The stated, abstract…

The stated, abstract objective of this Act is to reduce “gridlock,” using means which are proven to be detrimental to public health and safety, mobility and access to Ontario communities for all people, environmental protection, and will aid in worsening the ongoing climate emergency.

Despite having the authority to do so per the Municipal Act, requiring provincial approval for construction of new bike lanes where they “replace a lane of traffic” is a dramatic overreach of government authority in the affairs of municipalities. This is meddlesome and suggests the provincial government doesn’t have faith or trust in municipalities to manage their own affairs, and further suggests that the provincial government isn’t interested in local democracy—bike lanes aren’t constructed without warning; they are built only after an extensive planning process, which includes considerable research and community input.

Furthermore, it is an objective fact that more car lanes will not reduce traffic congestion: the concept of Induced Demand indicates that with more car lanes, there is more traffic. This phenomenon has been observed all over the world. If this government were serious about “reducing gridlock,” it would be making investments to the tune of several billion dollars to prioritize development and construction of extensive transit projects all over the province, and would invest considerable time, money and effort into the construction of more, comprehensive cycling networks. One more bike on the road is one less car; bikes take up far less space on the road than a single occupancy vehicle, thereby making more room for those who are or who must drive.

It is important to mention as well that the three bike lanes Premier Ford has pledged to remove in Toronto also see thousands of users per day—that’s literally thousands of cars that are off the road as a result. Local businesses are more successful in areas with bike lanes (this is easily proven looking at the Bloor Bike Lane reports prepared by City staff in Toronto), and various Toronto BIAs have already come out in support of bike lanes and the detrimental impact their removal would have on local businesses.

Cycling is also the far healthier option: physical activity leads to better health outcomes which leads to less money required for healthcare services.

Installation of bike lanes also have the added advantage of making the entire streetscape safer to use for all mobility modes; cars, bikes, pedestrians, and all others. Their existence can save the lives of cyclists and many others. Six cyclists have died on Toronto streets this year, and that is six too many; innocent lives lost because the victims were trying to get across town. Utterly senseless, with families shattered as a result.

Pertaining to bike lanes, my final comment is that the existence of these lanes gives all people greater access to their municipality. Those without the financial means to own a car, pay for insurance, parking, gas, etc. are more able to traverse their municipality for work, recreation, and to support the local economy. A car-centric community is a community that closes itself off to a considerable portion of its population.

On the topic of exempting 413 lands from environmental assessments, this is yet another short-sighted policy that will result in disastrous outcomes for the environment. The area where the highway is intended to be built is environmentally sensitive land. Once paved over, that land is lost as a carbon sink, a natural habitat for native flora and fauna, and as a floodplain/natural flood control measure—forever. The proposal that this highway should be exempted from any environmental assessment to expedite development suggests the government doesn’t care whatsoever about the environment and, again, is not serious about eliminating gridlock: as mentioned above, the concept of induced demand means that on completion, it will create more gridlock and spew more harmful greenhouses gas emissions into the atmosphere. Here, again, I must emphasize that if the government is serious about reducing gridlock, the only way forward is to invest in and build a massive public transit infrastructure, and augment municipal streets with alternative means of mobility, such as bike lanes.

I question whether any planners, environmentalists, engineers or any other credentialed experts were consulted at all in the creation of this bill.

In summary, Bill 212 is a backwards approach to “reducing” gridlock which will have the complete opposite effect of its stated objective: gridlock will become worse, public safety will be worse, local economies will suffer, the environment will be senselessly, irreparably destroyed, and health outcomes for Ontarians will be worse, which will end up costing us more. This bill should not move forward.