I can buy the bike lanes on…

I can buy the bike lanes on Bloor West have a bad impact on traffic, but this talking point is disappointing as a cycling advocate, because in this case where a local community is bringing up major issues with transport infrastructure, perhaps some compromise is needed, a new design that lowers lane widths and allows another lane, or asking transportation engineers to reexamine things.
This isn't what Bill 212 is about, it's a knee-jerk reaction that stunts and damages cycling in the city forever (or until this provincial government is eventually voted out). It's a terrible waste of resources and manpower, and will make the city worse and more dangerous.

The province doesn't need to hide behind the shield that "bike lanes everywhere" are an issue, Doug represents Etobicoke interests, he could have this legislation just order a re-evaluation of the bike lanes west of High Park. He's not because this isn't sincere legislation.

Take the Honourable Minister Sarkaria's statements; "1.2% of cyclists shouldn't take up 50% of road space." His 1.2% figure comes from StatsCan in 2011, over the entire CMA, which includes cities like Richmond Hill. His statistic is also specifically in commuting, which doesn't address that people also bike for leisure, or to get to appointments, or to go shopping. According to this CBC article (Percentage of bike riders higher where lanes are installed: StatsCan | CBC News), 70% of Torontonians cycle in some capacity. (There is also the 8.3% figure in University Rosedale, I will touch that later)

Now I'm a student at TMU, I commute in from Willowdale, and I bought a bikeshare membership. The bikeshare is probably one of the best purchases I've ever made, the downtown cycling network is fragile and fragmented, but it exists.

As a student at TMU, and with our campus bordering lovely Church, Yonge, Dundas, and Gerrard, I can positively say that the downtown core is absolutely infested with bicycles, and why shouldn't it? I cannot step outside without seeing AT LEAST 1 cyclist passing by, and I cannot walk along Gerrard, Yonge, or Dundas without a decadent glut of bicycles passing by.

Why shouldn't the downtown be infested? It's the only part of the city with a legitimate cycle network. It provides for tons of trips. I am at TMU, Yonge & Dundas/Gerrard area. I can bike along Gerrard and College to have a nice stroll at Queens Park. I can use Gerrard/Wellesley to visit friends at UofT. I can use Shuter/Dundas to get east to visit a TPL branch that has a book I've been meaning to get. I can use Gerrard/University/Richmond/Adelaide to get anywhere in the financial district. Or University/Simcoe to get to the waterfront. The network actually exists downtown, and that's where the cycling is.
The College, Gerrard, and Adelaide/Richmond lanes are heavily used in my experience. Also interestingly, many "side streets" near to me are also usually infested with cyclists. Church, with it's proximity to Yonge, relation to the TMU campus, and lower traffic volumes/parking is an ideal north-south connector (if you're willing). Yonge's businesses also bring in a lot of both delivery drivers and regular cyclists. I honestly would put car and bike traffic on Yonge street as somewhat comparable, maybe not 50/50, not yet, but close. Dundas also gets plenty of bike traffic, but biking on Dundas is very sketchy.

And it's no wonder these side streets get cyclists, the bike network is bursting it's bounds! Yonge and Church are two lane roads with not as much traffic, a protected cycle track would exponentially increase ridership. (Tearing up bike lanes will cost nearly $50 million, Toronto city staff report says - The Trillium) This article pegs cycle ridership boosting by as little as 28% and as high as 650%! If Yonge St. bike traffic increases by 600%, the bikes are going to be the ones in gridlock (except they won't because bikes are far more efficient than cars).

These lanes are useful, Toronto continually improves it's cycling network and number of cyclists. As I said before, I just bought a bikeshare membership. I know several friends who also just bought bikeshare memberships. In September bikeshare reached a high mark of over 35,000 cycle rides in a day. That number will be larger next year.

