As a Torontonian living in…

As a Torontonian living in an area that has yet to have cycling lane access, I am AGAINST Bill 212 Schedule 4 requiring the City of Toronto to have provincial ministry approval for constructing cycling lanes, and create the framework for the provincial ministry to remove cycling lanes.

The City of Toronto has done extensive work in planning an efficient cycling network to maximize citizen mobility and connecting its citizens to public transit networks, as seen in IE14.3 - Cycling Network Plan Update (2025 - 2027). The efficiency of the cycling network plan is heavily contingent on its major arterial cycling paths along public transit networks paths (Bloor, Yonge, University) in order to provide the citizens access to public transit networks.

This cycling network aims to REDUCE ROAD CONGESTION by providing the citizens a valid viable cycling transport option, and also public transit option with mixed modes of transport with cycling included.

The proposed removal of cycling lanes along major arterial roads at Bloor, Yonge and University will have a NEGATIVE IMPACT TO ROAD CONGESTION. If removed, considerably more people that would have cycled on the cycling lane would feel inclined to drive. There would be induced demand of cars on the roads. Those that remember the history of these roads of interest before cycling lanes were implemented would say that back in the day, these roads were already congested for cars due to all the roadside parking, and also unpleasant to walk through due to the noisy car traffic and cars going back and forth between lanes to avoid parked cars. Going back to those days would not be great for a significant majority of the citizens, except for the very select few that get to benefit from road side parking in front of the few businesses that they stop at. And if parking would not be allowed on these roads after cycling lane removal, see the argument below on economic activity impact.

The proposed removal of cycling lanes will have a NEGATIVE IMPACT TO TTC RIDERSHIP and decrease citizen mobility. If removed, considerably more people that would have taken public transit because they can cycle to a subway station, may no longer consider that to be a valid or efficient mobility option. They may be more inclined to drive should the bike lanes be removed.

The proposed removal of cycling lanes will have a NEGATIVE IMPACT TO ECONOMIC ACTIVITY for businesses along these major arterial roads and also surrounding areas. The decrease in local mobility means less frequent stops by citizens to local businesses. Cycling lanes have vastly improved pedestrian mobility, safety and general welcomeness of the area for frequent stopping. The removal of the cycling lanes will equate to less overall business.

As the goal of the bill 212 is to "reduce gridlock", the very approach of Bill 212 Schedule 4 would act as a disservice to its own goals, which is why I voice my opinion of being AGAINST Bill 212. It would be a disservice to the majority of the citizens that benefit from cycling lanes, either directly, or indirectly. It would also more specifically act as a disservice to the very drivers that 'believe' that removal of cycling lanes would reduce gridlock and congestion, where in fact such acts of reducing cycling network efficiency would actually get in the very way of what they desire by worsening congestion.

To all the drivers out there that do not care to consider the benefit of the majority, at least care about your own goals and ambitions of reducing gridlock and congestion. Do not make your own driving experience WORSE by removing cycling lanes. These cycling lanes are there to improve citizen mobility, so that the cars that do need to drive through those areas and do not have a valid alternative can drive through the area while encountering less cars.