Key Points Against this Bill…

Key Points Against this Bill:
- Provincial overreach into municipal affairs
- Will not address the root cause of automobile congestion
- Will increase government expenditures and bureaucracy
- Politically expensive for no clear gains or improvements, especially in the long-term

This bill is regressive and deeply flawed. It is unclear how making bike lanes more challenging to build would effectively improve traffic flow, as the bottleneck for many roads is the intersections, rather than the vehicle lanes themselves. The only proven way to combat vehicle congestion is to provide VIABLE alternatives to automobiles, and this bill goes against that notion. Additionally, bicycle lanes are one of the most cost-effective ways to transport individuals, and has been shown to boost local businesses.
If bike lanes were to be removed, it would likely only worsen traffic, as the marginal gains in road capacity would be lost to the gain in drivers, who would be taking up significantly more road space. While the frustrations regarding vehicular traffic are understandable, using bicycle lanes as a scapegoat will not address the root cause of the problem -- the inefficient geometry of cars and vehicle infrastructure. These points aside, there are great political costs to pushing through this legislation. Firstly, it is a flagrant violation of municipalities wishes, as many of them see this as significant provincial overreach. These municipalities are far better suited to make local planning decisions than some provincial bureaucrats. Additionally, to check all proposed bike lanes will require expanding government bloat, which will be unpopular with many voters. Furthermore, this will turn bicycle users, safe street advocates, among other similar politically engaged groups against the PCs. While it is clear that this bill is more of a political manoeuvre than sensible transportation policy, the political gains are unclear at best, and harmful at worst. The government should abandon this bill, and try to foster a more well-rounded and holistic transportation planning approach, rather than being intentionally divisive in a bid to be re-elected.