Hi I live in Whitehorse,…

Hi I live in Whitehorse, Yukon, but grew up in Ontario and visit my brother and his family in Toronto often. I do not support the proposed Bill 212 for the following reasons:

- Adds a bunch of red tape for municipalities to navigate. The provincial government should be helping municipalities reach their goals for safe convenient transportation. Bill 212 is heavy handed and takes away power and representation at the local level without a clear reason why (i.e., why is the bike lane on Bloor something that rises to the level of provincial jurisdiction? Usually there needs to be a clear reason for this upgrade, and a bike lane that took about a month to build and is in the heart of a City is not that. i.e., it doesn't connect to a 'provincial level or scale' network like the Highways, Electrical Grid, Railways, etc.).

-Including ripping out the existing Bloor, Young and University lanes as a provision of the bill is a really top down big government thing to do. Why would a decision, to build the lanes, which was done with municipal level approvals now be subject to removal based on new provincial level rules? This is not in the spirit of the fair and appropriate division of power and responsibility amongst the governments.

- Cycling is growing in Toronto and the Bloor bike lane project, which I've used and find super helpful when I'm in Toronto, and that my brother uses frequently. With more connectivity I think a bigger share of trips could be done with bikes in Toronto. Bloor street is busy with bikes all the time when I go visit.

-Car travel on Bloor has never been fast, and never will be. It is a bustling business and residential corridor. People are getting out the subway, cars, off bikes, and walking to a multitude of amazing destinations for food, commerce, services, hotels, bars, and theirs or their friend's residences. This is a good thing, and rationalizing car movement through this area should not be prioritized. Car travel is just too space intensive for the amount of productive economic activity and valuable space that is along that corridor. Better to focus on transit, walking, and yes, cycling infrastructure, as these are more compatible with this type of (awesome, vibrant, productive) urban space, and they take up less valuable space per traveller than cars by a long shot.

- Typically changes to major public infrastructure are contemplated and carried through an iterative and integrated process of feasibility studies, planning, public and rights holder engagement and consultation, and design. This bill just goes right to 'the solution' without any of the steps. Just like any snap decision, I bet there will be some unintended consequences. When it comes to removing safe infrastructure this means more deaths and injuries for vulnerable road users, i.e., cyclists, and making traffic worse in the long run because the added car lanes will induce more driving, while removing the bike lanes will induce less bike trips, and more car trips.

I am concerned that the added car capacity achieved with the lane removal will be filled quickly with more cars looking for a faster route through the busy city, quickly erasing any improvement in car travel in a few short years. In the mean time cyclists will die and be injured in higher numbers, and these areas will be less vibrant and less free to use.

-