Comments, in order from…

Comments, in order from within the proposal:

"Bill 212 - Reducing Gridlock, Saving you Time Act"
Bizarrely framed. Bike lanes do not contribute to or cause gridlock. They are much smaller per person than cars, their lanes take up less space, they have never been gridlocked themselves or caused gridlock in car lanes. They do not block car lanes when a bike breaks down, unlike cars. In fact, when there are bike lanes, it makes it simpler for drivers and cyclists alike to know where the cyclists are expected to be, which will reduce driver confusion and potential accidents, which in turn reduces congestion that leads to gridlock. Overall, this bill does nothing to reduce gridlock or save anyone time.

"provides for the removal of the bike lanes on Bloor St., Yonge St., and University Ave. in the City of Toronto and to return them to a lane of traffic.". It was already proven that these roads with an "extra" lane experienced gridlock regularly, so spending money to return these roads to their previous state is already known to not solve the problem being stated, but will cost the provincial taxpayers a lot of money for this non-solution.

"The legislation would also, if passed, provide the province with the authority to establish a review process on other existing bike lanes (where the removal of a lane of traffic took place)."

This is counter to the provincial government political position of less red tape and less bureaucracy, it is in fact imposing an entirely additional level of bureaucracy by requiring the province to be sole arbiter of how municipalities govern and make decisions regarding bike transportation infrastructure, using as-yet undefined metrics and criteria for evaluation (which, also, will cost money to create). Plus, imposing this act retroactively on existing bike lanes is exactly wasteful.
It is not fiscally responsible for the Ontario government to take on the cost of undoing existing municipal infrastructure, or double the municipal cost for returning roads to the condition prior to the bike lanes being implemented.

"Ontario is looking to fight gridlock and get drivers where they need to go faster."
The government should be trying to get EVERYONE where they need to go faster, including but not limited to drivers, passengers, pedestrians, and cyclists. This is the root problem with this act, is that it is the assumption that DRIVERS are the only consideration. They are not even in the majority, especially if there is effective mass transit, carpooling, and pedestrian and cyclist infrastructure in place.
Also, the goal shouldn't be "faster" without also being at least as safe. The safety of all should also factor in. Realistically, safer should be a higher priority than faster.

If existing bike lanes are to be removed in order for more lanes of traffic (decreasing bike infrastructure and cycling safety), the exact same reasoning should be applied to sidewalks, which are pedestrian lanes. To be consistent, the provincial government should also be pushing for all sidewalks to be removed to give more lanes for traffic, so "drivers get where they need to go faster." at the expense of pedestrian infrastructure and safety, if that is the only factor that matters as this proposal presents.

"The proposed framework would also provide the province with the authority to require municipalities to submit information about existing bike lanes on municipal roads...Based on the outcome of the review, a regulation could be made to require the removal of the bike lane" immediately followed by "proposed to require the province to remove sections of the Bloor Street, Yonge Street, and University Avenue bike lanes in the City of Toronto".

This is internally inconsistent. The act is presuming the sections of Bloor, Yonge, and University already do not meet the requirements that would be set for other existing bike lanes, before that criterion has even been developed, while simultaneously ignoring the fact that these bikes lanes are to be the root of the infrastructure for the entire geographic area, so the potential positive impact of their existence cannot be measured yet.

In conclusion: These bike lanes are essential infrastructure, both to provide diverse transportation options as well as improved safety for all (drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians alike). This act fails to address any of the root concerns, and in fact can only increase taxpayer burden in a failed attempt to decrease single occupant commute times at the expense of the safety and accessibility of non-car commuters.