Ontario’s controversial Bill 212 has passed, granting the province significant control over municipal bike lanes while permitting the construction of Highway 413 before completing Indigenous consultations or environmental assessments. The bill also mandates municipalities to seek provincial approval before adding bike lanes that could reduce vehicle lanes and explicitly allows for the removal of three major bike lanes in Toronto: Bloor Street, Yonge Street, and University Avenue.

Transportation Minister Prabmeet Sarkaria praised the legislation for its “common-sense approach,” emphasizing that bike lanes contributing to congestion will not proceed. However, critics have denounced the bill, calling it an overreach based on limited evidence.

Impact on Bike Lanes in Toronto

Bill 212 has sparked outrage among cycling advocates and city planners, particularly for its potential to dismantle essential bike lanes in Toronto. The Bloor Street, Yonge Street, and University Avenue lanes have become vital for thousands of cyclists, improving safety and encouraging sustainable transportation.

While Sarkaria claimed a “data-driven process” will guide decisions, opposition members and advocates argue that anecdotal complaints, not evidence, prompted the move. Removing these lanes risks undermining the progress made in promoting cycling as a safe and viable mode of urban transport.

Indigenous Concerns and Environmental Impact

The bill also facilitates the construction of Highway 413—a 52-kilometer stretch connecting Peel, Halton, and York—before Indigenous consultations are completed. The highway will cut through treaty lands and vital ecosystems, including wetlands, rivers, forests, and farmlands.

The Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation have voiced strong objections, emphasizing that the project violates treaty obligations and disregards environmental stewardship. Critics also highlight the government’s legal amendment shielding itself from lawsuits related to bike lane removals, raising ethical and accountability concerns.

Opposition and Criticism

Opposition leaders, including NDP Leader Marit Stiles, have lambasted the government for prioritizing “vanity projects” over pressing issues like healthcare and affordable housing. Stiles accused the Ford government of ignoring public safety by protecting itself legally rather than focusing on the welfare of road users.

Green Party Leader Mike Schreiner echoed this sentiment, warning that removing bike lanes and fast-tracking highways will exacerbate traffic congestion and environmental degradation.

Why Removing Bike Lanes is Dangerous

Increased Risks for Cyclists

Bike lanes are a proven safety measure, reducing the likelihood of collisions between cyclists and motor vehicles. Their removal forces cyclists to share space with cars, increasing the chances of accidents, injuries, and fatalities. Without these designated lanes, the safety of cyclists—already a vulnerable group on the road—is further compromised.

A Step Backward for Sustainability

Removing bike lanes discourages cycling, leading to greater dependence on cars. This exacerbates traffic congestion, air pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions, counteracting efforts to promote eco-friendly urban transportation.

Now More Than Ever: The Importance of Helmets

As cycling becomes more dangerous without proper infrastructure, wearing helmets is no longer optional but essential. Helmets significantly reduce the risk of head injuries in accidents, offering a critical layer of protection for cyclists navigating increasingly hazardous roads.

Conclusion

Bill 212 represents a shift in Ontario’s transportation priorities, favoring vehicles over sustainable alternatives like cycling. Critics argue that this legislation not only jeopardizes public safety and environmental goals but also undermines municipal autonomy and Indigenous rights. With urban safety at risk, advocates urge a renewed focus on protecting cyclists through robust infrastructure and promoting helmet use as a crucial safety measure.