign corporations? How exactly does it help Toronto???
3. Even the 80,000 number isn’t a “cap.” Accessible and EV vehicles are exempt from the cap and are therefore, unlimited. Since all VFH vehicles must be EV by 2030, there is no cap.
4. It is grossly insulting that Executive Director Carlton Grant dismissed the entire VFH industry’s concerns as “speculation and opinion.”
Individuals and associations from across all related industries raised a slew of concerns and offered solutions. In person, online and through the survey, these issues were raised. These are experienced people, who have been doing this for decades. Not listening to them previously is a primary reason we are having these problems now.
What is the purpose of public hearings if you dismiss the issues the public raises?
5. As in all previous Staff Recommendations, even more power is being given to MLS Staff. Many of these recommendations are unnecessary and do not address any of the actual issues that person after person both public and private have said are primary concerns.
Why are we still talking about irrelevant additions to the by-law such as “digital meters” when people can’t MOVE in Toronto, can’t make a living and no longer feel safe?
Many of my colleagues refused to participate in this round of “public consultation” insisting that it had already been pre-decided what MLS wanted to do but had to go through the motions of including “the public.” Can you tell them they were wrong? Because I can’t.
Please oppose adoption of these recommendations and let me know how I can help you. Please feel free to share this letter with your colleagues. I am available to discuss at your convenience.
David Reti
December 5, 2024
