Ontario Appeal Court Says Ford Can Rip Out Toronto Bike Lanes

The recent decision by the Ontario Court of Appeal has sparked heated debate about the role of government and evidence-based decision making in urban planning. The ruling, which allows Premier Doug Ford’s government to remove 19 kilometers of protected bike lanes in Toronto, marks a significant setback for advocates who have argued that such infrastructure is essential for promoting sustainable transportation and public health.

At issue is the proper role of government in regulating urban spaces. The appeals court judges seemed to imply that the Ford government’s plans to remove bike lanes were not only constitutional but also desirable. This reasoning raises alarm among those who recognize the importance of data-driven decision making.

The removal of bike lanes would likely lead to increased congestion and decreased safety for all road users, according to numerous studies. Ontario government internal documents reveal that its advisers and external experts broadly agree on this point. Yet, the court has given a green light to the Ford government to ignore expert advice and push forward with plans that prioritize short-term political gain over long-term public interest.

This decision highlights the ongoing tension between the province and the city of Toronto regarding urban planning. While the Ontario government claims its aim is to improve traffic congestion, it’s clear that this goal is often secondary to more ideological considerations. The court’s ruling undermines evidence-based decision making and reinforces a troubling narrative about the relationship between elected officials and the public they serve.

The original lawsuit filed by Cycle Toronto and other advocacy groups centered on the argument that removing bike lanes would be unconstitutional because it would put people’s lives at risk – a claim repeatedly validated by research. The appeals court judges’ dismissal of this concern raises questions about their understanding of the Charter and its application in real-world contexts.

Toronto continues to grapple with these issues, and several key points emerge from this decision. Firstly, the Ontario government remains committed to prioritizing the interests of car owners over those of cyclists, pedestrians, and public health advocates. Secondly, the court’s ruling has legitimized a pattern of governance that disregards expert advice and ignores empirical evidence in favor of ideological agendas.

This decision highlights the need for greater transparency and accountability in government decision making. In an era where urban planning is increasingly complex and data-driven, policymakers must prioritize evidence-based solutions over short-term gains. By doing so, we can create safer, more sustainable cities – but only if we are willing to challenge the status quo and demand better from our elected officials.

As Toronto Mayor Olivia Chow works with the province to find a solution, it’s clear that this decision will have far-reaching implications for the city’s transportation infrastructure and its residents. It remains to be seen how the city will respond to this setback – but one thing is certain: undoing the damage caused by this ruling will require more than just “common sense.”