I dissent to this bill for…

I dissent to this bill for the following reason:

1. There is no reasoning given for removing the aforementioned bike lanes but requires municipalities to submit reasoning for adding/justifying existing bike lanes? This is a double standard, as there is verifiable dataset confirming that emergency response time and bike userbase has increase 10x in the same timeframe that these bike lanes have been around but no data to suggest that this will reduce congestion? Adding another lane theoretically adds 50% capacity but in actuality adding more lanes has been shown time and time again to not reduce traffic. See UC Davis Research on this: "a 10% increase in volume on the highway will, in the long run, lead to a 10% increase in the volume of driving"

2. Secondly this bill is being passed as a measure to reduce red tape to build highway infrastructure, which is again a double standard as we are adding more red tape for municipalities to reduce congestion in their neighborhood when requesting a bike lane? How much are we really achieving this objective?

3. This provincial government and their leader were elected after promising voters that "Even one bike related death in the city is one too many". So why is the city and the government exerting their political will to remove key north/south bike lanes that happened to coincide with the location of their workplace? Circling back to the elected promise of protecting bikers, how does removal of protected bike lanes help protect cyclists as Doug Ford had promised. Protected bike lanes reduce bike-related intersection injuries by about 75 percent compared to comparable crossings without infrastructure

4. None of the proposed "Reducing Gridlock" seeks to address the concerns of most of the constituents around reducing gridlock on arguably the most congested highway in this continent: the 401? How exactly are the bike lanes affecting the largest source of gridlock?

As a car user myself: Cars are not stuck in traffic, cars are traffic ...