Opposition to Ontario Bill…

Opposition to Ontario Bill 212: Prioritizing Safe and Sustainable Transportation
I am firmly opposed to Ontario Bill 212 (Reducing Gridlock, Saving You Time Act, 2024) for several compelling reasons. This legislation'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.
Historical Lessons: Removing Bike Lanes Does Not Ease Congestion
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 asa means of reducing gridlock. Instead, it risks pushing more people toward car dependency, exacerbating congestion and increasing the strain on road infrastructure.
Public Health and Safety Risks
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.
Promoting Sustainable and Multimodal Transportation
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 creatinga livable, accessible city for alI residents.
Alternative Investments for the Greater Good
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.
Conclusion: A Step Backwards for Ontario
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, 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.