I am strongly opposed to and…

I am strongly opposed to and extremely distressed by Bill 212. This bill is contrary to the best interests of Ontarians – cyclists, pedestrians, and drivers alike. The bill's proposal to remove bike lanes as a strategy to alleviate traffic congestion is fundamentally misguided and lacks substantial evidence to support its effectiveness. Rather than easing congestion, this policy is likely to lead to adverse outcomes, compromising both public safety and sustainable urban development.

As a cyclist and driver living in Toronto, I rely on bike lanes to commute safely and efficiently. By choosing to cycle, I’m helping reduce congestion and pollution, making the city more livable for everyone. Removing bike lanes would force cyclists like myself onto busy streets, increasing the risk of accidents and deaths, and/or push us to using cars, which would only add to traffic and emissions. I have been a cyclist in Toronto for over 10 years, before the existence of all of these bike lanes on Yonge/University/Bloor that the government is seeking to remove. I have seen firsthand how much these bike lanes have improved safety, quality of life, and accessibility to local businesses. I have seen more and more cyclists taking advantage of a greener and healthier way to commute/get where they need to go. I have been able to get around without fearing for my life on a daily basis. So much work and money has gone into the construction of these bike lanes. We need MORE bike lanes on major streets, more cycling infrastructure, not less.

Removing bike lanes endangers cyclists and other vulnerable road users. The absence of dedicated lanes for cyclists has been shown to increase accidents, injuries, and fatalities. These preventable incidents result in higher healthcare costs, emergency response expenses, and legal fees—all of which ultimately burden taxpayers. Protecting bike lanes is not only a matter of safety but also an economically sound choice that reduces long-term public health expenditures.

I now have a commute in Leaside where there are very few bike lanes and though I bike some days, I find it to be extraordinarily unsafe. As a result, I choose to drive some days, even though it only saves me a few minutes compared to my bike commute. I would desperately like to advocate for a bike lane on this route. I and many other people I know would absolutely choose to bike instead of drive, if it was safer to do so – and doing so would take so many cars off the road and improve congestion. If Bill 212 were passed, there would be no way we would get a bike lane on this route because it would necessarily require the reduction of a lane of traffic. While reducing a lane might have a negative impact on traffic in the short term, cycling infrastructure is premised on the idea that “if we build it, they will come”. When cycling is more appealing than driving, people will choose to bike. When transit is more reliable, people will choose to take transit. A blanket ban on bike lanes where it requires removing a car lane is not evidence-based and takes away the ability for the city to properly study what would make sense for all road users when it comes to infrastructure/city planning. The province should not be interfering in this.

Studies also show that more lanes for cars will not reduce congestion in the long run. Within weeks or months, we will be back to the same level of gridlock and congestion because more lanes are not the solution. We need alternatives so that people who need to drive don’t deal with excessive congestion and the people who don’t have to drive choose an alternative.

Toronto’s own history with similar measures demonstrates why this proposal is likely to fail. In 2011, bike lanes were removed from Jarvis Street with the aim of improving traffic flow; however, the city’s own data subsequently revealed increased travel times and slower traffic—precisely the opposite of what was intended. This precedent underscores the ineffectiveness of eliminating bike lanes as a means of reducing gridlock. Instead, it risks pushing more people toward car dependency, exacerbating congestion and increasing the strain on road infrastructure.

Furthermore, overriding municipal decision-making on an issue that directly affects residents of specific municipalities is extremely inefficient, destroys the benefits of our system of local government, and does a disservice to voters. Toronto bike lanes came about after hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars were spent studying the impacts of bike lanes on urban traffic flow and safety, and they were built because these studies indicated that bike lanes improve traffic flow, public safety, and money spent at local businesses along bike lane routes. It would be extremely counterproductive to override the positive impact that bike lanes are having by spending *even more* taxpayer dollars to rip them out. A responsible Ontario government would encourage cycling as a healthy and green means of transportation. It would work to reduce gridlock and support local businesses, as many municipalities around the world have already done, by encouraging the use of public transit and pedestrian/cycle traffic in intensified density urban cores, the economic drivers of our province.

Sustainable urban planning should prioritize multimodal transportation solutions, encouraging walking, cycling, and public transit over car dependency. Bill 212 moves us further from these goals by diminishing the infrastructure for safe, sustainable travel options. As global cities increasingly adopt green policies and expand biking infrastructure, Ontario risks lagging behind, both in terms of environmental responsibility and in creating a livable, accessible city for all residents.

We need the government to invest money in better transit and cycling infrastructure to support a healthier, greener, and less congested city, rather than rip up existing infrastructure. Rather than dismantling urban infrastructure, the province should direct resources toward initiatives that offer broad, lasting benefits. By investing in healthcare, education, and efficient public transit systems, Ontario can address core issues affecting residents’ quality of life while also easing congestion more effectively. Such measures would serve the long-term interests of Ontarians far better than temporary, reactionary fixes aimed solely at accommodating suburban commuters and drivers.

With respect to the building of highway 413, it appears the government is trying to ram this through while ignoring years of environmental studies at taxpayer expense that both indicated that its route will irreparably damage vulnerable habitats for our native species as well as encourage more people to use cars for transportation. Again, rather than build more highways that will inevitably get filled with car traffic, the government needs to invest in improving public transit (including GO Train service) in the wider GTA.

As another example, I use my car to travel in or near the GTA almost every weekend. While it is an electric car that does not contribute emissions, it is a terrible use of time and unpleasant to sit in so much traffic. Every weekend I wish that trains or buses were a reliable alternative. I have family that live close to a GO Train station. I was very excited when they moved there because I thought I would be able to visit them without needing to drive. I then discovered that the train service only runs for commuters in the direction of traditional commuting (south in the morning, north in the evening). There are so many GO train corridors that could be well used on weekends if weekend service was made possible. Cyclists who would take the train to the Caledon area to ride without having to drive there. People who would visit their family members in Peel or York Region. Or people who live in those regions who want to come into Toronto for the day or the weekend. People drive because it is the only option, not because they necessarily want to drive. Traffic in every direction is supremely awful on the weekends and Highway 413 will do nothing to improve this and will endanger forests, farms and waterways.

These initiatives are counterproductive to every stated objective and fiscally irresponsible. Bill 212 is ultimately a step backward for Ontario’s cities and communities. Sustainable, inclusive urban planning calls for policies that prioritize safety, efficiency, and environmental stewardship. By preserving and expanding bike lanes and public transit, the government can foster a safer, more accessible cityscape that supports all modes of transport and contributes to a cleaner environment. Rather than catering solely to drivers, Ontario should adopt forward-thinking policies that build a resilient, inclusive future for all its residents.

As an Ontario voter and taxpayer, cyclist and driver, I urge you not to move forward with Bill 212. I urge you to stop pushing for Highway 413 and the removal of bike lanes in Toronto and instead focus on bolstering public transit (within Toronto and the GTA and beyond), cycling infrastructure, and the integrity of our greenbelt. The long-term quality of life of Ontarians depends on it.