While the bill proposes…

While the bill proposes stakeholder consultation, the broader framework and criteria for the review process remain vague. This lack of clear guidelines and engagement with local communities and cyclists could result in decisions that do not reflect the needs or priorities of the people most affected by these changes.

I would like to point out the following that Bill 212 will succeed in doing once passed with little to no consultation:

Increased Traffic Congestion: While the Ministry argues that it will reduce gridlock, it may have the opposite effect by encouraging more cars on the road, especially in already congested areas. Removing bike lanes does not address the root causes of traffic issues and could make congestion worse.

Environmental Impact: The proposed changes could lead to increased car usage, as the removal of bike lanes may make driving more convenient. This could exacerbate traffic congestion and contribute to higher emissions, contradicting environmental goals of reducing carbon footprints and promoting sustainable transportation.

Loss of Urban Mobility Options: The decision to prioritize car traffic over bike lanes could limit mobility for residents who rely on cycling for commuting or recreation, particularly in an era of rising congestion and public health concerns around sedentary lifestyles.

Undermines Public Health Goals: Promoting cycling is an important way to improve public health by encouraging physical activity. Removing bike lanes could discourage people from cycling, reducing opportunities for exercise and contributing to sedentary lifestyles, which can lead to long-term health problems.