My thoughts on this proposal…

My thoughts on this proposal are overall negative. I will discuss why.

Firstly, as a resident of richmond hill, my vote should have minimal effects on the residents of Toronto. The decision of what to do with yonge street, bloor street, or any other main streets in Toronto should be up to the municipal government of Toronto. The provincial government should stay out of it.

Secondly, the proposal is to reduce gridlock by removing bike lanes. For the sake of discussion, it's important to note that gridlock is a phenomenon that happens when multiple intersections of a grid are blocked by vehicles. Gridlock is impossible if cars don't enter an intersection if there isn't room for them to clear the intersection without room on the other side of the intersection at the time of entering the intersection. Gridlock is caused by bad driving and can be punished with demerit points. We can also reduce the use of a grid pattern in locations highly susceptible to gridlock. Certainly, increasing the number of lanes increases the number of vehicles that can fit between two intersections, and thus decrease the likelihood of gridlock, but it's important to note that the cause is not the lack of space between intersections, but the lack of awareness in the driver's seats.

Thirdly, bike lanes increase safety and reduce accidents. Bikes are a vehicle that belong on the road, according to the highway traffic act. That means that, without a bike lane, the bikes are required to just get on the road, and motorized vehicles are required to keep a meter distance between them. It's logical then that a dedicated bike lane reduces the potential for collisions and accidents between motorized vehicles and cars. Without bike lanes, riding a bike becomes less safe, and increasing safety is how we reduce collisions. This is ultimately why reducing bike lanes is a silly proposal. Bikes will still be on the road, and they will be more problematic outside of the bike lanes.

I will also add a few things that are not being considered. I have heard in interviews that the transport minister believes that "bike lanes should exist in places that make sense". Bike lanes don't make a ton of sense on residential roads. A cyclist that rides only on residential roads can only access other residences. I know nobody who's daily commute is from one residence to another on the same street. Cycling makes sense when walking takes too long but the bike doesn't. Realistically, that distance is somewhere between 3 and 20 km (most people can ride 20 km in an hour). This means that a cyclist needs to ride on main streets to get to their destination. Furthermore, residential streets are rarely congested. This means that a car that wishes to overtake can easily do so with plenty of space in the oncoming lane. The motorized vehicles are also not traveling much faster than the cyclist. Bike lanes make the most sense in main streets.

It is also worth noting the gathering of data, and the case of a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy. We can see in some countries that bicycles are used year-round, even in harsh winters. This is because they have good cycling infrastructure. When we see that very few bikes are on the road in the winter, it's not because it's cold. It's because there's ploughed into a wall in the bike lane and rightmost sides of the road and the drivers have less control. In have in my youth spent an entire year without driving, and used my bike everywhere. A winter coat is plenty in the winter, as the act of riding the bike can keep you warm. However, poorly maintained roads are a much larger problem. Having the strength to stop and haul a bicycle over a wall of packed ice is a luxury not everyone possesses. If we increase the viability of biking in all weather scenarios, we will have riders in all weather scenarios. Conversely, removing bike lanes and making riding much harder discourages cyclists.

Another thing that can have a minor effect is allowing motorcyclists to filter through when traffic comes to a halt. A motorcycle that filters through allows space for another car to move forward, and the motorcycle is also safer at the front of a queue than in the middle.

Lastly i will adress the highway 413 proposal. It seems very brampton-centric. Highway 413 needa to be constructed to continue around toronto and meet back with the 401 around pickering, similar to the 407. Furthermore, buying back the 407 would be a significantly better improvement to the congestion than highway 413. Both can be good ideas, but with a limited budget, and a limited amount of land, it's best to pour our resources into 407, which does not require construction and would be immediately available.

In conclusion, the proposal is bad. The only good thing that might be in there is increased internet connectivity, but i did not read that section in detail.