It is odd that a government…

It is odd that a government ostensibly committed to reducing bureaucratic overhead is instead adding more in what should be a municipalities' jurisdiction. As someone who uses all forms of transit available, I will take the most expedient and convenient option whenever possible. I enjoy driving and cycling, but driving in the city is a nightmare and removing bike lanes will make that worse due to induced demand. More people will see driving as an option in an already crowded city and the gridlock will be worse than it was before, without the benefit of having a safer alternative in cycling.
People choose to use a bicycle for various reasons that are too often politicized but usually truly boil down to efficiency - in time, convenience, cost or fitness. By removing safe routes and putting up provincial barriers to cities deploying more safe routes, people riding bicycles will instead be in traffic and in much greater danger. When riding a bicycle safety is a top concern for me, and when driving I find it much more calming to have a dedicated, protected bicycle lane to keep people cycling out of danger.
Providing safe, extensive and effective alternatives to driving is absolutely necessary for growing cities as the density precludes widespread car usage. People should have the *freedom* to choose to cycle or take transit and not be forced into a situation where car ownership or driving is still a necessity because transit service is underfunded and not sufficient. This is why we need alternative routes to get around the city such as a connected grid of protected bicycle lanes.