Doug Ford’s Personal Vendetta on Bike Lanes Rears its Head

Bill 60 prohibits municipalities from reducing motor vehicle lanes to create bike lanes without provincial approval. The legislation applies to all future bike lane construction that would convert an existing car lane into protected cycling infrastructure.

This provision blocks municipalities from implementing climate action plans that require road reconfiguration. Cities like Toronto have committed to achieving net-zero emissions by 2040 through TransformTO—a plan that requires dramatic increases in cycling, walking, and transit use. The City's analysis shows that bike lanes are "an essential element of multi-modal planning that removes cars from the road for short trips and transit connections, thus alleviating congestion, not causing it".

By preventing road reconfiguration, Bill 60 locks Ontario into car-dependent infrastructure for decades. Every street redesign delayed means decades more of carbon emissions, air pollution, traffic deaths, and congestion. Protected bike lanes demonstrably increase cycling rates (10% of people cycle on streets with bike lanes vs. 2-5% without), reduce pedestrian injuries from bikes on sidewalks, and provide safe routes for children, seniors, and people using adaptive cycles.​

The provision also strips municipalities of autonomy over local transportation planning. Premier Ford, accountable to the entire province, overrides decisions by Toronto City Council, which is directly accountable to Toronto residents. This represents a profound democratic deficit—imposing provincial preferences on local infrastructure despite municipalities having superior knowledge of local conditions, traffic patterns, and community needs.

Ontario cannot meet its climate targets without dramatically reducing car dependency. Transportation accounts for the largest share of provincial emissions, and cycling infrastructure is proven to reduce car trips. Bike lanes also improve road safety—the City of Toronto documented how bike lanes reduce pedestrian injuries from cyclists on sidewalks by 50-75%.​

Minister Sarkaria and Premier Ford are making infrastructure decisions based on political culture wars, not evidence. As Bike Ottawa explains: "These retrofits are the single most important tool Ottawa has to make our streets safer for people outside of a vehicle. They are how the city has decided to build a connected grid of safe, separated bike lanes across the city, because it is MUCH cheaper and easier than redesigning an entire roadway, curbs, sidewalks and all. This bill stops that work cold".

Not just bikes, but busses too

While Schedule 5 explicitly bans conversion of motor vehicle lanes for bicycle lanes, it also grants the Minister authority to prohibit lane conversion for "any other prescribed purpose." Environmental Defence notes this language "would empower the Minister of Transportation to prohibit dedicated bus rapid transit lanes on existing residential streets".​

This enables provincial bans on Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) infrastructure—dedicated lanes that allow buses to bypass traffic, dramatically improving transit speed and reliability. The same special interest groups (suburban car-dependent constituencies) that demanded bike lane bans have also vocally opposed bus lanes.​

Efficient public transit requires dedicated lanes. When buses mix with car traffic, transit becomes slow, unreliable, and unattractive—pushing more people into cars, which increases congestion, emissions, and sprawl. BRT systems are cost-effective transit solutions for growing municipalities, offering subway-like service at a fraction of construction costs.​

By potentially banning BRT lanes, Bill 60 sabotages transit expansion precisely when Ontario desperately needs more public transit to reduce congestion and emissions. This provision serves car-centric political constituencies while undermining climate action and urban mobility.​

In the summer of 2025 a coordinated astroturf campaign popped up in Toronto opposing rapid transit expansion. The rapid transit work is to prepare for the incredibly high traffic expected for when the city hosts the FIFA world cup. At the time the ‘organizations’ claimed they were upset with lack of consultation, if they use Bill 60 to get their way they will be weaponizing the same antidemocratic practices they claimed to expose.

Paving over wetlands to make room for more cars

Schedule 11 amends the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act to exempt highway projects from Environmental Assessment Act requirements. It grants the Minister authority to make regulations "respecting the non-application of standards related to the planning, design, construction, maintenance, management and operation of specified highways, bridges and associated structures".

Environmental Assessment (EA) processes exist to scrutinize ecological impacts before irreversible infrastructure decisions. Highway expansions fragment habitats, destroy wetlands, contaminate watersheds, increase flooding through impervious surfaces, disrupt wildlife corridors, and contribute to species decline. EA requirements force consideration of alternatives and mitigation measures.​

By exempting highways from EA requirements, Bill 60 enables environmentally destructive projects without public scrutiny or expert review. Communities near proposed highway expansions, Indigenous nations on traditional territories, conservation authorities, and environmental organizations lose their ability to raise concerns and demand alternatives.​

This provision also exempts projects from public consultation embedded in EA processes, furthering the pattern of democratic deficit throughout Bill 60. Major infrastructure decisions affecting communities for generations can proceed without meaningful public input.

Highway expansions are not neutral infrastructure—they enable sprawl, increase emissions, destroy ecosystems, and lock in car dependency for decades. The Environmental Assessment Act provides the only systematic process for evaluating these harms and considering alternatives. Bypassing EA enables short-term political goals (ribbon-cutting at highway openings) while imposing massive long-term environmental and climate costs on future generations.​

Once highways fragment habitats and pave over wetlands, the damage is irreversible. Species extirpated from disrupted habitats don't return. Watersheds contaminated by road runoff remain polluted. The EA process exists precisely to prevent these irreversible harms—eliminating it is environmental vandalism disguised as "reducing delays".