Doug Ford just got even tougher on Ontario bike lanes with new measures

As if Doug Ford’s plan to take control of bike infrastructure across Ontario wasn’t troubling enough for those who travel on two wheels, the premier is moving to invoke some heavy-handed measures that would go as far as preventing anyone from suing the Province for injuries sustained where it chose to remove downtown cycle paths.

The controversial Bill 212: Reducing Gridlock, Saving You Time Act has garnered the public’s full attention — likely strategically so — since it was first revealed in October, when the government asserted that more oversight of bike lanes was key to “tackling gridlock and getting drivers and commuters across Ontario out of traffic.”

Toronto and its legendary congestion are at the heart of the legislation, which not only puts our future cycling corridors at the mercy of the province, but also entails axing existing ones on Yonge Street, University Avenue and Bloor Street.

In typical Ford fashion, the leader has not yielded to backlash from constituents, and is taking things even a step further with some new amendments to the bill that were just introduced at Queen’s Park this week.

Currently under debate, the tweaks are being deemed unthinkable by some Toronto representatives and residents who are disturbed to see clauses absolving the Province of covering costs associated with culling existing bike tracks (including the price paid by the City for their initial construction), and also of certain legal responsibilities.

The 11-page document prohibits any cause of action as a direct or indirect result of “the removal of a bicycle lane, part of a lane, or any related features or adjacent infrastructure,” nor of “the restoration of a bicycle lane or part of a lane for use by motor vehicle traffic,” among other things.

Court proceedings related to anything in subsection 1 of the bill would also be blocked, whether they are related to “remedy in contract, restitution, unjust enrichment, tort, malfeasance, bad faith, trust of fiduciary obligation, or any remedy under any statute.”

Those who were already finding this sudden war on bike lanes not only regressive, but a complete insult to local governance, now seem to be at their wits’ end, including Ward 14 Toronto-Danforth Councillor Paula Fletcher, who reposted the news as it made its way onto social media Thursday with the simple caption “unfathomable.”

“I am in total shock with the draconian aspects of this Bill,” she told blogTO Friday.

Jessica Bell, the University-Rosedale MPP who originally broke the details of the new amendments on X, echoes the sentiment, telling blogTO that this development is “nonsensical” and “a terrible blow to our city’s work to make cycling a safe and easy choice.”

“Removing bike lanes will increase injuries and deaths on our roads, and likely worsen congestion as cyclists will now be in the same lane as vehicles,” she messaged. “It also has nothing to do with reducing congestion, and everything to do with fueling a dangerous and divisive car versus bike culture war.”

The fact that protected bike lanes save the lives of those who use them is pretty undeniable, and many believe that this type of safe infrastructure should be a priority, and that Ford pinning the city’s traffic woes on cycle tracks is misguided at best.

But, division on the subject has been brewing for some time, exemplified by incessant complaints about new bike infrastructure from communities who say it eats into necessary parking and harms local businesses, impacts road visibility and safety, and adds to traffic, on top of not being utilized enough to justify the investment, especially during the winter.

This long-running friction has only increased as the city has ramped up bike lane construction amid its larger road safety efforts while the downtown gets progressively more expensive, pushing residents out — and setting the stage for things to come to a head when drastic policy on the matter is tabled.

“I feel like this is theatre, and this is exactly the type of response that’s polarizing and whips people into a frenzy and a state of panic. It’s almost like each member of the show is playing their role,” U of T professor Matti Siemiatycki, whose focuses include urban infrastructure, planning and transportation, says about the bill 212 drama.

“I wish we could have debates and discussions about transportation policy based on evidence, and based on its impact and its trade offs — and every policy has trade-offs. But this is just designed explicitly as this political wedge. This is bad policy and probably great politics.”

Though this moment may feel uniquely Torontonian, Siemiatycki points out that cities used as the examples of how routes can be improved for the safety of non-car users have faced similar pushback and conflict.

“There are myths on all sides of this. I think sometimes there’s this myth that in the Netherlands, or in Copenhagen that biking was just a part of their culture for decades. But those were hard fought battles as well, it did take advocacy and it did take policy.”

He adds that the fact that roads are something people see, use and experience every day makes it more visceral than other, realistically more pressing problems in the province, such as the healthcare or education systems.

“It’s visceral and symbolizes who is being fought for by the government. I think we all have to acknowledge that it is hard to get around this region, it’s expensive to live here, we have a regional transportation system that has struggled to keep up with growth, and these are the tensions that are playing out. But it’s not just us who are grappling with this.”

Mayor Olivia Chow and city council are planning to step to Ford regarding Bill 212, saying it “contradicts the stated purpose of the City of Toronto Act to allow the City to determine what is in the public interest of the city.”