The proposed bill would be a…

The proposed bill would be a clear overreach of provincial power and constitutes direct meddling in municipal affairs. Bike lanes are an obvious and clear area of municipal jurisdiction and the province should not step in to determine what it views is in the best interest of municipal constituents. The municipality has a much clearer picture of the needs of it's population in this regard and should be trusted to make its own decisions with the agency given to it by the voter base of the city.
Beyond the fact that the proposed bill aims to meddle in municipal affairs, the proposed changes are a net negative on all fronts. Bike lanes are desperately needed in the city as they provide a much more organized and safer experience for riders in the city. This leads to less accidents and harm to cyclists, and encourages more people to cycle, which is good for their health, is cost-effective, and is one of the most efficient ways to commute through the city. The removal of bike lanes will not reduce car gridlock, and in fact bike lanes reduce traffic and congestion in urban areas (https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/bike-lanes-impacts-1.7358319). Moreover, cyclists count as commuters themselves, and bike lanes obviously improve their commute. The recently completed university avenue bike lane is one of very few north-south protected bike lanes in the city and its removal would directly endanger cyclists in the city.The removal of bike lanes in the city will also not stop dedicated cyclists from commuting on major roadways, and they will instead be forced to share the road and 'take the lane' as a matter of safety as they are legally entitled to do. Cyclists are also good for business, and many Toronto BIAs have already spoken out against this bill and the harmful impacts it would have.
I also understand the main purpose of this bill is to free the province from having to conduct environmental impact surveys on the new 413 freeway, and the addition of the bike lane segment is primarily a distraction tactic to draw attention away from this reckless clause. This is egregiously irresponsible from an ecological perspective in a world where climate change and natural habitat destruction are becoming larger and larger problems. It is also incredibly callous and disappointing that the province would use such a damaging tactic that directly endangers the lives of so many just to distract from another harmful action they intend to commit.