I am opposed to everything…

I am opposed to everything about this bill for a number of reasons.

First, it is an outrageous overreach of provincial power. Why is the province wasting its time and resources micro-managing municipalities, especially given the state of its own affairs, such as the crumbling health care system?

Second, the prospect of avoiding environmental assessment to build a new highway in our current state of climate change and environmental catastrophes is grotesquely irresponsible. Did the government fail to notice to dangerous flooding this summer? There is only more to come.

Third, ripping out existing bike lines is a terrible waste of money that is especially insulting when the Ford government has already wasted countless millions undermining other existing systems, like with alcohol sales.

You want to reduce gridlock? Reduce the number of people in cars. That is the only way to do so. There is endless data and evidence locally and internationally demonstrating this. You will not solve gridlock with taking away bike lanes, building a new highway, or wasting years and billions on a tunnel.

The stated vague 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. This move is undemocratic and undermining local citizens' needs and voices.

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 everywhere in the world. If this government were serious about reducing gridlock it would be making significant investments 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 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.

Installation of bike lanes also have the added advantage of making the entire streetscape safer to use for all mobility modes. 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.

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.