This entire bill is…

This entire bill is malformed. From the very first sentence under "What we are proposing" where it says "fight gridlock and get drivers where they need to go faster" the authors of this bill are missing the entire point of transportation which is that, if anything, we want to get Ontarians (not drivers exclusively or cyclists specifically or equestrians for that matter) where they need to go, and driving just might not be the best way to do that. The bill nonsensically, and repeatedly contrasts bike lanes to "lanes of traffic". Bicycles are traffic. A bike lane is a lane of traffic.

This bill is not compatible with the Ministry of Transportation's vision "to be the safest and most advanced transportation jurisdiction in the world where success enables healthy, prosperous and connected communities" and directly contradicts state ministry priorities such as

* Increasing transit ridership.
* Promoting a multi-modal transportation network, including active transportation, that supports the efficient movement of goods and people.
* Promoting road safety and remaining one of the safest jurisdictions in North America.

and

* Integrating sustainability into the ministry’s decision making, programs, policies and operations.

Removing bicycle lanes will decrease safety, not only for cyclists and not only in the communities where those lanes are removed.

It will of course make cycling more dangerous in those areas. It will also make walking more dangerous and motor vehicle traffic increases, as buffer zones provided by separate bike lanes where traffic moves somewhat slower and the (human powered) vehicles are less massive. Bicycle lanes named in Ontario government press statements (on Bloor and on University avenues in Toronto) also include design features, such as "daylighting" (I believe that's the term) that increase safety by providing improved line of sight at intersections.

The governments publicly stated goal of removing bicycle lanes is to increase motor vehicle traffic, which it will both through induced demand and, perversely, because some people will no longer feel safe riding their bicycles in those areas and will resort to driving instead. With increased motor vehicle traffic there will be increased fatalities. It is virtually inevitable. Perhaps an increase in motor vehicle traffic could be offset by improvements in motor vehicle safety to maintain net, absolute safety levels but the current bill does nothing to address motor vehicle safety. There are no new limits on vehicle speed, or regulations on vehicle design, or road design feature requirements such as "traffic calming" measures--quite the opposite on that last point, this bill is likely to precipitate the removal of safe road design features as I've already described. Increased motor vehicle traffic necessarily also means increased exhaust. We are not yet in the all-electric, zero-local-emissions age! That means more greenhouse gases, more smog, and all the negative health effects that come with poor air quality (up to and including increased rates of death for vulnerable individuals with existing respiratory illnesses). It means more rubber particles from tire wear and more toxins from spills and leaks, which I've heard is already a major problem for some urban waterways (Taylor Creek in East York comes to mind).

The Highway 413 Act, 2024 is the most biased, short-sighted thing I have read in a long while. Exempting one specific highway project from the Environmental Assessment Act is absurd. It shows a government and a ministry unwilling (or unable?) to defend their present legislation on its merits. Ontarians have a right to more transparency, and a right to clear factual information about the impact of proposed actions. Let's have the assessment first and then debate whether this highway should be build.

If the government wants to grant themselves new expropriation powers and exemptions from scrutiny, and to get motor vehicle traffic flowing more freely in a hurry, let them expropriate the 407, which should never have been sold and is already built, rather than incur the cost and environmental damage of constructing a new, major highway through sensitive lands further from population centres.