Commentaire
Bill 212 is a misguided and shortsighted attempt to address traffic congestion in Ontario. Moreover, it reeks of government overreach, partisan maneuvering, and a fundamental disregard for evidence-based policies that prioritize safety, sustainability, and public well-being.
1. Public Safety Is Non-Negotiable
How about we start with Premier Doug Ford’s own words: “You’re nervous when there’s no bike lanes. At least I was. We have to do everything we can to make sure there’s never a death in the city. One death is way too many when it comes to bicycle riders.” (TVO’s Political Blind Date, Season 1, Episode 2).
So why the sudden about-face? Because protected bike lanes save lives—period. Studies from cities like Vancouver and New York City demonstrate that bike lanes reduce cyclist injuries and fatalities while improving safety for all road users (see supporting link of literature review from the University of British Columbia). Removing lanes on major corridors such as Bloor, Yonge, and University is not just reckless; it’s dangerous. What does this bill say to the parents of Alex Amaro, killed riding her bike on Dufferin Street in 2020. Because as they say: “bike lanes could have saved our daughter”.
2. Bike Lanes Do Not Cause Congestion
Contrary to the bill’s premise, eliminating bike lanes will worsen gridlock. Studies from New York, London, and the UK’s Department of Transport show that reallocating space to cycling infrastructure reduces car dependency, improving traffic flow (see supporting links). In fact, adding more car lanes creates induced demand—encouraging more driving and worsening congestion. Removing bike lanes will only force more Ontarians into cars. If Ontario is serious about tackling traffic, it must prioritize infrastructure that moves people efficiently—not cling to failed car-centric solutions.
3. Bike Lanes Are Good For Business.
Bike lanes drive local economies. Businesses along Toronto’s Bloor Street have seen increased customer traffic since bike lanes were introduced, as highlighted by the Economic Impact Study from the Toronto Centre for Active Transportation (see supporting link). Cyclists shop locally, spend more per visit, and return more often—boosting small businesses. Removing these lanes is not just bad policy—it’s bad business.
4. The Costs of Removal Are Astronomical
City staff estimate that removing bike lanes on Bloor, Yonge, and University would cost at least $48 million—excluding the inevitable disruption to businesses, residents, and transit users during construction. This staggering price tag would fund a project that actively undermines safety, mobility, and business. How can such reckless spending be justified? To my fellow Ontarians living outside Toronto, why should your tax dollars bankroll such wasteful spending?
5. Environmental Commitments Are at Stake
Transportation accounts for nearly 24% of Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions. Cities around the world are embracing bike lanes as tools to fight climate change. Amsterdam, a global leader in cycling infrastructure, saves an estimated 27,000 tons of CO₂ annually through bike-friendly policies. Ontario should be following these proven examples—not dismantling the very infrastructure that fosters sustainability and supports a healthier future.
Bill 212 is not a solution—it’s a step backward. It’s a sad attempt to invoke a culture war rather than craft evidence-based policies that genuinely help Ontarians. This bill exposes a government more interested in performative politics than addressing real challenges like overcrowded ERs, a struggling education system, and worsening gridlock across the GTHA. Ontarians deserve leadership with vision and substance, not empty gestures that hurt communities and waste resources.
Finally, why was the public comment period abruptly shortened from 45 days (which is the standard) to 30? Perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised by a government more eager to avoid scrutiny than engage with its constituents. Such disregard for transparency is both telling and shameful.
Liens connexes
Soumis le 19 novembre 2024 1:49 PM
Commentaire sur
Projets de loi 212 – Loi de 2024 sur le désengorgement du réseau routier et le gain de temps - Cadre en matière de pistes cyclables nécessitant le retrait d’une voie de circulation.
Numéro du REO
019-9266
Identifiant (ID) du commentaire
117805
Commentaire fait au nom
Statut du commentaire