But I also know so many who won't bike because it's unsafe. I'll brave Yonge St. and Dundas St. for the time saved, many of my friends and many Torontonians won't. That's why we need WHOLE bike networks, so that it provides for all trips.

It's also worth noting by removing bike lanes on arterial roads, the province has almost certainly condemned a person to death. They'll be runover after merging left to avoid an illegally stopped car on Bloor, and will never see their family ever again, they may be eating dinner now unaware they only have 533 days left of life.

I attest that while I love the downtown cycle network, it's so fragile and fragmented. Going STRAIGHT west from TMU is a nightmare because I don't want to die on Dundas Street. Getting to City Hall sucks because Bay St. is a death trap. Many trips I make I have to detour to use safer infrastructure. Getting to Bloor-Yonge for the TPL sucks because Yonge St. isn't nice to cycle on, the only saving grace is that there's other cyclists, and a car could cut me off and kill me, but can't kill me AND 5 other cyclists. I have a friend who lives along Jarvis, it'd be nice to bike to him, but I won't cause I'm unwilling to bike on an unprotected Jarvis.

The downtown network is fragmented and fragile. And I have to be real, Toronto's cycle network is straight up unfinished. It can't be graded because it's being built. Only when the network is extensive, when people can use it for the majority of their trips, can Toronto become Amsterdam.

Check the google maps look at what our cycle network looks like, and what Amsterdam's network looks like. Toronto's network is straight up unfinished.

Getting back to that 8.3% figure from University Rosedale. Even that figure isn't super amazing, but it also makes sense, our network is small and fledgling. To turn an infestation into a full blown flood, a real modal shift from cars to bikes, Toronto needs to double, then triple it's bike infrastructure. It probably needs GO Expansion level service and the new rapid transit lines to open so people don't have to drive, at which a point there can be a congestion charge. (measures that discourage driving CAN ONLY BE DONE IF AND ONLY IF reasonable and compelling alternatives exist already).
It's for these reasons that Bill 212 deeply upsets me. Toronto's fragile network serves many, and doesn't provide service many more. There is not a single kilometer of bike lane that can be removed. The only solution to the Bloor West bike lane's causing congestion is increased GO Train Service, and dramatically expanding the bike lane network so the drivers stuck in traffic bite the bullet and buy a bikeshare membership. People cycle in Finland, and Toronto frankly doesn't get enough interesting weather for cycling to be infeasible here. It's November and cold already and I still see plenty of people out cycling.

The Province is going to spend 50 million dollars (or more, see every Metrolinx project for estimates on cost overruns) to destroy already built and necessary infrastructure. The lane on University was just renovated to be a world class cycle road, fit to be a flagship lane in the Netherlands. It'll be destroyed to turn University into a 4 LANE ARTERIAL in downtown! That won't fix traffic. It'll be better for a year, then everyone and their mother will try and clog onto the 401 and Gardiner to take advantage of the new "clear, bike-free downtown", only to clog the streets yet again.

Then Doug Ford will be voted out (maybe not the next election, but eventually, no-one rules forever), and the city will waste even more money rebuilding this infrastructure again, when the congestion is even worse. Congestion won't be solved by building more roads. We've been doing that strategy for the past century. The 401 keep's widening, but the traffic keeps getting worse.

50 million dollars could be an emergency fund to end the slow zones crippling the TTC, or could be a fund to install smart traffic signals along Bloor that ensure smooth flows, or could go to police to enforce no stopping (I see so many cars illegally stopped on Yonge and Dundas it's insane). It can go to anywhere but ripping out existing infrastructure.

We're going to be here again, asking to tackle congestion. In 2050, with 5 or 10 million more people, do you want to tackle congestion using new GO Train lines, more TTC service, and bike lane expansions, or do you want to discuss spending 20 billion dollars to widen the Gardiner? Every single traffic and transportation engineer recognizes the need to prioritize transit and active transportation, we have to do that, eat the pain now, and triumph in becoming the best city in North America by 2040.