The framework of Bill 212…

The framework of Bill 212 concerning bike lanes is not supported by organizations that a provincial government should be listening to. The Ontario Professional Planners Institute has this to say: "The proposed legislative changes will not reduce congestion, will increase risk to public safety, and move away from evidence-based practices."

More broadly with respect to the bill, there are obvious inconsistencies with how some changes are to be implemented as compared to others. For example, the bill would exempt construction of a new highway from the Environmental Assessment Act, while at the same time requiring Ministry review for both new and existing bike lanes.

As impacts Toronto—Canada’s largest city and one aspiring to be world class—the framework is a step backwards on many fronts. Other much larger cities such as London, England are doing the opposite, promoting more commuting by bicycle. This policy is supported by congestion charges that provide disincentives for bringing cars into the core of the city and a fully developed system of public transit.

Yes, reducing congestion is a laudable goal, but there isn’t clear evidence this will be the result of the legislation in the short run. And as for medium- and long-term considerations, much of the rest of the western world is of the view that promoting other forms of transportation rather than automobiles gets people to work as quickly and is important for many other reasons, not the least of which is the undeniable drastic impact of CO2 from internal combustion engines, which will be a large part of the collective automobile fleet for some time. Also, promoting personal fitness and making for livable urban centres are other goals served by bike lanes.

Then there are the safety considerations with Bill 212. As a senior in his late 60s living in mid-town Toronto, I have recently begun to cycle much more to various points in the city, largely in part because of dedicated bicycle lanes. For many years I would not cycle except on local streets, having in my 20s collided with suddenly opened car doors, and flying over the hoods of cars making right turns without checking for bicycles beside them. I also cycle more because of changes in TTC policies allowing bicycles on subways; I now consider leaving the car in the driveway if I can use a combination of transit and cycle. Our provincial government should be looking for ways to further integrate cycling and public transit to reduce road congestion.

Alarmingly, Bill 212 is silent about the safety of cyclists in the evaluation of any bike lane. So far, the only criteria is “the orderly movement of motor vehicle traffic.”

I graduated as a civil engineer in the mid ‘80s, and was dismayed during my formal studies that exercises in my program sometimes compared the higher costs of public liability insurance where safety measures such as elevated rail crossings were decided against. Avoiding the human toll of injury and death were not considerations by themselves. Surely in 40 years, safety of citizens should now be given higher priority in legislation such as Bill 212. Even the Ontario Traffic Council says so: “While the efficient flow of traffic is an important element of transportation planning and engineering, it should not come at the expense of cyclists’ and other vulnerable road users’ lives.”

Bill 212’s provisions with respect to bicycle lanes are not based on evidence. It will not achieve its stated objectives, and will put lives at risk. It should not be passed as it is currently written.