Comments

View the comments this notice received through the registry. You can either download them all or search and sort below.

Some comments will not be posted online. Learn more about the comment status and our comment and privacy policies.

Download comments

Search comments

Comment ID

119447

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
What kind of roads would you want your grandkids to bike on? I grew up in small town Ontario where biking as a child was fun. Adults seldom ride but for the odd hardcore health buff. Read more

Comment ID

119450

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
As a resident of Ontario, I am appalled by the clear overreach of Bill 212. Municipalities know their streets best and should be in charge of how they’re designed and used. Read more

Comment ID

119451

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
Overall pros are outweighed by the cons. It is incredibly backwards to make cycling, a more accessible, greener alternative mode of transportation, harder and more dangerous to try to ease congestion in the city. Read more

Comment ID

119453

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
To the Ford government, Stop what you're doing! You are destroying our city and province. You do not keep your promises. You seem hellbent on fulfilling favours for your friends instead of doing your job. Read more

Comment ID

119454

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
To pass Bill 212 would be to legislate the same unethical and development-driven goals seen in the sitting government's attempt to destroy the Greenbelt. The "Progressive" Conservative party touts this act as the solution to Toronto's bronze metal in the worlds most gridlocked cities. Read more

Comment ID

119455

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
What a shame that the leaders of our province want to regress our growth in this way. The only true way to reduce traffic and grid lock is to have LESS cars on the road. We should be working TOWARD better infrastructure for cyclists, pedestrians and public transportation.

Comment ID

119456

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
I am completely appalled and dismayed at this completely backwards and dangerous proposal. Evidence clearly states that encouraging people to use alternatives to cars for transportation, makes car transportation more efficient by removing cars from the road. Read more

Comment ID

119457

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
As a driver and a cyclist living very close to Bloor, the bike lanes have added enormously to the safety and quality of life in the area. The data backs this up. Rather than wasting more taxpayer money in removing the James, the money should be spent upgrading subway service in line 2.

Comment ID

119458

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
I’m strongly opposed to reducing the bike lanes. As a senior I’m a frequent user and am gradually seeing others, who were to afraid to cycle in the past, to get on their bikes more to get around the city. Reducing the bike lanes is as stupid as buck a beer, sounds good but doesn’t work! Read more

Comment ID

119459

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
Hello! So I am dead set against this proposal. It makes no sense… by taking people off their bikes ultimately means there will be more traffic. Or more cycling deaths - you choose. Read more

Comment ID

119461

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
I do not support this government proposal. It will result in an increase in traffic as bikes will continue to travel using these major roads, but within the car lanes. It will increase the amount of bike accidents and deaths. Read more

Comment ID

119462

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
I strongly oppose bill 212. The words “safety” and “health” do not appear anywhere in the bike lane sections of Bill 212, and the only consideration to approve or remove bike lanes would be “the orderly movement of motor vehicle traffic”. Read more

Comment ID

119465

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
There are many arguments against Bill 212 (more car lanes don't reduce gridlock long-term, active transportation is good for public health, cycle infrastructure being a component of Vision Zero, etc). But, I'd like to focus on one facet of this.  Read more

Comment ID

119466

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
There are so many reasons to keep building bike lanes and this bill absolutely should not be put through! 1. Reduction of traffic: especially with people and public service returning to work, traffic is getting out of hand. More people commuting by bike to work means less traffic! Read more

Comment ID

119467

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
This Bill will kill cyclists. It won’t help traffic or drivers either as cyclists will still remain on the road, but less safely for both cyclists and motorists, as motorists will have more difficulty maintaining the legally required 1m distance between them and cyclists. Read more