Dear Premier Ford, Minister…

Dear Premier Ford, Minister Sarkaria, and MPPs,

I am writing to express my strong opposition to your proposed Bill 212. I am opposed to this legislation for the following reasons;

Safety: Removing separated cycling lanes from busy roads makes cyclists and all road users unsafe. When cyclists (and other micromobility users such as E-Scooters which I am collectively referring to as “cyclists" and “bikes”) find that the road is too unsafe they will use the sidewalk. This is extremely unsafe for pedestrians and cyclists alike. Pedestrians, particularly seniors, people with disabilities, children, and people walking pets, are not able to move out of the way of cyclists or they step unwittingly into the path of cyclists. In many cases one or the other is forced to step out onto the roadway in order to avoid a collision. These incidents result in serious injuries to both pedestrians and cyclists, and they make people, particularly seniors and the disabled, afraid to walk. Further, separated cycling lanes make the roads safer for cars because they do not come into conflict with cyclists who are trying to navigate roads that are riddled with obstacles, such as sewer grates, debris, parked cars etc. that require that they move into live traffic lanes. If avoiding gridlock, rather than safety is your primary goal, then I would point out that motor vehicle collisions, and collisions with other road users are a major factor in causing said gridlock;

Local Decision-Making: Local communities, including City and Regional Councils, understand the nature and cultures of their communities better than the Province, and are better able to make decisions that are responsive to the wants and needs of all of their residents. They also engage in extensive consultations throughout the planning process to try to address, as best as possible, the needs of a diverse group of their residents. I am quite aware of how the planning process works in the City of Kitchener and Waterloo Region, and that there were, and are, extensive consultations regarding the installation of cycling infrastructure, including separated cycling lanes, in our community. That a few people are unhappy with them is no justification for the Province to intervene. In a democracy such as ours, if the majority of people disagree they have the mechanism of the ballot box to voice their opinion;

Environmental and Climate Change: Not only are cars significant contributors to greenhouse gasses, air and water pollution, and overall environmental degradation, so is the construction, maintenance, repair of roads. Encouraging people to use alternate means of transportation is critical if we are to even begin to address the imminent collapse of the systems that keep us alive. Bicycle lanes encourage provide people to ride bicycles and pedestrians to walk on city city sidewalks by providing safe zones away from cars in which to do so;

Bureaucracy: Your government ran on a platform of reducing “red tape.” Now you wish for the provincial government to interfere in matters of local jurisdiction by putting another level of review and approval requirements on local and planning decisions, thereby increasing costs for taxpayers across this Province, and delaying planning decisions for local governments;

Health: it has been demonstrably proven that people who are active are physically and mentally healthier than those who are not. Providing safe cycling lanes encourages people, including children, to cycle, Given the crisis in our health care system, encouraging people to be active should be a top priority;

Equity: Vast numbers of people are not able to afford a car or have an ability or desire to drive. This proposed legislation further increases the inequity that people who do not drive face in a society that has the motor vehicle as the primary focus of its transportation policy. Providing safe spaces for people to use other means of transportation more safely increases equity;

Costs: Removing separated cycling lanes is going to cost tens to hundreds of millions of dollars and, as noted above, implementing a provincial review process is going to add even further costs for Ontario taxpayers. If reducing gridlock is your true goal, then using that money on better public transit and commuter rail systems (such as your promise to bring two-way, all-day GO train service to Waterloo Region) would have far more impact on reducing gridlock that removing separated cycling lanes;

Data: There is no data that shows that cycling lanes actually increase gridlock, or that removing them will actually solve the problem. The reason why there is gridlock is that there are too many cars on the roads, and if you want to reduce gridlock, the only way to accomplish that is to reduce the number of cars; and

Local business and local communities: good cycling and pedestrian infrastructure helps foster local communities and local business. Commuters trying to get from one place to another are far less likely to stop at a local business than are people living in an area who can walk or cycle to that business. People want to live in safe and healthy communities, and part of that is ensuring that there are thriving local business for people to patronize.

Countries, and world-class cities around the globe are building cycling and pedestrian infrastructure, and people in those cities are taking up cycling and transforming the places they live into wonderful, livable, spaces. One only needs to look at places like the Netherlands, Paris, Copenhagen to see how the decision to move away from a car-centric culture has benefits for everyone. I have spoken with many people in the Netherlands about this, and they all say that it was not an easy, or even popular, proposal when the policy was first implemented, but that it was the best thing that their government ever did. Ripping out cycling infrastructure and restricting its constructions is not only a colossal waste of taxpayers’ hard-earned money, it is also poor planning that will have absolutely no effect the problem that you are trying to solve. Those taxpayer dollars could and should be spent on finding solutions that actually work - to wit: reducing the number of cars on the road.

All of which is respectfully submitted.