In reference to Bill 212 and…

In reference to Bill 212 and the removal of bike lanes in the City of Toronto.

Supporting bike lanes is crucial for promoting sustainable transportation, reducing traffic congestion, and cutting down on greenhouse gas emissions. We have worked hard to create our bike lane infrastructure and removing it would not only set us back in achieving these goals but also compromise the safety of cyclists who rely on them daily. Without dedicated bike lanes, cyclists are forced to share the road with vehicles, significantly increasing the risk of accidents, injuries, and fatalities.

Other major cities around the world are setting examples by expanding their bike lane networks and reaping the benefits of reduced traffic, cleaner air, and safer streets. Additionally, the cost of removing existing bike lanes is an unnecessary burden on taxpayers, wasting funds that could instead be used to improve infrastructure. Proper funding should be allocated to enhance bike lanes and improve coordination between bike and road traffic.

It’s also important to recognize that bike lane infrastructure is a municipal issue, not a provincial one. Cities understand their unique transportation needs and priorities best, and decisions about bike lanes should remain within their control. Bill 212, however, does not support bike lanes and instead opens the door to removing them—undermining the progress we’ve made and putting cyclists at greater risk.

City car congestion is a real problem, but bike lanes are not the cause. In fact, bike lanes help reduce congestion by encouraging people to choose alternative transportation, taking cars off the road. Blaming bike lanes for traffic issues distracts from the need to address underlying problems such as poor urban planning, inefficient traffic flow, and reliance on single-occupancy vehicles. Instead of removing bike lanes, we should invest in smarter solutions that create a balance between all modes of transportation, ensuring safer and more efficient streets for everyone.