As a resident of the Annex…

As a resident of the Annex and a frequent user of the roads in question (Avenue, Yonge, Bloor) by BOTH car and bike, I would like to object to the proposed framework on the following grounds:
1) There is clear evidence that bike lanes promote safety for cyclists and pedestrians, and I note that cyclists have died on these routes in the past (the stretch between bloor and dupont on Avenue road is well known as the most dangerous in the city)
2) There is no clear evidence that the creation of bike lanes slow traffic given a) cyclists have to intermingle with traffic in the absence of bike lanes, slowing car traffic; b) car traffic over time migrates to the 'path of least resistance' thus fewer lanes does not mean more traffic (if this were true, then more lanes would mean less traffic, but the 401 should put that argument to rest); c) in the absence of bike lanes, you often have cars stopping, parking legally / illegally, negating any possible benefit of the extra lane; d) bike lanes are often associated with other improvements (e.g. a dedicated right turn lane at bloor and bedford) which improve traffic flow
3) The presence of cycling lanes encourage the use of bikes, which a) improves people health and well being, thereby ultimately reducing our publicly funded health care costs and b) reduces our carbon emissions which is critical to a sustainable future
4) There are better ways to reduce traffic than wasting tax payer money to remove lanes that were just put in. For example, the government could focus on 1) Getting the LRT on Eglington actually in service (what an embarrassment), 2) accelerating the metrolinx Queen extension, 3) implementing a congestion charge like many world leading cities (e.g. London), which has the dual effect of raising money and reducing traffic
5) Toronto is behind (not ahead) world leading cities in the deployment of bike lanes, including London, New York (Manhattan) and Paris, cities with far, far more traffic than Toronto.

I feel strongly about this matter and will be voting against this government in the next election should this bill pass (who could vote for a government that fights a rear-guard action against progress and change for the better, meddling in local affairs for which we have a municipal government doing the will of the people).