I recognize that traffic…

I recognize that traffic congestion and gridlock are significant problems in Ontario, but I contend that proposals in Bill 212, Reducing Gridlock, Saving You Time Act, 2024, would worsen the problem while limiting Ontarians travel options and putting vulnerable road users at higher risk of injury and death.

The addendum about bike lanes is proposing a layer of wasteful bureaucracy, and is a significant overreach into municipal governance. I believe local governments are better suited to determining what works best on their streets, where the movement of vehicles is just one factor, and not always the most important.

My experience.
I drive, cycle, walk and use transit in the Greater Toronto Area, living for the last three decades within 3 km of the bikeways this bill proposes to remove. While witnessing this growing congestion, I found the bicycle my preferred and most efficient transport, though I still own a car. I experienced the recent growth of cycling in the city and know that the statistics referenced by Ontario (i.e., 1.2% of trips ) are outdated and severely understate the current use of bicycles, especially in the central city areas. I attribute most of the adoption of cycling to the improving connected cycling network, especially the protected bike lanes along efficient corridors, providing routes that more and more people feel are safe enough and direct enough to outweigh the inherent risks one takes riding bicycles on our streets. Removing and refusing bike lanes will force many to return to cars or transit for those trips, worsening congestion an overcrowding transit.

Diving not sustainable.
Apparent to all is the greatly increasing population density of cities, Toronto specifically, and we must recognize as fact that private vehicle use must decline as a percentage of transportation, as they are undeniably the least space-efficient option to move people in and out of crowded areas. The corollary is that the increasing majority need alternatives, of which cycling and walking bring the most benefit to those participants and the city, also the most reliable and lowest cost.

Cycling as solution.
While it takes years to increase transit capacity, increasing bike ridership is relatively quick and affordable, by ensuring safe, efficient bike lane networks. Having often commuted by bicycle I continue to appreciate the physical and mental health benefits it provides and feel more productive than days I would drive. I have visited Copenhagen where cycling works wonderfully as transportation for the masses all year because of separated cycleways on most major roadways. Lost productivity has been stated as a reason to fight gridlock, and bicycles are inherently a more productive way to get around, proven by the growth of bicycle deliveries replacing cars in many industries. While it's common lately to consider food delivery bikes an inconvenient scourge, imagine if many of those deliveries returned to cars, which actually do block traffic when they stop.

Outdated mindset.
The Ontario Regulatory Registry document (Proposal Number: 24-MTO018, https://www.ontariocanada.com/registry/view.do?language=en&postingId=48… ) states:
"Ontario is looking to fight gridlock and get drivers where they need to go faster."
The word 'drivers' here is a problem, it should be 'people and goods'. North American society adopted the idea of driving ourselves everywhere with the advent of suburbs and freeways long ago, which most now recognize is unsustainable, especially as populations grow. Hanging onto this idea is, I believe, the main cause of congestion; providing alternatives is the only real solution.

Research and justification.
I'm aware of no data or research that would support this bill's contention that more lanes for motor vehicles in place of bike lanes will reduce congestion, while there IS such research that more vehicle lanes induces demand (brings more drivers) and doesn't reduce gridlock for long. The proposal seems to be based on "gut feel" or simplistic thinking about a very complex science, and some bike lanes "appearing" underused some of the time.

Extreme waste.
It would be a disastrous waste of very significant taxpayer money and government time and resources, especially the removal of implemented cycle tracks or cancellation of planned projects. The work to reimplement bike lanes will eventually be done again, and we'll have lost years getting to a real solution, much like the Eglington transit project history. But even worse, the proposal itself is fuelling angry attitudes between drivers and vulnerable road users, which may lead to tragedy on our roads.

Please rescind all proposals on bike lanes in Bill 212, as amended.