Your proposal states that…

Your proposal states that you are "looking to fight gridlock and get drivers where they need to go faster" by removing cycle lanes that caused the removal of a traffic lane, and preventing such cycle lanes from being built in the future. I disagree with your stance of privileging drivers, I disagree with your premise that more cycle lanes means less traffic, and I disagree with the removal of cycle lanes from a moral standpoint as it relates to the climate crisis.

Bill 212 privileges drivers without considering the many other ways that Ontarians get around our province. There are many people who are not able to drive, or who choose not to. By only considering the experience of drivers, your Bill leaves out the most vulnerable road users (e.g., children, the elderly, people who cannot afford a car). What considerations have you made for their safety and convenience as they move around?

Your premise that more cycle lanes means more traffic has also been proven to be false time and again. In a CBC article published October 22, 2024 titled, "Do bike lanes really cause more traffic congestion? Here's what the research says," Paris and Copenhagen are cited as cities where research found that despite an increase in cycle lanes, driver travel times decreased. While cycle lanes can be frustrating to drivers, Ontario needs to make policy decisions based on science and research, not based on drivers' gut feelings.

Lastly, I write this comment as someone concerned about the climate crisis. As our government, you have a moral responsibility to do all in your power to support Ontarians in the face of climate change. One easy thing your government can do is encourage people to drive less, as fossil fuels (including those from driving) are a major cause of climate change (see UN website link). Adding cycle lanes in a city encourages more people to cycle to get around. This reduces the use of fossil fuels, and actually reduces the number of people driving, thus reducing car traffic. But even if it didn't, this government has a moral imperative to encourage and support its citizens in using modes of transportation that do not rely on fossil fuels.

I fundamentally disagree with Bill 212. Not only does it privilege drivers, it is based on the faulty premise that more cycle lanes means more traffic (when research shows the opposite is true), and it flies in the face of a society facing a climate crisis. Rather than focussing on drivers' feelings, this government should focus on increasing access to sustainable transportation. This includes a connected, safe cycle lane network, as well as well-funded public transportation within and between cities. With these sustainable options in place, those who are forced to drive would ultimately find less traffic on the road, which is your government's stated goal.