Who Decides Where Bike Lanes Go? The Controversy of Bill 212
Bike lanes are all the talk in Toronto this month since the Ontario government introduced Bill 212, titled Reducing Gridlock, Saving You Time Act, 2024. Alongside the bill, the Ontario government proposed an addendum requiring the City of Toronto to financially support the removal of bike lanes on Bloor Street, Yonge Street, and University Avenue.
Unsurprisingly, everyone seems to have a different opinion on this bill.
Toronto City Council, with the backing of Mayor Olivia Chow, has expressed strong opposition to the bill. In a recent motion, the Council stated Bill 212 “contradicts the stated purpose of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, to allow the [City of Toronto] to determine what is in the public interest of the city.” This position underscores the city’s concern over maintaining its autonomy in local transportation planning.
Prabmeet Sarkaria, Ontario’s Minister of Transportation, defends the legislation. In his view, this bill is within the provincial government’s jurisdiction because it is in the Ontario government’s interest to maintain consistent transportation policies across the province. He argues the bill will reduce traffic congestion and improve commute times for drivers and emphasizes the urgency of the bill: “With the worst travel times in North America, gridlock in Ontario is at a tipping point, and we need to act now.”
Paul Johnson, the City Manager of Toronto, the city’s top administrative officer who oversees public infrastructure and advises on city policies, rejects Mr. Sarkaria’s argument.
In a recent report, the City Manager warned the bill would cause harm. It would decrease safety for pedestrians and cyclists, waste taxpayer money on dismantling bike lanes, increase driver travel times due to construction dismantling, and harm public health and environmental goals in the Greater Toronto Area.
The Ontario Society of Professional Engineers (OSPE) shares these concerns. In a public letter, OSPE described the legislation as “a step in the wrong direction for Ontario’s future,” emphasizing it undermines efforts to promote sustainable and safe transportation infrastructure.
Premier Doug Ford, however, dismisses these concerns. “Get rid of those bike lanes on Bloor in Etobicoke. I think we see one bicycle come through there every single year.”
What is Bill 212?
Bill 212 is a bill which proposes changes to multiple areas of transportation law. Schedule 4, which introduces a new Bike Lane Framework under the Highway Traffic Act (HTA), is central to the controversy. This framework would impose the following requirements on the City of Toronto and other municipalities:
- Provincial Approval for New Bike Lanes: Municipalities need approval from the provincial government before constructing new bike lanes which reduce the number of lanes available for motor vehicle traffic.
- Mandatory Reporting of Existing Bike Lanes: Municipalities must provide the Ministry of Transportation with detailed information about existing bike lanes which have reduced motor vehicle lanes. This information would need to be collected and submitted periodically.
The addendum to the bill goes further, mandating the removal of bike lanes on major Toronto streets like Bloor, Yonge, and University while exempting these projects from environmental assessment requirements.
Why is removing bike lanes so controversial?
The proposal to remove bike lanes under Bill 212 has sparked significant controversy because of its implications for traffic congestion, public safety, environmental sustainability, financial efficiency, and government jurisdiction.
Traffic Congestion
The Ontario government’s primary concern is traffic. It claims removing bike lanes will reduce traffic gridlock by increasing the capacity of the road for cars. Opponents argue the government’s approach misunderstands the causes of gridlock. Studies show bike lanes reduce congestion by encouraging more people to cycle and take cars off the road. Research shows Toronto’s bike lanes on Bloor Street, Yonge Street, and University Avenue have increased cycling volumes while maintaining a manageable traffic flow for drivers. As such, critics warn that dismantling these lanes will exacerbate gridlock, not resolve it.
Public Safety
Safety is the largest concern for opponents of the bill. Research shows Toronto’s bike lanes reduce cycling injuries by 56% and improve safety for pedestrians and drivers. Removing these lanes will likely reverse these gains, increasing risks for vulnerable road users like cyclists and pedestrians. Recent tragedies involving cyclists on Toronto streets highlight the stakes. The parents of Alex Amaro, a cyclist killed in a collision, said on national television, “Bike lanes could have saved our daughter.”
Environmental and Health Impacts
Bike lanes are crucial in reducing greenhouse gas emissions by encouraging active transportation. Removing them undermines Toronto’s TransformTO Net Zero Strategy, which aims to reduce vehicle emissions by 2040 significantly. Cycling also contributes to better public health outcomes by promoting physical activity and reducing air pollution. Critics argue Bill 212’s car-centric approach ignores these broader benefits, instead prioritizing short-term solutions which could harm long-term sustainability.
Economic Concerns
Removing bike lanes spends additional public funds, and critics argue this additional spending is wasteful. The City of Toronto invested $27 million in building bike lanes, and removal would cost an additional $48 million. Given the financial burden on taxpayers, critics argue the Ontario government must provide more evidence that this bill is improving traffic flow.
Additionally, some businesses along bike lane corridors report higher foot and bike traffic, showing bike lanes boost local economic spending. Removing bike lanes risks damaging these businesses and undoing investment in certain local communities.
However, this impact doesn’t necessarily translate into higher revenues. Media reports, such as those covering College Street, highlight mixed views among business owners, with some expressing frustration over construction disruptions or concerns about reduced parking. While increased bike and pedestrian activity can boost local economic spending, the impact may vary depending on the business type and its reliance on car-based customers. It is not clear all businesses perceive the benefit of foot traffic equally.
Municipal Autonomy
Critics call the bill provincial overreach. They read the City of Toronto Act, 2006 as a law which grants the city autonomy to address local issues, and Bill 212’s requirement for provincial approval of bike lanes undermines this autonomy.
However, constitutional law makes it clear a municipality is a “creature of the province” under the Constitution Act, 1867. Section 92 gives a province authority over “Municipal Institutions in the Province,” granting it broad jurisdiction to create, dissolve, or regulate a municipality. The City of Toronto Act operates within this framework, meaning the Ontario government holds ultimate control. Decisions like East York (Borough) v Ontario (Attorney General) and Toronto (City) v Ontario (Attorney General) affirm this constitutional argument. In these two decisions, the courts upheld the province’s power to amalgamate municipalities and alter Toronto’s governance (in the latter case, reducing City Council seats in 2018). Therefore, while critics say Bill 212 undermines the spirit of municipal autonomy, the province remains legally entitled to centralize control over infrastructure, including bike lanes.
Looking to the future
While the province can certainly exercise this power, the question is: should the province exercise this power? Mayor Olivia Chow argues the province should not. She emphasizes Toronto’s government possesses the most direct knowledge of local transportation needs and challenges. In her view, decisions about infrastructure, such as bike lanes, should be informed by this local expertise, not dictated by a centralized authority which may prioritize political objectives over urban realities.
This policy decision will shape the future of Toronto’s communities. Removing bike lanes raises fundamental questions about public safety, economic efficiency, environmental sustainability, and the balance of power between provincial and municipal governments. These interconnected concerns make the Bill 212 debate deeply contentious and symbolic of broader urban planning and public policy tensions.
