I am writing to express…

I am writing to express serious concern with Bill 60 and its implications for local democracy, transportation planning, public health, and climate objectives.

First: the broader political context
It is difficult not to observe that Premier Doug Ford’s government is increasingly deploying tactics and policy patterns that echo Donald Trump's playbook: centralising power, overriding local decision-making, dismissing independent institutions, and conflating populist rhetoric with governance. For example, commentators have noted that Ford’s government has borrowed from the Trump approach to endangered-species laws and regulatory roll-backs. This kind of top-down, majoritarian approach, combined with contempt for institutional checks, is characteristic of populist-authoritarian governance styles, rather than deliberative democracy.

In this light, Bill 60 can be seen not simply as a technical omnibus measure, but part of a broader shift: enriching provincial executive authority at the expense of municipalities, and treating cities as implementers rather than partners in decision-making. That concentration of power signals a departure from subsidiarity and local accountability that are hallmarks of democratic governance.

Second: the specific concerns with Bill 60
Here are the key issues that worry me (and I hope concern many Ontarians):

Stripping cities of local authority and decision-making
Bill 60 proposes amendments to the Municipal Act, 2001, the Planning Act, the Highway Traffic Act and other statutes which reduce municipal discretion. For example, one section prohibits municipalities from reducing motor-vehicle lanes to install bicycle lanes (or other uses) without permission from the province. This means even when a city, based on evidence and local public consultation, supports a bike-lane retrofit, the municipality’s hands are tied. Local residents, local context, and local experts lose decision-making power. That is a direct assault on local democracy.

Worsening traffic congestion, not reducing it
The government claims the purpose of Bill 60 is to “keep traffic flowing” and reduce gridlock. But the province’s own consultations recognize that prohibiting changes to road-lane configurations for bike lanes is problematic. The Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) explicitly warned: “Municipalities … best positioned to balance traffic flow with active transportation, road safety, and community needs.” Moreover, the high-quality evidence from transportation studies is consistent: bike lanes do not cause gridlock. In fact they often relieve congestion by shifting short trips onto bikes, increasing person-throughput, and enabling congestion-reducing modal shifts. To treat them as the culprit is not evidence-based.

Making roads more dangerous
Protected bike lanes, safe crossings, curb-side space, transit priority lanes; these are all strategies shown to reduce serious injuries and fatalities for people biking, walking, and yes, driving as well. Bill 60’s prohibition (or near-prohibition) on removing vehicle lanes for active-transportation infrastructure threatens those gains. For instance, a commentary on Ottawa’s perspective makes the point that “this bill kills any future bike lane retrofits… the implication is clear: this bill stops that work cold.” Reducing infrastructure for active modes, while mandating fixed vehicle-lane capacity, is likely to degrade road-safety margins for vulnerable users.

Threat to other uses of road space that communities rely on
Communities rely on roads for much more than uninterrupted car-throughput: transit priority lanes, safe school-street zones, curb-side patios, loading zones, bike access, active-transportation corridors, accessible sidewalks, and more. Bill 60’s language is broad: municipalities may not “reduce or permit a reduction” in motor-vehicle lanes for “any other prescribed purpose” (beyond just bike lanes) unless regulated.
The effect: it locks in a car-centric paradigm at the expense of flexible, multi-modal, community-oriented street design. That undermines lively, accessible, resilient neighbourhoods.

Undermining climate goals and public health
Locking municipalities into car-dependent street designs means greater greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions, worse air quality, more sedentary travel, public-health burdens (obesity, inactivity, accident risk). At a moment when Ontario and Canada have declared ambitious climate targets, this legislation sends the opposite signal. It pulls the rug out from under municipal efforts to decarbonise transportation through active-mobility and transit-oriented design.

Third: rule-of-law and institutional respect
Beyond the substance of Bill 60, there is a disturbing pattern of this government’s relationship with independent institutions and the judiciary; another parallel with populist tactics. For example, Premier Ford publicly described the judiciary as a “joke” and referenced “terrible bleeding-heart judges” who over-rule the government. The three Chief Justices of Ontario issued a rare joint statement reminding: “Judicial independence is a cornerstone of our constitutional democracy.”
National Magazine
In another case, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down limits on third-party advertising that the Ford government had introduced, ruling the government’s changes violated fundamental democratic principles.
These are red flags: when a government openly disparages judges, overrides local democracy, centralizes power, and treats institutions as adversaries, it moves toward a governance model that resembles Trump-style populism rather than liberal democracy.

Fourth: personal stake & call to action
I speak as someone who values safe infrastructure and loves democracy's core value that the power is on its people. Whether I bike daily, occasionally, or I just value having safe, convenient transportation options and vibrant communities for my family and neighbours. The debate here is not “anti-car” or “pro-bike”, it is about evidence-based transportation planning and local democracy. For me and for people in my community, safe bike lanes, curb-side access, transit priority, and well-designed streets are part of the future of liveable cities. To impose a one-size vehicle-first rule undermines that.