I am opposed to Bill 212…

Ref: ERO Number 019-9266

I am opposed to Bill 212 inappropriately titled “Reducing Gridlock, Saving You Time Act, 2024 - Framework for bike lanes that require removal of a traffic lane.”

Here are a few selective points from this Ontario driver and cyclist that supports withdrawing this bill.

1 Ontarians are people that include both drivers and cyclists. The government can help both groups get to their destination faster by providing infrastructure for each group. Insufficient arterial bike lanes mean cyclists will ride elsewhere. Residential streets are not options for commuting cyclists (as for motorists). An alternative for some cyclists is to drive cars, resulting in more cars on the road which slows traffic, and increases gridlock.

2 Safety of Ontarians is of prime concern. Bill 212 will lead to more collisions and fatalities.

3 Less arterial bike lanes will lead to some cyclists using their cars, and thus longer motorized vehicular commutes, which leads to worse air, shorter lives for Ontarians and atmospheric warming.

4 Less cyclists and more people in their cars, and for longer, leads to less exercise and a less healthy society. Shorter lives, less productivity, higher health care costs.

5 Cyclists are good for business. They shop on commutes, easy off and on, no car parking challenges - not only do they help employ many in the cycling industry (retail sales and repairs, manufacture, road design ..), they are more likely than motorists to stop and buy more on their commutes.

6 Cycling is way more efficient for use of road space (e.g. numerous cyclists can fit into the typical SUV/car footprint) thus getting more folks to their destination faster.

7 On a per capita basis, way more road space and public funds are allocated for motorised vehicle users than cyclists. That’s the opposite of nurturing the greater public good, and getting all to their destination sooner.

8 There are many better ways to use over $100 million taxpayer dollars - planning, building and then eliminating bike lanes.

9 The well-being of Ontarians should rank higher than politics.

10 Transportation decisions should be based on evidence. Many of the actions envisaged by Bill 212 are not supported by evidence. Further, Bill 212 proposes eliminating backbone Toronto arterial bike lanes on University Avenue, Bloor and Yonge Streets without any further data.

11 To reduce gridlock, try reducing time to build the Eglinton Crosstown, funding more and better public transit and generally get folks out of cars and onto public transit, or cycling - which needs more cycling infrastructure, not less. E.g. see what is happening in the rest of the world

12 Municipal affairs such as bike lanes are best handled by local i.e. read municipal government. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/toronto/article-doug-ford-needs-…

13 https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/toronto/article-doug-fords-plan-…

Please correct course by withdrawing Bill 212.

Thank you.