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

121572

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
No to 212! No to "expediting" environmental inspections and no to expediting seizure of private property. This bill is to allow the province to bend laws to suit and just more evidence of the deep corruption.

Comment ID

121580

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
They want to skip the environmental assesment and plow through the greenbelt (once again), they want to tear up bikes lanes, they want to make this proposed highway a toll road like the 407 which will ensure that no one uses it, it'll cost each taxpayer roughly an extra $1000 per year while likely o Read more

Comment ID

121592

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
The proposed act will do nothing to address the problems it seeks to solve. The only way to reduce gridlock is to divert as many journeys as practical from private cars that are largely single occupancy to public and active transportation. Read more

Comment ID

121618

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
This proposal is not only going to cause danger to cyclists and all road users, it will also waste taxpayer dollars by not achieving its intended purpose of reducing traffic congestion. Nobody likes sitting in traffic - we can all agree on that. And cars are a necessary part of our modern life. Read more

Comment ID

121645

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
Dear good people, As a frequent user of the Runnymede to St. George Bloor W corridor lanes. I implore the government to be thoughtful and compassionate- from a public safety perspective - when considering the safety of riders in the downtown core with the passing of this bill as written. Read more

Comment ID

121660

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
I am very opposed to the removal of bike lanes in Toronto. Removing bike lanes risks the safety of the thousands of people commuting by bike who are doing their part to reduce carbon output. The province should be promoting and supporting bike lanes.

Comment ID

121672

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
I am disabled and personally use the Bloor and Bay bike lanes every day on the way to work. I believe micromobility devices will increasingly play a vital role in the future of transportation in Toronto. Read more

Comment ID

121689

Commenting on behalf of

Collaborative Architecture Inc.

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
As small business owner with 10 employees, I can attest to the importance of safe, separated bike lanes on major streets to our ability to attract and retain highly skilled staff. As Architects working in the sustainability sector we are in a highly competitive field for skilled talent. Read more

Comment ID

121747

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
I am deeply troubled by the inclusion of the “Proceedings Barred” (s5-6) clauses of this bill. The changes proposed to bike lanes in Toronto and throughout Ontario carry substantial risks to road users, including cyclists, pedestrians and drivers, as well as real property owners. Read more

Comment ID

121765

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
To Whom It May Concern, Bill 212 is appalling and an insult to democracy. It is simply something that was unfathomable just a few years ago that we would have a provincial government that would have so little regard for its citizens and rule of law that it would Read more

Comment ID

121773

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
The proposed changes within Bill 212 is concerning, specifically legislative changes as it relates to Schedule 2, the Building Highways Faster Act, and prohibiting land owners from applying under the Expropriation Act, adjustments for date of possession, in addition to entry on the property for site Read more

Comment ID

121806

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
I am writing to express my opposition to Bill 212, the Reducing Gridlock, Saving You Time Act, 2024. This bill prioritizes infrastructure projects dictated by the Transport Minister, disregarding the needs of our communities, while undermining environmental protections and local autonomy. Read more

Comment ID

121807

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
I oppose Bill 212. Making it harder to implement bike lanes is absolutely CONTRARY to evidence, research, facts, and the professional expertise of the transportation planning/engineering industry. If people are not on bikes then should they be in more cars causing more gridlock? Read more

Comment ID

121835

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
This act proposes to remove the very important assessment and judiciary process that weighs the pros and cons of building highways. While traffic and gridlock are indeed a nuisance to drivers, they shouldn't be the only entity being considered when deciding to make life altering decisions. Read more