I am a citizen who has…

I am a citizen who has relied on all forms of local transportation including car, taxi, bus, subway, streetcar, bicycle, and foot. I have found that when facilitated by the city, getting around by bicycle has been the superior mode of transportation from time, personal, financial, and environmental standpoints.

I am writing in opposition to Bill 212 and wish to focus on four points: (1) efficacy of the proposed measure, (2) safety, (3) environment, and (4) long-term planning.

1. Efficacy of proposed measure

The Ontario government's proposal to remove bike lanes will not ease gridlock in a meaningful way.

- Traffic choke points exist outside of the bike lanes on Yonge, Bloor, and University. Those choke points will not change. Assuming that the number of cars on the road does not change with the removal of bike lanes, at most what will happen on Yonge, Bloor, and University is that cars will get to sit in traffic a few blocks further up than where they were before. But they will continue to sit in traffic.

- Many bike lanes share the lane with dedicated narrower parking spaces. In order to genuinely regain a lane of traffic, parking will need to be forbidden on those streets. If parking is not forbidden, cars will not gain a lane and traffic will not noticeably change. The only difference is that cyclists who choose to continue to use that route will be less safe.
Further to this point, by the province's logic, removal of street parking would be far more efficient in reducing congestion than the removal of the more space-efficient bike lanes. Street parking is limited and serves a small number of people at a time, but takes up an entire lane, whereas cyclists can share. The province's unwillingness to take this kind of measure to reduce gridlock, instead scapegoating bicycle lanes, is illogical and suggests that the province's goal is to pander to cars rather than to make decisions based on research and logic. If the province's goal is to reduce gridlock, removing street parking would be more effective. If the province's goal is to better serve businesses, then keeping both bike lanes and some street parking is most effective, as research has shown that bike lanes increase business. If the province's goal is to make drivers think they are getting a solution to gridlock without any inconvenience to them, then Bill 212 is the way to go.

- There appears to be an underlying assumption that getting rid of bike lanes will stop cyclists from using those roads and that cyclists will instead move to side streets or other cycling routes. The fact remains that some of these routes, such as Yonge Street, do not have efficient alternatives for cyclists. The reality is that cyclists will have to choose between adding kilometers to their commute to use side roads or to continue commuting on main roads. Cyclists who do the latter have the right to cycle safely and must be passed by cars with at least a 1 meter margin. This will limit full use of the lane for cars at the cost of cyclist safety. If enough cyclists do this, cars will have gained nothing. Without a true viable alternative for cyclists, all the province is saying to cyclists is "we don't want you."

- Some cyclists, due to safety issues and longer commute routes, will return to driving, increasing the number of cars on the road and increasing congestion. Traffic will not increase, mobility will decrease, and we will fail that much more to meet our environmental obligations.

In sum, there is no evidence that removing bike lanes on these major roads will actually have a positive impact on traffic. Existing traffic choke points will continue to limit the flow of cars on and off of major roads, more people may return to driving thereby increasing congestion, bicycles may continue to use the roads due to a lack of good alternatives, and the province does not seem inclined to stop cars from parking on streets, which is a bigger detriment to traffic than cyclists.

I also question the practical efficiency and financial efficiency of creating provincial oversight for what is a municipal matter. Municipal governments exist for a reason - presumably because they know what their cities need best. The province has bigger matters to attend to than the arrangement of Toronto's streets.

2. Safety

As touched on above, because cyclists do not always have good alternatives to biking on Yonge, Bloor, and University (and may need to do so for stretches of their commute, regardless), cycling on those roads will not be eliminated. The clear result of removing designated bike lanes is that we will have more cyclist injuries and deaths than we already do. The only way to prevent an increase in cyclist injuries and death would be for less people to bicycle. Again, the message the province is sending to cyclists is "we don't want you."

This reality highlights that this bill was designed to pander to drivers without regards to the safety of cyclists or our community's environmental priorities.

3. Environment

Our planet is undergoing an undeniable climate crisis. This year alone, we have seen disasters like Hurricane Milton (which rapidly and violently intensified as a result of climate change) and a year's worth of rain in one day in Valencia. We cannot continue to ignore or push off the measures that we need to take for the sake of our planet and future generations.

In order to have any chance of making progress towards our environmental goals, some reasonable sacrifices need to be made. Reasonable sacrifices, in this case, would include reducing the number of people driving private vehicles on city streets. We cannot afford to keep making climate priorities come second to the interests of cars.

I recognize that cars have an important place in our society, including transporting persons with disabilities, transporting large quantities of goods, and making deliveries. However, cars are a major source of pollution and not everyone who is driving a car needs to be doing so. A better solution to improving gridlock than getting rid of bike lanes (which would not be very efficacious, per section #1 above), while helping meet our environmental goals, would be to invest in more public transit and ride shares, and to make car-alternatives such as cycling more attractive.

From a personal standpoint, I cycle to work whenever I can, rain or shine. With proper support for cycling infrastructure, snow and ice would only occasionally impede my ability to cycle in the winter. Cycling gives me some much-needed exercise and helps keep my cost of living lower. It also helps reduce my carbon footprint, and makes me one less driver sitting on the road. If we make cycling a safe and attractive way to get around, we win as a society in far more ways than just delaying the worsening of gridlock.

4. Long-term planning

Removing bicycle lanes from major streets is, at best, a stall tactic for gridlock. It is NOT a solution. The city of Toronto is always growing. Unless we introduce more viable car-alternatives, this growth will only mean more cars, and consequently more gridlock. Removing all the bike lanes in the city will not change that. We need to be realistic. We need to plan for the long-term, not the short-term.

We need more than sound bites that distract from real problems. We need real solutions.