I am writing to express my…

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed legislation that seeks to remove existing bike lanes in Toronto and prevent development of necessary cycling infrastructure across Ontario’s urban centres. This decision would have significant negative consequences for safety, traffic flow, and the overall quality of life of Ontario communities.
1. Bike Lanes Save Lives
Bike lanes provide a safer environment for cyclists by creating dedicated spaces for them to travel. Studies show that cities with protected bike lanes experience fewer traffic-related injuries and fatalities for all road users, including pedestrians and drivers (Marshall and Garrick, 2011; Chen et. al, 2011). Removing these lanes would force cyclists to share busy roads with vehicles, increasing the risk of accidents and injuries.
2. Improved Traffic Flow and Reduced Congestion
Contrary to common misconceptions, bike lanes have minimal impact on traffic flow (Nanayakkara et al., 2022) and is a solution to traffic congestion (Thorsten and Rudolph, 2016, Hamilton and Wichman, 2018). By separating bicycles from cars, bike lanes reduce conflicts between the two, preventing slowdowns and congestion. When cyclists use designated bike lanes, drivers can maintain consistent speeds without needing to weave or stop unexpectedly. Well planned bike lanes may improve driving times by encouraging more people to choose a bike over a car.
Additionally, evidence highlights the positive association between increased bike ridership and connected infrastructure networks (Rietveld and Daniel, 2004; Schoner and Levinson, 2014; Xu and Chow, 2020). Removing bike lanes will likely increase congestion, as more cyclists may resort to driving.
Addressing urban congestion requires multi-faceted solutions, including the promotion of sustainable travel modes like walking, cycling, and public transit. This legislation, however, undermines those efforts.
3. Support for Local Residents Without Cars
Cycling infrastructure is vital for residents who do not own or cannot afford cars, providing an affordable and reliable transportation option. As transit systems face funding challenges and capacity constraints, cycling offers a practical alternative for avoiding overcrowded public transit during peak hours. Removing bike lanes would disproportionately harm these residents by limiting their transportation choices.
4. Comprehensive Urban Mobility
One argument against bike lanes is that cyclists should use transit, but transit systems are designed to move large volumes of people across fixed routes and hubs. They often cannot take individuals directly to dispersed, specific destinations, such as small businesses, schools, or residential areas. Bicycles fill this gap, offering a flexible, point-to-point transport option.
Further, applying this argument selectively to cyclists ignores that the same logic can be applied to drivers. Yet, public discourse rarely advocates for drivers to switch entirely to buses or trains. This selective application creates a double standard and ignores the fact that active transportation modes, such as cycling, alleviate pressure on both transit and car infrastructure.
5. Mismatch with Ontario’s Housing Trends and Growing Demand
As new housing developments increasingly prioritize designs that do not accommodate car ownership, bike lanes and alternative transit options are critical for supporting residents. This legislation appears to prioritize non-resident commuters at the expense of local city residents, whose reliance on cycling is growing due to shifting housing and transit realities. Moreover, the number of cyclists in Ontario’s urban areas continues to rise (StatCan, 2017, Liu and Allen, 2023), underscoring the need for safe infrastructure.
6. Environmental and Public Health Benefits
Encouraging cycling as a mode of transportation reduces reliance on cars, lowering greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution. Additionally, cycling promotes physical activity, which is critical for public health (Gu et al., 2016; Rojas-Rueda et al., 2011). Removing bike lanes would discourage cycling, undermining these vital benefits.
7. Economic and Community Growth
Bike-friendly infrastructure attracts people to neighbourhoods (Monsere, et al., 2014), fosters local businesses (Volker and Handy, 2021), and increases property values (Liu and Shi, 2017; Conrow et al., 2020) . A commitment to sustainable transportation shows that our community values safety, accessibility, and environmental responsibility.
8. Equity
Women are more likely to choose cycling as a mode of transportation if there is a dedicated bike lane. Dedicated cycling infrastructure increases both the number and share of women who choose to cycle in a city (AitBihiOuali and Klingen, 2022). Areas underserved by public transit (e.g., Scarborough, Etobicoke) and where car ownership is not financially feasible would benefit from the expansion of safe, dedicated bike lanes. Legislation that removes or prevents development of bike lanes, further entrenches care dependency, disproportionately impacting women and residents of lower-income neighbourhoods.
9. Legislative Overreach and Local Autonomy
This legislation directly contradicts the City of Toronto’s Vision Zero strategy, which prioritizes reducing traffic-related deaths and serious injuries through better infrastructure, including bike lanes. Toronto residents and local government have repeatedly supported cycling infrastructure to enhance safety, reduce congestion, and improve quality of life. The provincial intervention disregards local priorities, undermining democratic processes and local expertise in urban planning.
Additionally, many car commuters from outside Toronto use city roads without directly contributing to their upkeep through local taxes. Removing bike lanes unfairly penalizes Toronto residents while subsidizing the convenience of non-resident drivers.
Conclusion
This provincial legislation is misguided and counterproductive. Protected bike lanes save lives, reduce congestion, and provide an equitable transportation option that supports public health and sustainability. Rather than dismantling these gains, the provincial government should support the efforts of Toronto and other cities to create safer, more livable streets for everyone.