Yonge street is no longer…

Yonge street is no longer Highway 11 and Bloor is no longer Highway 5. That decision was made in the 90's: control of these streets was downloaded to the municipalities. As such, it has been municipal tax dollars and municipal decisions that have developed these streets to their current state.

Now, we are to understand, the provincial government wishes to unilaterally undo the careful and methodical changes that were developed, with all due process and local involvement? Doug Ford might have claimed in the past that the City of Toronto was too dysfunctional to successfully remove unwanted bike lanes in the past. But since he has halved the size of council and mandated strong-Mayor powers. As such, the citizens of Toronto are more than ever able to vote in changes that they desire. Further, we have seen with Jarvis that bike lanes can be removed if they are undesired.

The correct place for bike lanes to be determined is at the municipal level. The people of the city are those who pay for the lanes, the people of the city are those that drive beside and bike on the lanes. We know how they affect our communities, for the better or for the worse.

In particular, this legislation is completely tone-deaf on the question of if we WANT Dundas or Yonge to be highways. We don't. We live, work, and shop on these streets. Bike lanes benefit extend beyond that of bikers - the very reduction in vehicular volume makes the streets more approachable, improving local businesses. No one commuting across a 4 lane through-fare is going to shop at a local business!

This legislation also implies that merely increasing volume (by increasing number of cars per meter of road) will improve congestion. This is well known to not follow directly. Four lanes of stopped cars moves as fast as two lanes - not at all. Traffic simulations can show that adding lanes of traffic may actually slow the net speed through the city. This is why the bike lanes were not installed haphazardly, but as a result of considerable study and examination. My own anecdotal evidence is that Danforth became a smoother drive after the bikelanes had settled into place - the reduction to two lanes results in more efficient flow, so I can get to my destination faster than when there were more lanes.

The proposal to remove them, especially coupled to the public statements of the office, makes it clear that it is felt by the minister that no such studies are required. It was bad enough when this legislation was bureaucratic red-tape to slow the addition of bike lanes. The fact perfectly functioning lanes, lanes that have demonstrably improved my neighbourhood's character since their introduction, are now in the sights is distressing. But it doesn't even seem science based - the tweets make it clear it is a purely vindictive "anti-bike" crusade? This is not how we should be enacting policy. Traffic infrastructure is a complicated problem - people get their PhDs in this field for a reason.

We also need to decide if our province serves people or if it serves cars. If it serves people, we should not merely count "commuters" as the only users of the roads. When I walk my dog, walk to a local store, bike to a transit station, or drive to an appointment, I may not be "commuting", but I'm doing something more important to a healthy city: living.