This proposal is a…

This proposal is a shortsighted and misguided approach that dismisses the value of bike lanes and undermines Toronto’s efforts toward building a healthier, more efficient, and more environmentally sustainable city. Removing essential bike lanes on Bloor Street, Yonge Street, and University Avenue ignores the clear benefits these lanes provide—not only for cyclists but for the city and its residents as a whole.

1. Economic Costs:

Cycling infrastructure is one of the most cost-effective transportation solutions for urban centers. Studies consistently show that bike lanes reduce wear on roads, lower maintenance costs, and decrease the strain on public transportation systems, saving cities millions over time. The proposal’s focus on expanding motor vehicle lanes runs counter to this reality and would force Toronto to pay more in long-term costs associated with road wear, increased pollution, and higher healthcare costs related to car-centric urban planning.

2. Increased Congestion and Pollution:

Ironically, this proposal claims to reduce gridlock, yet removing bike lanes will do the opposite. By encouraging more car traffic, the city will experience more frequent and severe congestion, leading to higher emissions and environmental degradation. Biking is a proven method to reduce road congestion, taking cars off the road and ensuring that both cyclists and drivers can reach their destinations faster. Expanding car lanes will encourage car dependency, clogging Toronto streets even further and taking Toronto backward on environmental progress.

3. The Health and Safety of Residents:

Bike lanes are more than just road dividers; they are essential for the safety of thousands of cyclists who rely on these routes daily. Removing these lanes is a reckless disregard for public safety. Not only does it increase the risk of accidents for cyclists, but it also contributes to lower air quality, which impacts everyone’s health, especially pedestrians and nearby residents. Furthermore, the exemption from the Environmental Assessment Act is alarming; it suggests a willingness to ignore significant environmental and health impacts for the sake of expediency.

4. Fiscal Responsibility:

Bike lanes save cities money. Less car traffic means reduced road repair costs, fewer emissions-related health issues, and less money spent on expanding roads to accommodate increasing numbers of vehicles. Cities like Toronto benefit from a mode of transport that requires no fuel, no emissions, and minimal infrastructure upkeep. This proposal overlooks the substantial cost savings associated with biking infrastructure in favour of outdated, car-dependent urban planning.

5. Contradiction with Broader Environmental Goals:

This proposal claims to care about environmental implications while pushing for expanded vehicle lanes—a move that’s fundamentally at odds with sustainable urban planning. Toronto and Ontario have committed to reducing emissions and addressing climate change. Removing bike lanes undermines those goals by prioritising cars over clean, sustainable, and active transportation options. If Ontario is serious about climate resilience, it should be expanding its cycling infrastructure, not dismantling it.

In summary, this proposal is not a solution to gridlock; it’s a recipe for increased congestion, higher costs, and compromised safety and environmental health. Rather than dismantling critical cycling infrastructure, Ontario should be expanding it, supporting a shift to cleaner, healthier, and more sustainable transportation options. The focus should be on creating a city that supports all forms of transportation—where bikes aren’t an afterthought, but a priority in building a resilient future for Toronto.