I oppose this legislation as…

I oppose this legislation as written on personal, financial, professional, and ethical reasons. I will be focussing my comments on the restrictions on (and removal of) bike lanes. Any reference to bike lane removal also applies to the restriction on new bike lanes, as bicycle network coverage is nowhere near complete in the 905, and needs to be improved in order to realize the benefits listed below.

Bike lanes give people more choice and protect vulnerable road users (including pedestrians). I rely on bicycle lanes to safely get to work, and take my kids to activities. I feel threatened by this legislation because it will force me to cycle in vehicular traffic where bicycle lanes are removed, or on sidewalks. Cycling in vehicular traffic is stressful, unsafe, and uncomfortable. I wear a helmet, but that will not protect me from 2 tonnes of steel moving at 50 km/hr. Bicycles also shouldn't be competing with pedestrians for limited sidewalk space, which slows bicycles down and puts pedestrians at risk. Bicycle lanes allow people on bicycles to travel faster and more securely, and protected, seperated bicycles lanes are more comfortable and safe for families and people who aren't already harcore "cyclists".

Bike lanes save people money. I also drive a car, but my spouse and I are able to save money and only have 1 car between us because there are safe and adequate bicycle corridors in my city in the 905 (although I want better coverage). My spouse already accepts that I put myself at risk when I cycle on areas without bike lane, and that it will take me longer to get around because I often have to go out of my way to find a safe route. The removal of protected bike lanes will make my travel take longer, be less convenient, and less safe. The suburbs needs a better connected network of bike lanes, not worse. The end result is there will be greater pressure for us to buy a second car, which we cannot afford.

Bike lanes save public money. Infrastructure for motor vehicles is expensive, large, and requires replacement often because of wear and tear from the weight of motor vehicles. Bike lanes can accomodate the same number of people in a smaller space without needing as much engineering or frequent replacement, because the bikes are lighter. The slower speed of travel and smaller vehicle size also makes collisions less likely, so it's easier for bikes to make turns and merges without needing as much extra space for turning lanes, queueing, etc. Restricting or removing bike lanes will require more public money for roadworks for motor vehicle traffic, and will be less efficient than bike lanes. Paying to remove existing bike lanes in favour of motor vehicle lanes is financially absurd; this will cost money while functionally reducing road capacity.

Bike lanes are good for businesses, when they are on main streets. People on bikes travel more slowly and make less noise than people in cars. It is easier to stop and shop when your vehicle is small, light, and maneuverable, so I am more likely to stop downtown for coffee, shopping, or appointments when I'm on a bicycle than when I'm in a car. And if I'm walking downtown, I would much rather the bicycles be in their own lane than competing with pedestrians for limited sidewalk space. If bike lanes have to divert around main streets, that is taking customers away from businesses and making sidewalks less comfortable for people already downtown.

Bike lanes are good for cities. I am an Urban Planner by trade, and I am aware of many problems that are caused or exacerbated when transportation choices are limited to private motorized vehicles. Bicycles allow for a greater number of people to travel in a smaller amount of space, and they are quieter, safer, and more sustainable than motorized vehicles. It is already difficult to convince developers and decision-makers to reduce parking rates or include more dedicated space for active transportation. Removing bike lanes will induce more demand for driving, and will result in more congestion, collisions, pollution, and inefficiency. This will make the Province's other goals around transit use and compact development more difficult to achieve.

Bike lanes in roads are a result of our previous transportation planning choices. Our cities could have been designed with a separate network of active transportation corridors, which would allow for greater speed and comfort for people on bikes without impacting motor vehicle road networks. However, most of our cities have presupposed that roads are for transportation, and pathways are for recreation (i.e. not straight or well connected). This means that roads are often the only practical location for active transportation from point A to B. Bike lanes shouldn't have to be in roads, but we've limited ourselves by our previous focus on motor vehicle transportation. If the province wants bike lanes off roads, it should provide a separate network of interconnected convenient active transportation pathways. This would be very expensive in built-up areas, but it would cost less than new controlled-access highways, and serve more people.

Bike lanes are especially necessary where transit is poor. In the suburbs, transit is not frequent or reliable enough to allow busy families to efficiently move between school, work, errands, and events. Bike lanes allow people to more quickly get from point A to B without having to backtrack or go off-course to catch a bus which may take 30 minutes or more to even show up. This requires having a network of safe bike lanes with good coverage and connections. Even where transit coverage is adequate, bike lanes allow for first-mile and last-mile connections to transit.

Bike lanes are good for people driving cars. I drive a car often, and I know that I would much rather a bicycle be in its own lane (better yet, in a protected buffered lane with a separating curb) than on the road in front of me. If people on bikes have to bike in vehicular traffic, that is more challenging for people in cars to navigate around, and slows people down. Bikes naturally are made for a slower speed than cars, and having separate lanes just makes sense to allow for better flow for different types of traffic. If bike lanes are removed, or made more difficult to install, more bikes will be in vehicular traffic, which will make driving worse, not better.

More motor vehicle lanes won't ease congestion. They will induce more people to drive, which will quickly fill any additional capacity and make traffic worse. We should be inducing demand for the kind of travel we want; this means building more protected bike lanes, not removing them or making them harder to build.

I believe that this legislation is ill-advised and will result in more congestion, more collisions causing serious injury or death, and will make our cities worse places to live in. I am also very concerned that this legislation will exacerbate a culture war between people in cars and people on bikes, and stigmatize people on bikes. There is nothing inherently elitist or exclusionary about bikes; they cost less than motor vehicles to own and operate, they are easier to operate than motor vehicles, they support local business, they help people stay active and healthy, and they save public infrastructure dollars.

I hope that these comments are helpful.
Thank you.