I object to this proposal,…

I object to this proposal, and find the government's promotion of it disingenuous and reprehensible. According to the proposal, provincial approval for new and existing bike lanes "will be based on a set of specified criteria, to be set out in guidance and/or regulation," and will "consider environmental implications and be developed in consultation with targeted stakeholders including large municipalities." Yet the premier has already repeatedly stated, prior to the development or consideration of any such criteria, that the principal existing bike lanes being targeted—namely sections of Yonge, University, and Bloor—will be removed, which, far from a measured and informed policy approach, suggests that the main criterion on which the existence of bike lanes in this province will be decided is whether the premier himself likes them or not. It is unfortunate, from my perspective, that he does not, but more to the point it is galling that this is how the question of bike lanes in the city of Toronto is being decided. As an indication of the province's commitment to "consider environmental implications," we might further note that the proposal is to include an exemption from the Environmental Assessment Act, while the commitment to "consult with targeted stakeholders" seems rather belied by the province's almost gleeful pursuit of this proposal over and against opposition from the government of the city of Toronto, which has been elected by the people of Toronto.

The government's repeated appeal to "common sense" with respect to the bike lanes is disrespectful and dismissive of those whose "common sense" might differ, and is reflective of a narrowness of imagination and outlook that cannot see that its own view of the world is not the only one, or of an obstinacy that simply doesn't care. Rather than harping on "common sense," it would be better if the government would recognize and acknowledge that the values and priorities at the root of this proposal are indeed that—values and priorities. The idea that the need for car and truck drivers "to get where they need to go" faster in central Toronto should be prioritized over other considerations, including but not only the safety and well-being of other road users and their own need to get where they need to go, is not self-evident. I for one disagree. The premier likes to speak of Toronto as a "world class" city. Perhaps it would be helpful for him to point to the world model he is following in this case, so that the people of Toronto can have a better understanding of his vision for the city and the "world class" example being emulated, toward a more open and honest debate about what we want this city and province to be. I for one again struggle to think of another major world city that is currently removing bike lanes in favour of promoting increased car use in its core. Learning of such an example might be helpful for understanding how the premier's version of "common sense" is to be reconciled with any plausible notion of "world class."

By the same token, rather than harping on "common sense" it would be better to have a serious consideration of the effectiveness of the proposed measures in realizing their stated objectives. Do bike lanes really contribute significantly to delays for drivers? Perhaps the government could supply some arguments on this score. God knows studies have been done. In my own experience as a frequent driver and cyclist in Toronto, it seems that it is bad driving that is most often a problem for other drivers—drivers blocking intersections on red lights, stopping or standing in curb lanes when it is prohibited, being inattentive and slow to respond to signal lights and traffic movements, etc. Perhaps raising the standards of driving tests would be a more effective measure? Or increasing the enforcement of fines? Or do we ask so little of drivers, both individually and collectively, to have any responsibility and accountability for their own fluid circulation through the city? It might be the current government's "common sense" to blame bike lanes, but it is not at all clear, and the government has done nothing to make it clear, that that is in fact the case.

Of course, such questions and counterpoints, among others, would be obvious to anyone who was attempting to understand a problem in good faith and solve it on the basis of sound reasoning and evidence. I don't think that's what the government is doing here, and I have no thought that stating these points here in this comment will make any difference at all. But, as the proposal has invited comments, I would like this comment to be recorded.