The stated objective of this…

The stated objective of this Act is to reduce "gridlock," yet it proposes measures likely to harm public health and safety, limit mobility and access to Ontario communities, damage environmental protections, and exacerbate the climate crisis.

Although the Municipal Act grants municipalities authority over local affairs, this Act requires provincial approval for new bike lanes if they replace a traffic lane. This requirement represents an overreach by the provincial government, undermining local autonomy. It implies a lack of trust in municipalities to manage their own affairs and disregard for local democracy. Bike lanes are built only after an extensive planning process, including research and community engagement, so this intervention appears unnecessary and intrusive.

Additionally, adding car lanes has been proven ineffective for reducing traffic congestion. The principle of Induced Demand demonstrates that increasing road capacity only attracts more cars, worsening traffic over time. If the government were truly focused on easing gridlock, it would prioritize substantial investments in public transit infrastructure and develop extensive cycling networks. Cycling reduces road congestion, as each bike replaces a car, making more room for necessary vehicle use.

Premier Ford’s pledge to remove three bike lanes in Toronto disregards the thousands of people using these lanes daily, effectively taking thousands of cars off the road. Studies, such as the Bloor Bike Lane reports by Toronto city staff, show that bike lanes support local businesses, which are likely to suffer from their removal. Numerous Toronto Business Improvement Areas (BIAs) have already voiced their support for bike lanes, recognizing their value for local commerce.

Cycling is also a healthier choice, promoting better health outcomes and reducing healthcare costs. The presence of bike lanes makes streets safer for all users—cyclists, drivers, and pedestrians alike. This year alone, six cyclists have died on Toronto streets, a tragic reminder of the need for safer cycling infrastructure.

Furthermore, bike lanes expand mobility options for those who cannot afford car ownership, enabling more residents to travel for work, leisure, and commerce, supporting a more inclusive local economy. A car-centric approach, on the other hand, marginalizes people without access to a private vehicle.

Regarding the exemption of Highway 413 lands from environmental assessments, this policy is shortsighted and environmentally damaging. The proposed highway route passes through sensitive land that serves as a carbon sink, habitat for native species, and natural floodplain. Paving over this area would permanently degrade its environmental value. Additionally, without proper environmental assessments, this project poses risks of increased traffic and greenhouse gas emissions. As with the gridlock issue, meaningful solutions lie in robust public transit infrastructure and support for alternative mobility options, like bike lanes.

One must question whether credentialed experts, such as planners, environmentalists, or engineers, were consulted during the drafting of this bill.

In summary, Bill 212 takes a misguided approach to “reducing” gridlock, likely achieving the opposite result. It risks worsening congestion, endangering public safety, harming local economies, causing irreversible environmental damage, and negatively impacting public health. This bill should not proceed.