As a concerned resident of…

As a concerned resident of Ontario, I oppose the government’s proposed Bill 212 – the Reducing Gridlock, Saving You Time Act, 2024. Specifically, I oppose the provision calling for the removal of bike lanes on key Toronto streets such as Bloor Street, Yonge Street, and University Avenue. This decision not only undermines the progress we have made in building sustainable, multimodal transportation networks but is also short-sighted from an engineering and urban planning perspective. The following points outline my concerns.

1. Impact on Road Safety
Removing bike lanes in favor of additional motor vehicle lanes is a significant step backward in terms of road safety, both for cyclists and drivers. The addition of bike lanes to major streets was based on decades of research demonstrating that dedicated cycling infrastructure reduces the likelihood of collisions between cyclists and motor vehicles. According to the “Ontario Road Safety Annual Report” by the Ministry of Transportation, cycling safety improvements have led to a reduction in injuries in cities with robust bike lane networks. Removing bike lanes will reintroduce the dangerous mix of cyclists and motor vehicles in shared spaces, increasing the likelihood of accidents and potentially escalating insurance claims, which would ultimately cost Ontarians more.

2. Environmental Concerns
One of the central tenets of sustainable urban transportation is the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Removing bike lanes would create disincentives for cycling, a mode of transport that produces zero emissions. This is in direct conflict with Ontario’s broader environmental goals outlined in the “Climate Change Action Plan” and the Province's “Climate Change Strategy”, which emphasize increasing cycling and public transit use. Adding lanes for vehicles exacerbates traffic congestion, increases air pollution, and contributes to climate change. The Government should instead be investing in expanding cycling infrastructure, which is in line with Ontario’s commitment to reducing carbon emissions.

3. Urban Mobility and Traffic Congestion
The assertion that removing bike lanes will help ease gridlock is fundamentally flawed. Studies from cities around the world, including those with similar traffic conditions like Copenhagen and Amsterdam, show that cycling infrastructure actually improves overall traffic flow by encouraging more people to cycle, thereby reducing the number of cars on the road. Removing bike lanes in favour of additional vehicle lanes only leads to marginal increases in vehicle throughput, which are often countered by increased congestion in the long term as urban populations grow. Additionally, the engineering principle of "induced demand" suggests that expanding roadways simply leads to more traffic, rather than alleviating congestion.

4. Economic Considerations
Cycling is a cost-effective transportation solution. It reduces the burden on public transit systems, lowers health care costs by promoting active lifestyles, and brings economic benefits to local businesses by increasing foot traffic and reducing parking demand. Studies have shown that areas with bike lanes see increased retail sales because cycling enhances access to shops and restaurants. The removal of bike lanes from prominent areas like Bloor, Yonge, and University Avenue risks reversing these economic benefits and discouraging both cyclists and businesses from supporting a sustainable, active transportation economy.

6. Misuse of Provincial Taxpayer Money
The proposal to use provincial funds to pay for the removal of bike lanes on key Toronto streets raises serious concerns about the misuse of taxpayer money. Over the years, the City of Toronto has invested heavily in developing bike infrastructure, which includes not only the physical construction of bike lanes but also the substantial planning, design, and community consultation efforts. According to reports from the City’s Transportation Services Division, the planning, design, and construction of bike lanes can cost anywhere between $100,000 to $500,000 per kilometer, depending on the complexity of the route and whether it involves physical separation from motor vehicle lanes.

To now shift provincial funding towards the removal of these lanes, and to return sections of Bloor Street, Yonge Street, and University Avenue to motor vehicle lanes, represents a wasteful expenditure of public funds. These tax dollars could instead be allocated to expanding and enhancing the existing cycling infrastructure across Ontario, which aligns with broader transportation and environmental goals. Furthermore, the cost of demolishing or repurposing these bike lanes could vastly exceed the cost of maintaining or expanding them.

7. Vision Zero and Road Safety
The City of Toronto has committed to a Vision Zero mandate, which aims to eliminate traffic fatalities and serious injuries on its streets. This is a highly commendable and necessary policy that aligns with global best practices in traffic safety. Removing bike lanes undermines Vision Zero by compromising the safety of cyclists, pedestrians, and even drivers. The goal of Vision Zero is to create safer, more inclusive roadways where all users, including cyclists, can share the space in harmony.

The removal of bike lanes from critical arteries like Bloor Street, Yonge Street, and University Avenue increases the risk of collisions between cyclists and motor vehicles, directly contravening the Vision Zero principles. Studies have shown that cities with integrated bike lanes experience fewer traffic fatalities, as the separation of cyclists from vehicular traffic decreases the likelihood of accidents. For example, research from Toronto Public Health has shown that cycling infrastructure reduces fatalities by up to 45% on major streets. The engineering rationale here is clear: bike lanes save lives and improve road safety outcomes. Therefore, removing them would not only be a step backward in terms of safety but also a setback in achieving Toronto’s Vision Zero mandate.

