To my mind, Bill 212 is an…

To my mind, Bill 212 is an example of provincial government overreach on municipal issues.

This bill proposes to use constitutional laws which allow for the provincial government to override municipal law for an issue which is fundamentally not a provincial issue. I would much rather this provincial government spend their valuable resources attacking our single use zoning policies which are actively making housing difficult to come by. I am a university student in my twenties, and I have ABSOLUTELY ZERO hope of owning a home in the future. The majority of my peers and I are ready to leave this province, and country, if this issue does not get taken seriously in the very near future. Provincial bills such as this one should be directed to providing more housing options NOT reducing micro mobility options.

I commute using Line 1 Yonge-University-Spadina every day to get to school, sometimes even on weekends as my major is very demanding. Unfortunately, due to the commonly occurring delays I experience on this system, I find myself using Toronto Bike Share to complete my commutes in order to save my limited time. Every single time I use Bikeshare, I try to find dedicated bike lanes to ride on, as I do not feel comfortable riding in mixed traffic. The Bloor and Yonge street bike lanes, which this bill is proposing to remove, are my most used routes by far. Removing these lanes will actively make my commutes much more dangerous, and time consuming. Micro-mobility is an essential tool for myself and many others to move throughout Toronto’s downtown. It is extremely disturbing to me that the provincial government is actively trying to implement more red tape and bureaucracy to this mobility option.

Mobility in the downtown core is extremely poor due to the lack of high quality transportation infrastructure. The TTC streetcar system, though extensive in downtown, is painfully slow as it needlessly operates in mixed traffic. Providing dedicated transit-only corridors, rather than spending money on removing permanent bike infrastructure would be a much better way of spending my tax dollars. I find that by far, the fastest and easiest way of getting around the downtown core is by bike. Once again, I use the Toronto Bike Share system to complete any trips I would like to make while downtown, whether it be seeing friends, getting food, going to a theater, buying groceries, etc. The provincial data on bike modal share in Toronto is flawed, as it does not count essential trips like those. The data specifically counts commuting trips. A large portion of the bike traffic I encounter throughout the day is NOT commuting traffic. The provincial government MUST consider these other needs in their plan. The issue of poor micro-mobility options, in the most densely populated area of the largest city, in one of the wealthiest nations on the planet, is embarrassing, and proved to me that the current governing body is not serious about urban issues.

Bill 212 proves to me that the current provincial government does not value road users, if they are not in a car. Though I believe this is unjustifiable, it is understandable in suburban areas of the province, where driving is the only viable option for getting around. However, forcing more cars onto congested downtown streets, where the modal share for cars is severely outnumbered by all other road users, holds no water. Rather than pouring money into a mobility method which is proven not to work in heavily urbanized areas, I would much rather like to see this money actually improving the safety and accessibility of the current bike network. The reason why biking seems to be so unpopular as opposed to driving in this city, is purely due to the fact that there are a very limited number of safe corridors to bike in. The extent of the bike network compared to the vehicular road network is incredibly uneven. I find it extremely hard to believe that biking would be a small portion of Toronto’s modal share, if there was a complete, dense, and safe network throughout the city. Before that happens, it does not make sense to use the modal share comparison to justify removing essential portions of the infant bike network.

I live in North York, in the inner Toronto suburbs. I often use my car to get to places in this area. It also often happens that I must drive downtown to university, in order to transport items for my studies, or due to a university event, or other reasons where driving is more convenient than taking transit. I understand the need for car use in this city, however I do not understand the prioritization of car users over ALL other road users. When I drive, in North York and downtown, I do not enjoy being mixed with cyclists. I find the situation extremely unsafe, and I am sure the cyclist finds it similarly uncomfortable. I would MUCH RATHER micro-mobility users have their own dedicated lane, so that I do not need to actively worry about their safety while sharing the right of way with them. Micro-mobility users deserve a safe method of using their city streets, in the same way that car users do.

In conclusion, Bill 212 seems to completely miss the point of providing a safe alternative to driving in urban centers. Time, energy, attention and money is being spent on giving the provincial government the power to control decisions which fundamentally belong to the municipality. I would much rather this provincial government spend these resources on provincial issues such as healthcare, and MOST IMPORTANTLY housing. This type of energy should be spent on legalizing 4-plexes throughout the province, and pushing zoning laws to provide more housing options, in order to finally fight the crippling housing crisis we are experiencing. If this government wishes to improve the provincial economy, they will do everything in their power to improve the livability of the province for younger people, who currently do not have any hope of owning their own homes. If the government continues to misallocate resources to city-scale issues, rather than provincial issues, I will be ready to leave the province, and country. A functional economy MUST value the needs of the younger generation, as said generation will support the future and well being of the economy.