I refer to a proposed…

I refer to a proposed addendum to Bill 212 - Reducing Gridlock, Saving You Time Act, 2024: "Framework for bike lanes that require removal of a traffic lane."

This proposal is ill-considered, environmentally irresponsible, ignorant of health and human safety concerns, invasive on muncipal affairs, and spiteful. It is foolish, atavisitic, expensive, and incredibly irresponsible. It is anathema to sound government policy. Do I make myself clear?

I am a pedestrian, cyclist, transit user, and automobile driver. As a citizen in mid-town Toronto, I use all of these modes of transportation to move around the city. So far as I can tell, the Premier (whose personal mark is all over this legislation) is only one of these: he is well-known to be a driver of an enormous SUV. The specific streets mentioned are bizarrely specific: Bloor Street, Yonge Street, and University Avenue. Is it a coincidence that the Premier's route from his home to his office plausibly includes these routes?

I also travel extensively for my work. This has enabled me to visit cities literally all over the world, on all six continents. In those visits, I have observed how people move around these cities. In the ones that work best (and in the countries that are economically prosperous and socially happy), serious attention has been given to bicycle infrastructure. This is not a coincidence.

For instance, in Copenhagen, Denmark, bicycles outnumber cars by a factor of five. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycling_in_Copenhagen) That's because — thanks to bicycling infrastructure and responsible public transit policy — it's possible for people to get around the city without having to own a car. Modern cities all over the world are emulating this approach. The increasing size and density of cities demands it.

The automobile, on a per-mile basis, is by far the most expensive form of transportation per person, in terms of actual expense for owners and infrastructure costs for municipalities. This does not include the externalities associated with pollution and climate change.

By contrast, the bicycle is environmentally friendly, and promotes exercise and good health — which lowers health care costs. Bicycle infrastructure costs pennies on the dollar relative to that for automobile transportation. Bicycle lanes provide separation between bicycles and drivers of automobiles — including enormous SUVs that might otherwise complain about bicycles "being in the way". This is important. Without that separation, the lives of cyclists are at risk. (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/cyclist-killed-dufferin-mall-ale…)

The proposed legislation would include "an exemption from the Environmental Assessment Act" — which is telling. Such an exemption wouldn't be necessary if the proposed legislation were consistent with the Act.

The proposed legislation would also "the City of Toronto to provide support to facilitate the removal of the bike lanes." "Support", in this case, no doubt means "money". There is a long history of Conservative governments in Ontario "downloading" costs to counties and municipalities. As a resident (and taxpayer; the Premier cares about those) of Toronto, I object to the Premier and the provincial government meddling in this way. If municipalities are to take on costs, should they not be given the autonomy to make decisions about where and how to spend our tax dollars?

If the Province wants to remove bike lanes, the responsibility and the cost of doing so should fall entirely to the Province — but as a taxpayer in Ontario, I pay the excess cost of pulling up bike lanes either way. I thought the Premier cared about taxpayers!

The stated objective of the proposal is "to fight gridlock and get drivers where they need to go faster." First, drivers are not the only people who might wish to get where they need to go faster. Why should the needs of drivers take precedence over other citizens? Second, if the goal to to reduce gridlock, the most powerful way to do that is to reduce the number of cars contending for space. Increase investment in public transit and bicycle infrastructure, such that people choose to leave their cars at home — or to not own a car at all. Don't waste taxpayer dollars ripping up bike lanes.

("Conservative" governments have a long history of this sort of nonsense. In 1995, the Conservative Premier of the day filled in the tunnels that had already been bored for what will now be the Eglinton Crosstown line — only for those tunnels to be rebored at greater expense 20 years later. It's a pity that line was never built; the current Premier would have had rapid transit practically from his front door to Queen's Park — but I digress.)

Referring to the material at page https://ero.ontario.ca/notice/019-9266#proposal-details, we find this passage: "The Ontario government is proposing an addendum to the framework that would require the province to remove sections of the Bloor Street, Yonge Street, and University Avenue bike lanes in the City of Toronto and return them to a lane of traffic for motor vehicles."

Below that, there is a passage headed "The Government of Ontario" which contains four points which are *completely irrelevant* to the addendum. Yonge, Bloor, and University are NOT highways, and do not intersect with Highway 413, which is not in the City of Toronto in any case. Experts can assure any interested parties that bicycle lanes in the city of Toronto will not drop the speed, quality, or reliability of broadband in rural or urban areas.

It is hard for me to maintain a moderate tone in these comments. Suffice it to say that this proposal is not conservative, and not sound; it is destructive and nihilstic. Stop it. Now.