8. Wasteful Rehabilitations and Design Costs
Another significant issue with the proposed bill is the financial waste associated with the rehabilitation of roadways that have recently been upgraded to include bike lanes. The implementation of dedicated cycling infrastructure often requires significant investments in both the physical roadwork and the planning and design process. These costs include road resurfacing, lane reconfigurations, and the installation of new traffic infrastructure, such as bike racks, signage, and signals.

For example, the recent rehabilitation of Bloor Street, which involved lane reconfigurations to create safer spaces for cyclists, cost the City of Toronto millions of dollars. If the bike lanes are removed, not only will this represent a direct financial loss, but the work done to accommodate these features would have to be undone at additional taxpayer expense.

In engineering terms, this constitutes a failure to maintain the principle of infrastructure sustainability. Public funds should be used efficiently to maintain and improve existing assets, not to reverse decisions that were made after careful engineering assessments and community consultation. The proposed removal of these lanes, after years of investment in their design and construction, would be a poor use of taxpayer money, especially considering the long-term cost of having to rehabilitate the roads again for different purposes.

9. Traffic Signal Timing and Flow Impacts
The engineering design of roads, particularly urban streets, is carefully planned to optimize traffic flow, pedestrian safety, and the integration of different modes of transportation. Bike lanes play an important role in this planning, as their presence can influence signal timing and the overall flow of traffic. The removal of bike lanes will likely necessitate changes to existing traffic signal timings and could worsen overall congestion, as more motor vehicle lanes typically lead to longer green phases for cars and less efficient flow for all road users.

The integration of bike lanes has allowed for more balanced traffic signal timings that accommodate cyclists, pedestrians, and vehicles. With bike lanes removed, the system would have to be recalibrated to prioritize vehicular traffic, potentially leading to longer wait times for cyclists and pedestrians. The overall efficiency of the transportation network would decrease, as changes to traffic signal systems often lead to unintended delays and bottlenecks. These engineering adjustments also come at an additional cost to taxpayers and often require months or even years of recalibration and fine-tuning.

10. Environmental and Social Considerations
In the broader context of Ontario's environmental policies, the removal of bike lanes contradicts efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate the impact of climate change. The more we invest in cycling infrastructure, the more we encourage sustainable transportation options and reduce reliance on carbon-heavy private cars. The financial and environmental benefits of cycling far outweigh the negligible improvements in traffic flow that may arise from removing bike lanes.

Furthermore, the social benefits of cycling infrastructure cannot be overlooked. Bike lanes encourage healthy lifestyles, reduce noise pollution, and promote a more equitable transportation system by providing a low-cost, accessible alternative to driving for people from all socioeconomic backgrounds. Removing bike lanes reduces the transportation options available to those who rely on cycling as a primary means of getting around, thus disproportionately impacting low-income and marginalized communities.

Summary
Bill 212, particularly the provision regarding the removal of bike lanes on Bloor Street, Yonge Street, and University Avenue, is misguided from both an engineering and fiscal perspective. It misallocates provincial tax money by funding the removal of infrastructure that was carefully planned, designed, and implemented at great cost. It undermines the City of Toronto’s Vision Zero mandate and compromises road safety. It also exacerbates the environmental and social challenges that Ontario faces in achieving sustainability and equitable transportation.

Instead of dismantling these bike lanes, the Ontario government should prioritize investment in expanding and enhancing cycling infrastructure, ensuring it complements other transportation modes, and contributes to a safer, more sustainable, and more efficient urban transportation network. I call on the Ontario Legislature to halt the progression of this bill and reconsider its approach to urban transportation planning by consulting with transportation engineers, urban planners, environmental scientists, and the public to develop a more balanced, sustainable, and forward-thinking approach to transportation policy.
I urge the Ontario Legislature to reconsider this bill, as it poses significant risks to the safety of Ontarians, the environment, and the long-term sustainability of our urban mobility systems. Instead of removing bike lanes, the Province should be investing in expanding cycling infrastructure as part of a broader strategy to fight gridlock, reduce emissions, and create safer, healthier communities. This approach aligns with engineering best practices for transportation planning and supports Ontario’s environmental and economic goals.

I call on the members of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario (including the Standing Committee on Transportation) to carefully review the potential consequences of this proposal and engage in a broader consultation with experts in urban planning, transportation engineering, and environmental science before moving forward with any legislation that would negatively impact cycling infrastructure.