Cycle Toronto sought a court injunction to block the immediate removal of key Toronto bike lanes. Premier Doug Ford won his day in court but was forced to reveal some deeply damning documents containing advice from his own experts about fatal flaws in his plans.  

The Reducing Gridlock Saving You Time Act (Bill 212) is now provincial law. Doug has Bloor Street, University Avenue, and Yonge Street bike lanes in his sights. The advocacy group Cycle Toronto is planning to return to court with a Charter challenge against Bill 212 in April. 

Unlike a media scrum, where a politician can say what they want, evade questions, answer different ones, or outright lie, courts expect the lawyers standing before them to share all the relevant facts relating to the case at hand, fully and completely, or be at risk of contempt. This was Ford’s Achilles’ heel, as the reports the government lawyers were forced to share (prepared by the government and external experts) showed his plan was wrongheaded on every conceivable metric. 

The experts advised that the pending legislation was fraught with risk, contained innumerable downsides, and would not likely reduce congestion or get anyone “home faster,” the bill’s ostensible goal. 

An MTO briefing from August, 2024, states that there is a “risk of negative impacts on local businesses. Evidence shows that bike lanes have a positive impact on local businesses.” The report continues: “Cycling has been shown to have a positive impact on congestion in North America; requiring provincial approval may not have the desired goal of reducing congestion; cyclists [will] likely to continue to use key routes; cycling lanes can move 10 times more people than a traffic lane…protected bike lanes reduce collisions and injuries by 30-50 per cent.” The section Impact on Specific Populations: Equity deserving communities, Seniors, and Students (and other categories) has been  heavily redacted by the government in the interests of “public interest immunity.” The advice has been almost completely covered with a Sharpie. 

The government does not want you to know that it knows that the introduction of bike lanes on  Bloor Street, according to a Centre for Active Transportation study, made women, children, and the elderly 50 per cent more likely to bike on Bloor because they felt comfortable and safe. 

In a cabinet office briefing dated Sept 24, 2024, under Fiscal Impact/Value for money, ,the entire section has been redacted; we highly doubt they are covering up good news here. 

A cabinet office briefing from Oct. 9, 2024, states that the “biking community and environmental advocates may also criticize the initiative due to a lack of evidence that bike lanes substantially increase car congestion or emergency response times, and due to cycling being a zero-emission mode of transportation.” 

CIMA, a consultant hired by the province, estimated that “removal of bike lanes on the major routes will increase total collisions (i.e. for all road users not just those involving bikes) by 35-52 per cent.” The Bloor Street bike lane project has already reduced collisions by 44 per cent. The CIMA report advises that many cycling routes in Toronto lack viable secondary road cycle track alternatives which cyclists are unlikely to use anyway, instead opting for the most direct pathways. This puts them in mixed traffic on Bloor and/or biking on the sidewalks. 

Of all the studies and briefings given to the government, not one supports the tenants of Bill 212. The reports dispute Ford’s argument that removing bike lanes will solve congestion, and they suggest that his plan will likely increase costs, diminish safety, and increase collisions exponentially. The takeaway is the courts revealed what the government knew, when it knew it, and that it proceeded anyway with reckless abandon. It’s no wonder Ford added the clause to the bill preventing families of anyone killed or injured from suing the province, because they would no doubt have won their cases. Ford’s actions are purely malicious. 

READ MORE:

• EDITORIAL: Poilievre’s perfect storm (Feb. 2025)
• EDITORIAL: An election designed to distract voters (Jan. 2025)
• EDITORIAL: Bill 212 causes congestion (Dec. 2024)
• EDITORIAL: Fact-checking Ford (Oct./Nov. 2024)
• EDITORIAL: An injection of ignorance (Sept. 2024)
• EDITORIAL: Road safety for some, sometimes (Summer 2024)
• EDITORIAL: Ford’s boozy billion-dollar blunder (June 2024)
• EDITORIAL: Ford needs to step up and lead for once (May 2024)
• EDITORIAL: The Vacant Home Tax: A multi-mayor failure (Apr. 2024)
• EDITORIAL: Ford‘s actions “reflect a juvenile understanding of the role of the judiciary” (Mar. 2024)
• EDITORIAL: The “Get it Done Act” should get Ford out (Feb. 2024)
• EDITORIAL: AG confirms Ford rigged Science Centre analysis (Dec. 2023)
• EDITORIAL: An insincere mea culpa (Fall 2023)
• EDITORIAL: Ford exploits housing crisis (Summer 2023)
• EDITORIAL: Ford’s poor planning will hurt us all (May/June 2023)
• EDITORIAL: Bleed it and then blame it for dying (April 2023)
• EDITORIAL: Ford’s budget is a fail (Mar. 2023)
• EDITORIAL: Freedom Ford-style (Feb. 2023)
• EDITORIAL: We care Mr. Tory (Jan. 2023)
• EDITORIAL: Bill 23: A housing plan built on corruption (Dec. 2022)
• EDITORIAL: Leaders show up (Nov. 2022)
• EDITORIAL: A small business tax break in name only (Oct. 2022)
• EDITORIAL: Taking control of the narrative (Sept. 2022)
• EDITORIAL: Farewell Mike (Aug. 2022)
• EDITORIAL: Highway’s environmental impact worsens with every report(July 2022)
• EDITORIAL: Buck-a-fare just another sound bite (Provincial Election 2022)
• EDITORIAL: Ford’s climate fiction (May 2022)
• EDITORIAL: A conservative in name only (Spring 2022)
• EDITORIAL: Ford should be first (Winter 2022)
• EDITORIAL: Ford stalls, families suffer (Jan. 2022)