Let's not forget that, for…

Let's not forget that, for Bill 212, Ontario's Ministry of Transportation hired the engineering and urban planning firm CIMA+ to consult on the effects of removing bike lanes in Toronto, and their conclusion was that bike lanes do not cause congestion. And, in many cases, they ease it. There is also plenty of research from other countries, including the US, many European countries, and our own pilot study in Bloor West that showed that good cycling infrastructure can reduce traffic congestion. Which makes sense. Cars are the least space-efficient form of transportation. When everyone isn't forced into a car to get where they need to go, and they have the option to either drive, cycle, or take transit, then fewer people elect to drive, and the streets become less congested.

But does the government of Ontario care about any of this? Clearly not. They do not seem to want to make policies based on actual scientific research and evidence. Doug Ford governs on vibes and feelings.

Benefits of cycling infrastructure aside, let's just look at how absolutely shortsighted and myopic this proposal is. Let's suppose we build some street anticipating a certain volume of vehicle traffic, suppose it's 3 lanes both ways, and we find that this traffic anticipation was heavily overestimated. Furthermore, we find that people actually want to cycle on this street, but it becomes uncomfortable, because bikes are sharing space with cars. Well, with this bill in place, it's too bad. We overestimated the lane requirement, and now we're stuck with it. We now have all this unused space and there's nothing we can do with it. Any other use of that space be damned.

See, a normal city would be able to make adjustments to accommodate the current situation. They can add vehicle lanes if there are too few, and remove them if there are too many, and too little room for other forms of transport, or other viable uses of those lanes. With this bill, we could only adjust in one direction, and damn us if we go a little too far in that direction. It's like if you only ever allowed a chef to turn the heat up on the stove element, but not down. So if he found that he turned it a little too high and needs to tone it down to not burn the food, too bad. No back-and-forth adjustment to adapt to his circumstances, just one direction allowed, and good luck if you adjusted too far.

This is an unfathomable proposal. It is not based on sound scientific evidence, it does not accomplish the goal it purports to, and it places an absolutely comical restriction on an urban planner's ability to adapt the streets to the current circumstances or any vision. It honestly looks like something written by a 5-year old who sees cars stuck in traffic and is asked what he thinks is a good solution. I absolutely cannot fathom the mind who was put in a position of decision-making authority and thought that this is a good addition to this, or any bill. They should seriously have a mental examination.