Doug Ford never met a car he didn’t love. That’s easy to see from the just-passed Bill 60, particularly its transportation sections. This love affair with the car isn’t new—at least for anyone who remembers the late Rob Ford’s chaotic reign as mayor. Back then, with brother Doug as a city councillor, the Fords attacked any perceived slight against the motorist as part of a supposed “War on the Car.” The City of Toronto has matured since then; Doug Ford has not. 

Bill 60, Fighting Delays, Building Faster puts the earlier Bill 212, now incorporated into the Highway Traffic Act, into plain language. Bill 212 required provincial approval for new bike lanes that reduced the number of car lanes. Only the naïve believed the province would grant such approval. Many bike lane projects have been preemptively abandoned. Bill 60, which passed third reading after fast-tracked debate and hearings, makes clear that cities shouldn’t bother asking for permission to build a bike lane at the expense of a car lane. The answer is “no.” (Bill 212 also included the removal of bike lanes on Bloor, University, and Yonge—a matter that goes to the Court of Appeal in January).

Other community improvements that might require the reallocation of space from cars— busways, wider sidewalks, or more greenspace—are not specifically prohibited by Bill 60, but Ford has bestowed upon himself the power to prevent their implementation if they displease him. Bill 60 allows the government to prescribe initiatives, in addition to bike lanes, that can be prohibited if they require a reduction in car lanes. 

Ford is among a long line of politicians who were convinced that creating more road space was the answer to traffic congestion. In the 1950s, Metro Toronto Chair Fred Gardiner was given colossal resources to solve traffic congestion. One of his targets was sidewalks. (There were no bike lanes). “I would cut five or six feet off many sidewalks, shove the poles back and create two new lanes for traffic.” Ford could learn from past mistakes and the simple lesson that our problem isn’t too few roads; it’s too many cars. 

Instead, Ford has been busy removing impediments to driving. Bill 60, as well as the recent ban on speed cameras, elimination of tolls on Highway 407 East, and reductions in gas taxes, at least make it clear that Ford isn’t simply fixated on bike lanes. The obvious irony is that we (that is to say, those who follow the evidence) know precisely where Ford is taking us: when it’s easier to drive, more people drive, resulting in more congestion. 

Sure, pity the motorist, but not for the reasons that Ford spins. Driving a car is absurdly expensive, averaging over $8,000 per year—a lot of money for a machine that sits idle for over 90 per cent of the day. 

The trajectory toward efficient modes of transportation is well-established. Ford’s interventions will only delay progress. Ontarians will pay a heavy price for his misguided policies, including higher climate emissions, transportation costs, and road deaths—and more traffic congestion. 

Fortunately, all is not lost for our old friend, the bicycle. Many projects in Toronto’s cycling plan don’t require removing a car lane and can proceed. The value of existing bikeways can be enhanced with new connections. Bike lanes, such as on Davenport Road, can be upgraded to modern standards with raised curbs. The disconnected strands of many of the city’s off-road trails can become a network. A 73-km loop trail around the city is compromised by 10 small gaps, which, if finally closed, would serve both recreational and utilitarian cyclists, as well as tourists.

Ford will ultimately succeed only in demonstrating, yet again, the futility of trying to solve motor traffic congestion by creating more space for inefficient, single-occupant cars instead of focusing on better transit, walking, and cycling. 

Albert Koehl is an environmental lawyer, coordinator of Community Bike-ways, and author of Wheeling Through Toronto: A History of the Bicycle and its Riders (University of Toronto Press, 2024).

READ MORE BY ALBERT KOEHL:

• FORUM: Bathurst Street: Not yet RapidTO (Aug. 2025)
• FORUM: Changing times and travel modes (October 2018)
• FORUM: A magical new supply of parking spots (Oct. 2017)
• FOCUS: An early advocate for bike lanes (JUNE 2016)
• FORUM: The faster we lower speeds, the more lives we save (Oct. 2015)

READ MORE EDITORIALS:

• EDITORIAL: Governing by gut, not facts (Oct./Nov. 2025)
• EDITORIAL: Pierre is in a political pickle (Sept. 2025)
• EDITORIAL: Fact over fiction: Ford’s Bill 212 fails on its merits (Aug. 2025)
• EDITORIAL: No experience necessary managing a school board (July 2025)
• EDITORIAL: Bill 5 recklessly endangers Ontario (May/June 2025)
• EDITORIAL: Thou shalt not park in a bike lane (Apr. 2025)
• EDITORIAL: Bike lane facts Ford knew (Mar. 2025)
• 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)