Re: Proposed Bill 60,…

Re: Proposed Bill 60, Schedule 5

To the Hon. Doug Ford,

I am writing to express my strong opposition to Schedule 5 of Bill 60, which proposes amendments to the Highway Traffic Act (HTA) that would prohibit municipalities from reducing motor vehicle lanes when installing, implementing, or marking new bicycle lanes.

I am a tax-paying resident who chooses cycling for my transportation and recreational needs. I believe that the changes to the HTA proposed in Schedule 5 undermine principles like equity, community, and sustainability.

Cycling is not a luxury—it is a necessity. It is a low-cost, low-carbon, health-promoting mode of transportation that should be accessible to all. The amendments proposed in Schedule 5 would restrict municipalities from making locally-informed decisions that prioritize safety, climate action, and inclusive mobility. They would also centralize authority in a manner that limits community-driven planning and responsiveness to local needs.

Diverse roadways work better. The proposed changes to the HTA also appear to threaten other uses of public road space that communities across the province are increasingly relying on. These include public transit priority lanes, curbside access space, pedestrian-first crossings, seating patios, and school streets. The insistence on maintaining and/or adding lanes for motor vehicles on public roadways tends to worsen traffic congestion, not reduce it—your government’s own experts have consistently found that bicycle lanes, for example, are not a cause of gridlock and that rapid transit bus lanes, for example, move more people per hour by comparison even when appearing less busy. Induced demand is a phenomenon of car-centrism time and again in cities across Ontario. Perpetuating these problems is not the way forward.

I am particularly concerned that:

The prohibition on lane reductions removes a key tool for creating safe, separated cycling infrastructure.
The regulation-making powers granted to the provincial government could further erode municipal autonomy and transparency.
The changes to reimbursement discretion may discourage municipalities from pursuing cycling improvements altogether.

The proposed amendments in question run counter to Ontario’s stated goals around climate resilience, public health, and active transportation. They also threaten to stall progress in cities like London, where cycling is being embraced as a practical, joyful, and sustainable way to move about. Removing bicycle lanes—as attempted by Bill 212 in 2024—or preventing them from being built—as proposed by Bill 60 now—makes public roadways more dangerous. Protected bicycle lanes especially reduce serious injuries and deaths for people cycling, walking, and driving, as they help in properly siloing road users by their modes.

I urge the Government of Ontario to withdraw Schedule 5 from Bill 60. Instead, provincial administrators should work collaboratively with municipalities, advocacy groups, and residents like myself to support Vision Zero streets and more equitable transportation choices.