To the ministers concerned,…

To the ministers concerned, and the Premier, I respectfully say that this legislation should be scrapped in its entirety, for three reasons.

The first is that none of what is proposed here will reduce gridlock, and it will cost a fortune to do a lot of nothing. Removing bike lanes will either force cyclists to share lanes with cars, or make them go back to driving, both of which slow down traffic. Building highways does not reduce congestion (and never has--induced demand has made the 401 and other provincial highways congested nearly since their inception), and the proposed Bradford bypass and highway 413 will not save anyone appreciable amounts of time. Similarly, increasing the speed limit on a highway that is already jammed with gridlock is an idea that is utterly and obviously without merit. It should not even require explanation.

Specifically regarding the bike lane proposal in Bill 212, Look at the open letters from the Ontario Professional Planners, The Ontario Traffic Council and the 120 physicians at the University of Toronto (all attached) who have already expressed their opinion on this matter. Do the Ministers and the Premier value data-backed decision making? Do they think that they should listen to experts? Their own reports on this suggest that the removal of bike lanes will not help gridlock. Why would they ignore the information that they solicited on this matter?

The second reason this legislation needs to be entirely scrapped is the serious risk to public safety posed by the removal of bike lanes. Segregated bike lanes have numerous benefits (ask the credit card transaction records for Bloor merchants, who saw increased business after the lanes were installed), but the one that should be considered most seriously is the fact that they prevent the injury and death of cyclists. That the premier wishes to endanger people who are cycling to work, cycling to do groceries, or cycling to bring their children to school, simply so that he can (incorrectly) claim to be helping cars move faster is a disgrace to the notion of public service. The offices of Ministers and Premier are meant to serve the public, to make the best decisions for the citizens of Ontario, and this is in direct conflict with that principle.

To be brief: the Premier and the Ministers believe that more injured or dead cyclists are worth it, if it allows them to incorrectly claim that cars can move around faster.

Thirdly and finally, this bill constitutes a completely inappropriate use of provincial powers that is not in the public interest. Municipalities are the best governments to decide how to organize their own streets and traffic flows, and if and how they install bike lanes. The intrusion of the provincial government into this policy area, while legal, is a very clear overreach and results in more red tape for cities that need less of it--by the government's own admission. This is legislative complication where none is needed. This policy proposal is just one in a series of bills that the premier has enacted seemingly in an effort to spite the city of Toronto by overriding its ability to handle its own affairs. One could be forgiven for thinking that Ford is not from Toronto, as he seems to completely misunderstand or directly contradict nearly everything about the city's political preferences and its governance.

Outside the city, exempting highways from environmental assessments is both highly suspect in relation to the Premier's relationships with developers who stand to benefit (I hope the integrity commissioner and auditor general have something to say about this) and a cynical ploy to accelerate an expensive and unnecessary series of pet projects that will help nobody, and harm many. The fact that this is included in the bill seems a quite transparent play to force some type of political horse trading with municipalities--you can keep your bike lanes if you let us pass this other, far more sinister plank of legislation.

As an Ontarian, I am frankly disgusted by this legislation and implore the government in the strongest possible terms to scrap it in its entirety.

The time of the legislature would be far better put to use in suggesting things that will help gridlock, like: better housing and zoning policy to encourage complete communities; vastly improved public and interurban transit infrastructure (including more consistent operating funding for local transit agencies); and enabling cities to make the best decisions at a local level to suit their different needs.