The stated objective of this…

The stated objective of this Act is to reduce gridlock, but the proposed measures are demonstrably harmful to public health and safety, accessibility, mobility, environmental protection, and will exacerbate the ongoing climate crisis. Requiring provincial approval for the construction of new bike lanes that replace vehicle lanes—despite municipalities having this authority under the Municipal Act—is a significant overreach. It undermines local decision-making, disregards municipal autonomy, and signals a lack of trust in local governments to manage their own affairs. This approach also disregards the rigorous planning processes that precede the installation of bike lanes, which involve extensive research and community input.

It is a well-established fact that adding car lanes does not alleviate congestion due to the phenomenon of induced demand, whereby more lanes attract more traffic. Evidence from around the world supports this. If the government were serious about reducing gridlock, it would allocate significant funding to expand public transit systems and develop comprehensive cycling networks across Ontario. Cycling infrastructure reduces congestion by removing cars from the road; bicycles occupy far less space than single-occupancy vehicles, creating more capacity for essential drivers.

The proposed removal of three Toronto bike lanes—used by thousands daily—further highlights the misguided approach. These lanes have reduced car traffic, supported local businesses (as shown in reports like the Bloor Bike Lane studies), and received support from Toronto BIAs. Eliminating them will harm both local businesses and commuters. Cycling also promotes better public health outcomes, reducing healthcare costs, and enhances street safety for all users, including pedestrians and drivers. Each year, cycling infrastructure prevents accidents and saves lives. The six cyclist deaths on Toronto streets this year are a tragic reminder of the risks faced by those navigating car-centric infrastructure.

Bike lanes also improve accessibility for residents without the financial means to own a car, enabling them to travel for work, recreation, and economic participation. A car-dependent community excludes a significant portion of its population.

Exempting Highway 413 lands from environmental assessments is equally short-sighted. The proposed route crosses environmentally sensitive land, which functions as a vital carbon sink, wildlife habitat, and flood control system. Paving over this area would cause irreversible environmental damage while failing to address congestion. Induced demand will lead to more traffic, greenhouse gas emissions, and gridlock. If the government were serious about addressing these issues, it would prioritize sustainable transportation investments instead of highway expansion.

It is unclear whether planners, environmentalists, engineers, or other experts were consulted in drafting this legislation. Bill 212 ultimately contradicts its stated purpose: it will worsen gridlock, endanger public safety, harm local economies, irreversibly damage the environment, and lead to poorer health outcomes for Ontarians. This bill should not proceed.