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;

1. 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;

2. 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;
3; 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;
4; 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;
5; 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;
6; 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;
7. 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;
8. 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
9. 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.