I strongly oppose Bill 212, …

I strongly oppose Bill 212, "Reducing Gridlock, Saving You Time Act," particularly the mandate to remove bike lanes on major Toronto streets like Bloor, Yonge, and University, as well as the overarching framework that discourages municipalities from developing bike-friendly infrastructure. This proposal is not aligned with Ontario’s climate and transportation goals, nor does it prioritize safety, accessibility, or equitable transportation choices.

First, reducing bike lanes undermines safety. Bicycle infrastructure provides cyclists with dedicated space, protecting them from cars and reducing accidents. Removing these bike lanes will force cyclists into closer proximity with vehicles, making streets less safe and potentially increasing collisions and injuries. This is especially concerning on high-traffic streets, where cyclists and pedestrians are already vulnerable. Simply put, I don't want to have to deal with cyclists while I am driving, nor do I want to be in constant danger of being hit by a truck when I'm cycling.

From an accessibility perspective, cycling lanes empower individuals who cannot afford a car, giving them an affordable, convenient way to navigate the city. The proposed bill would limit accessible transportation options for these individuals and discourage environmentally friendly commuting habits. Reducing bike lanes also impacts people who rely on adaptive bikes or e-bikes, further marginalizing individuals with mobility challenges.

Environmental implications of this proposal are equally troubling. Cycling is a zero-emission mode of transport that directly supports Ontario’s climate goals. By discouraging bike infrastructure, the province risks increasing vehicle emissions, exacerbating urban air pollution, and contributing to the climate crisis. Bike lanes are not only essential for reducing carbon emissions but also improve air quality in densely populated areas.

The proposal also neglects equity in urban planning. Toronto, like many cities, is home to diverse socioeconomic groups, including people who rely on active transportation. Bike lanes level the playing field by offering a cost-effective, independent form of mobility for lower-income residents, students, and young families. Removing these lanes privileges drivers at the expense of vulnerable populations, further entrenching social inequities.

Finally, promoting car-centric urban design, especially in a city with congestion issues, is counterproductive. Encouraging active transportation, such as cycling, is a proven way to reduce gridlock by shifting some demand from motor vehicle lanes to bike lanes. Reverting to car-centric streets does not “save time” long-term; it simply redirects congestion while removing healthier, more sustainable transportation choices.

Bill 212 fails to consider the comprehensive, long-term benefits of dedicated bike infrastructure. Instead, it prioritizes short-term car convenience, which comes at the expense of public safety, accessibility, environmental health, and equity. I urge the Ontario government to reconsider this proposal and to promote policies that foster safe, accessible, and sustainable transportation options for all residents.