What's the Issue?

 

While the Premier continues to flip flop, spread disinformation and make nonsensical and false claims about Automated Speed Enforcement (ASE), Sudbury is the latest in the long list of cities reporting very favourable results using ASE, including increased road user safety, a positive revenue stream to advance safer road design, and fewer unsafe drivers.

 

In response to recent news about the Sudbury experience, a CAA report, and a study by the Hospital for Sick Children and the University of Toronto, numerous road and safety experts, an outcry from 22 Ontario mayors and urging from the Ontario Traffic Council to maintain the ASE systems in the wake of threats to ban them, and many others all lauding the benefits of ASE as an important road safety feature, Saultites want to know: When will our city implement promised ASE?

 

Speeding is one of the primary causes of collisions, injuries and death. The city has admitted the roads are poorly designed for road user safety, explicitly noting that better design, long term, is needed.

 

In the meantime, the city established the speed management task force to identify immediate safety actions to protect all road users. One of those actions is to implement ASE, which also helps fund that long term redesign, reducing costs to the taxpayer.

 

Council endorsed “the implementation of Automated Speed Enforcement (ASE) supported by development of an Administrative Monetary Penalty System (AMPS)” in April 2024, almost a year and a half ago now.

 

However, in a bizarre and fiscally reckless decision, council defeated a motion “for the AMPS supporting the ASE at a cost of $0” at the 2025 municipal budget meeting in December 2024.

 

Defeating a motion with zero levy impact to fund the AMPS was not only bizarre and fiscally reckless, it leaves unattended identified safety risks, inequities and many questions.

 

With no rationale to defeat the AMPS motion, we investigated the December 2024 council conversation.

 

What we discovered is deeply disturbing.

 

Our analysis of the December council discussion for the motion for the AMPS shows that there was:

A) almost no discussion about the AMPS,

B) no rationale or argument was given to vote against the AMPS motion,

C) a number of rationales supporting the motion were made (including by dissenting voters!), and

D) myriad benefits of the AMPS had been identified (within the AMPS motion and previous staff report/council discussion) including a zero levy cost that funded three new jobs and additional contracting opportunities contributing to local economic growth.

 

Importantly, not a single disadvantage of the AMPS was presented among many advantages.

 

Our investigation revealed the December council discussion and vote was characterisd by:

1. fiscal recklessness,

2. potential Procedural By-law and Code of Conduct irregularities,

3. neglect to attend to identified safety risks for citizens in a timely manner,

4. failure to consider additional citizen, taxpayer, road user and emergency services costs were the AMPS motion defeated,

5. the extensive use of misinformation and disinformation, and

6. threats to democratic processes.

 

A short summary of some of our preliminary analysis results can be found here. Due to the nature and context of dissenting comments during the AMPS motion, we also include a preliminary analysis of comments from the Mayor and one member of council who contributed the dissenting comments.

 

This work will be updated and revised as new information and analysis results become available.

 

As a result of the December 2024 vote and our analysis, we have the following questions:

1. can the city now explain when and how the ASE system is going to be implemented, including

   1. which option staff ultimately selected to use as the AMPS alternate, if not the POA court system,

   2. how the selected alternate option will raise revenue to ensure a revenue neutral or positive system similar to the AMPS to maintain an equivalency of accountability to the taxpayer, and

   3. what the current status of staff implementation of that option is?

2. Which of the tasks endorsed by council at the April 8, 2024 council meeting have been completed by staff, when were they completed, and at what cost/benefit to taxpayers?

3. What actions have been taken by staff since December 2024 to progress ASE?

4. Will ASE still be operational by 2026, and if not, when?

5. For any members of council who voted against the AMPS motion, why did you not support the AMPS, and why were these points not raised during the council discussion?

 

Fundamentally, citizens expect council accountability and transparency in the form of an explanation why a budget meeting motion for a revenue neutral-positive system (AMPS) – with no opposing argument – to implement the council endorsed ASE system to improve road user safety was defeated without any rationale.

 

The December AMPS council vote and process raises many serious questions around democracy, transparency and accountability.

 

Our analysis suggests the council discussion and vote on December 2024 on the motion to support the AMPS appeared to reopen a previous council decision in a manner reflective of what is happening south of the Canada-US border: authoritarianism constructed on populist rhetoric under the pretense of fiscal austerity and dogma.

 

Our analysis also suggests that the result of the council discussion and vote contributed key messaging to driver perceptions reinforcing speeding as an acceptable social norm, thereby aggravating local speeding by drivers, normalising criminal behaviour, and placing all road users at increased risk. If shown to be accurate, this analysis would be illustrative of political rhetoric deliberately countering science, facts and evidence to drive a populist agenda and amplify extremism, in this case to expand excessive entitlement for drivers through the discretionary application of laws that expand inequities of access and cost/benefits for road users.

 

The longer council delays the ASE system, the higher the costs will rise for our insurance rates, emergency services, municipal taxes, and our collective and individual physical and financial wellbeing. Delays in the ASE will also contribute to longer hospital emergency wait times, more congestion, and the further erosion of our road quality.

 

The delay will directly contribute to more avoidable collisions, injuries and deaths on our city streets.

 

Ultimately, staff and city council agree that improved road design will be essential medium- to long-term. We all agree there. ASE provides an important short-term solution, and valuable revenue for expanding improved road design for future road user safety. We all agree there too.

 

So defeating a motion and impeding staff from moving forward in the most cost-effective and efficient manner as directed by council and supported under legislation that the current provincial government enacted defies accountability and transparency.

 

That's not only bad fiscal policy, and poor municipal budgeting and infrastructure management, it also harms community wellbeing, compromises road user safety and inflames social divisions.

 

This should be concerning to all citizens as populist rhetoric, disinformation and authoritarianism are known to give rise to extremism, anti-democratic sentiments and activities, and social unrest and polarisation; all of which were identified by our analysis.

 

We call on members of council who opposed the motion to publicly explain their rationale and why this was not raised during the council discussion.

 

We also call on council to cease impeding staff so that staff can implement ASE in a timely manner as directed by council to help protect road user safety.

 

We also suggest our analysis and results can support organisations and efforts across the province to improve road user safety.