In a disappointing but unsurprising turn, the Ontario Superior Court denied an injunction to stop the Ford government from ripping out Toronto’s bike lanes before a full legal challenge can be heard in April.
This means that, despite overwhelming evidence that removing bike lanes will undo decades of progress in road safety, the province can now proceed with dismantling vital cycling infrastructure before the courts even have a chance to rule on the legality of Bill 212.
The ruling doesn’t validate Ford’s rationale—it simply defers the fight. And make no mistake, the fight isn’t over. The government’s own documents prove that its arguments for removing bike lanes are built on lies.
Ontario Knew Removing Bike Lanes Would Make Streets More Dangerous
Let’s be clear: the Ford government’s own expert engineering report, commissioned by the Ministry of Transportation (MTO), explicitly warned that removing bike lanes could increase collisions for all road users by upwards of 54%.
Even without this damning internal report, decades of global research already confirm what Toronto has experienced firsthand: bike lanes reduce collisions between drivers and cyclists by 35-50%.
That’s not just a statistic—it’s lives saved. And yet, the Ford government is actively choosing to reverse that progress.
The Manufactured Lie of “Alternative Routes”
Ford and Sarkaria continue to claim that cyclists can simply be rerouted onto smaller, parallel streets. But their own Ministry staff admit this isn’t realistic.
Internal emails from MTO staff show that:
- Cyclists will still choose the most direct routes, just as they always have.
- Secondary streets aren’t viable alternatives due to obstacles like ravines, rail lines, and major intersections.
- The government doesn’t even have the data to support its claim that alternate routes exist.
If these routes were actually viable, why haven’t they been identified? Why weren’t they built before announcing the removals?
The answer is simple: they don’t exist.
Congestion Isn’t About Bike Lanes. It’s About Cars.
Removing bike lanes under the guise of fighting congestion is one of the most spectacularly backward policies imaginable. Research has proven time and time again that bike lanes actually help reduce traffic congestion.
Dr. Shoshanna Saxe, an Associate Professor in the University of Toronto’s Department of Civil & Mineral Engineering, put it plainly:
Building bike lanes is about giving people another choice. Cities that invest in cycling infrastructure don’t see congestion get worse—they see more people shift to biking, freeing up road space for those who need to drive.
This isn’t theoretical. Cities that have invested in bike infrastructure have seen significant shifts away from car dependency.
Paris is a prime example of what happens when a city prioritizes sustainable mobility. Between 2010 and 2020, car use in the city core (Île-de-France) dropped from 12.8% to just 6%, while walking and cycling increased from 55.4% to 68%. Paris achieved this by aggressively expanding bike lanes, reducing parking spaces, taxing polluting vehicles, and introducing incentives for cargo bikes and e-bikes.
And the result? Traffic congestion did not increase significantly—meaning the reduction in road space was offset by fewer cars on the road.
New York City saw similar effects when it introduced protected bike lanes on Columbus Avenue from 96th to 77th Street. Instead of worsening traffic, the redesign cut travel times for drivers by 35%. Eric Jaffe for Bloomberg CityLab reported that:
Rather than increase delay for cars, the protected bike lanes actually improved travel times in the corridor. The average car took about four-and-a-half minutes to go from 96th to 77th before the bike lanes were installed, and just three minutes afterward.
A similar outcome was observed on Eighth Avenue, where travel times decreased by 14% after bike lanes were installed.
The lesson is clear: smart street design that prioritizes bikes and transit doesn’t cause congestion—it solves it.
Ignoring Road Safety, Climate Commitments, and Economic Data
The Breaking Gridlock report, the Ford government’s talking points, and Bill 212 all share one glaring omission: any mention of Vision Zero (Toronto’s road safety plan), TransformTO (our climate action strategy), or the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA).
Bike lanes reduce collisions by 35-50%. Removing them not only increases the risk of injury and death but actively undermines every transportation and climate goal this city has committed to.
If Ford’s government truly cared about safety, it would invest in building more protected bike lanes—not tearing them out.
And let’s not forget the economic argument: Ford and Sarkaria claim that bike lanes hurt local businesses, yet their own government documents say the opposite. A briefing from August 2023 reads:
Evidence shows that bike lanes have a positive economic impact on local retail businesses.
A 2019 study on Bloor Street’s bike lanes showed that local businesses saw an increase in customers after the lanes were installed.
So if congestion doesn’t go down, businesses don’t benefit, and roads become more dangerous, what exactly is the justification for these removals?
This Isn’t About Policy. It’s About Pandering.
Ford isn’t doing this because it’s good policy. He’s doing this to appease a small, vocal base of car drivers who refuse to share the road.
The Ford government is actively dismantling the most successful bike lane network Toronto has ever had. Not because it makes sense. Not because the evidence supports it. But because they can.
The War on Cars is over. We’re in rebuild mode now. This fight isn’t about taking away cars—it’s about giving people choices.
Instead of investing in transit, cycling infrastructure, and walkability, this government is doubling down on a failed car-centric model that has led to more congestion, more emissions, and more deaths.
The courts may have refused to stop the removals for now, but this fight isn’t over. Toronto deserves better—and we’re not done demanding it.
Photo by Albert Koehl
