Comments on Bill 212 and…

Comments on Bill 212 and Proposed Regulations

Background

I am a mother in Toronto with two young children, a cyclist, a lawyer who commutes downtown, and an Adjunct Professor of Public Health Law. I am seriously concerned over my family’s safety due to the Reducing Gridlock, Saving You Time Act, 2024 and its proposed regulations. My husband and I ride daily with our children to get to school, daycare, work, errands and shopping and we feel safe doing so because of protected bike lanes on major streets. We ride throughout the year in all weather and by doing so, we reduce the number of cars on the road. We are one of the 55% of households in downtown Toronto who do not own a car.

The government’s proposal to infringe on municipal jurisdiction by trying to control their transportation planning is nonsensical and contrary to the evidence. When you add lanes of car traffic, you induce demand. You may see a temporary improvement in the movement of car traffic, but ultimately more cars will begin to use those routes, leaving the traffic worse than it was before. The worldwide data on this is incontrovertible

When I bike on major roads, I am more likely to frequent the businesses on those roads, a fact backed up by the research of local BIAs in Toronto. There are other good reasons to have bike lanes on major roads - just like drivers and transit riders, people on bikes prefer the most direct routes to get where we're going. My office is on University Avenue, so I use that bike lane each day when I bike to work. There are no secondary roads that provide the direct routes and convenience of Bloor, University and Yonge.

Comment on Proposed Regulatory Framework

It is difficult to comment on the proposed regulations when the government has provided minimal details about what they propose to include in them. My comments below are based on the scant information that has been provided.

1) The scope of included municipalities and or roads that will be subject to the bike lanes framework.

The intrusion on municipal jurisdiction should affect as few municipalities and roads as possible. This legislation appears to be a transparent attempt to pick on Toronto.

2) Defined provincial review process for bike lanes that require(d) the removal of an existing lane of traffic.

The process should be set out in the regulations to make it as transparent as possible. Guidelines that are internal to the Ministry undermine accountability to the public. The review process should be entirely objective with pre-determined criteria that do not allow for discretionary decision-making or political interference.

The review process should be comprehensive and extend beyond considering changes to traffic patterns. It should also consider:

o Environmental benefits or risks
o Public health impacts in terms of physical activity levels and risk of injury
o Equity impacts on low-income and marginalized communities
o Safety improvements or risks
o Economic effects on local businesses and communities
o Public expenditures necessary to remove bike lanes and rebuild them elsewhere
o Changes to accessibility of streets
o Climate change mitigation potential
o Integration with existing transportation networks

In terms of timing, no order to remove a bike lane should be made until the construction of an alternative bike lane is underway.

Written reasons should be provided that fully justify the decision made in each case.

3) Required data, studies, and other information that would be subject to the framework.

Data required should be of a long-term nature. It should include projections of future effects on traffic to account for induced demand effects if a bike lane is removed and replaced with a lane of traffic. Data analysis should account for the fact that people will continue to ride bikes on major roads, they will just do so less safely and in closer proximity to cars. The analysis should also consider potential positive changes to traffic patterns from having more people cycling and fewer people driving if bike lanes are maintained.

Municipalities should be allowed to submit international research on the effect of bike lanes on traffic outcomes, safety, and modal share, among other outcomes.

Municipalities should provide information on alternative locations for bike lanes, including whether or not there is any alternative route that would connect to existing bike lanes.

Data on the safety of cyclists, pedestrians and drivers should be a primary factor in decision making. Independent peer-reviewed research has shown that the introduction of separated
bikeways reduces the risk of cycling injury (about 9 times lower risk than a major street
with parked cars and no cycling infrastructure).

The data provided by municipalities should also:

o Include metrics beyond just traffic flow
o Consider seasonal variations in cycling usage
o Account for induced demand in both driving and cycling
o Measure safety improvements and public health outcomes
o Evaluate impacts on community wellbeing and urban environmental health
o Traffic management measures that could mitigate any congestion on roads where bike lanes are located

Conclusion

The regulations should set out a detailed, evidence-based process that considers all impacts of bike lane removal. This may lessen the significant negative impacts of Bill 212 on Ontario’s municipalities and their residents.