Re: Bill 212 - Reducing…

Re: Bill 212 - Reducing Gridlock, Saving You Time Act, 2024 - Framework for bike lanes that require removal of a traffic lane; ERO number: 019-9266

To Whom It May Concern,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Bill 212. I feel compelled to speak out against the regressive amendments proposed in Bill 212, as I strongly believe it will negatively affect the health and safety of Ontario and its residents.

I would like to raise the following concerns regarding the amendments to Part XII - Municipal By-Laws and Bicycle Lanes:

Discouragement of Sustainable Transportation: The bill increases the approval process required for municipalities to install or modify bicycle lanes, potentially disincentivizing sustainable transportation options. By adding bureaucratic hurdles, municipalities may deprioritize or delay bike lane projects, reinforcing reliance on car travel. Motor vehicles contribute significantly to greenhouse gas emissions and urban air pollution, therefore alternative, lower-emission transport options like cycling must be prioritized.

Reduced Efficiency for Infrastructure Development: The proposed approval process can create unnecessary delays and additional costs for cities aiming to develop bicycle lanes. Streamlined procedures for bike lane installation would enable municipalities to rapidly respond to urban mobility needs and enhance public safety for cyclists. Requiring Ministry approval and information requests, especially when changes reduce car lanes, would make the process more cumbersome and infeasible for municipalities, ultimately hampering efforts to create safer, more sustainable transportation infrastructure.

Undermining of Climate Goals: The amendments emphasize maintaining the “orderly movement” of motor vehicle traffic, which could bias the Ministry's decision-making against bicycle lane projects. Given that private vehicles contribute to urban congestion and increase infrastructure costs, reallocating road space to bikes could help achieve broader climate and public health goals. However, this amendment would make it more challenging to make that transition, keeping cities locked into car-centric planning rather than promoting efficient and environmentally friendly modes of transport.

In summary, this legislation should be opposed because the amendments will make it more difficult for municipalities to incentivize alternative modes of transportation, increase the time and costs associated with implementing infrastructure to reduce congestion and compromise municipal and provincial climate commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. There is strong evidence to suggest that unfettered support for car-centric infrastructure, colloquially thought of as the “one more lane” mentality, makes traffic congestion worse. I urge the Ministry of Transportation to consider these concerns, as the implementation of Bill 212 will only result in a perceived benefit for the few at the expense of Ontario's most vulnerable road users.