I am writing to express my…

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed provisions in Bill 60 – Fighting Delays, Building Faster Act, 2025, which would prohibit the reduction of vehicle lanes for the creation of new bicycle lanes. This proposal is deeply concerning and counterproductive to Ontario’s goals for safe, sustainable, and efficient transportation.

1. It undermines road safety.
Designing streets that prioritize car traffic over all other modes of travel increases risks for vulnerable road users—cyclists, pedestrians, children, and seniors. Dedicated cycling infrastructure is one of the most effective tools to reduce collisions and fatalities. Preventing cities from reallocating road space to safer uses will result in more injuries and deaths on our roads. Speaking from personal experience, I feel most safe when riding on dedicated cycling infrastructure, and I frequently hear from people that the main reason they do not cycle is due to concern about their safety.

2. It restricts local decision-making and planning.
Municipal governments best understand the needs of their communities. Cities like Toronto, Ottawa, and Hamilton have invested years of consultation, study, and planning into multimodal transportation networks. A province-wide ban on lane reallocation would strip municipalities of their ability to make data-driven decisions that reflect local realities.

3. It conflicts with climate and sustainability goals.
Encouraging cycling and active transportation is essential to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, improving air quality, and achieving Ontario’s climate targets. By freezing road space in its current car-dominated form, this bill would make it harder to shift toward cleaner, healthier modes of travel.

4. It ignores evidence about traffic flow and economic vitality.
Studies from Ontario and around the world show that adding bike lanes—even where vehicle lanes are reduced—does not necessarily increase congestion. In many cases, traffic volumes adjust over time, and businesses benefit from increased foot and bike traffic. Safer, more complete streets attract customers, encourage local economic activity, and create vibrant communities. If you look around Toronto, the most vibrant and bustling streets are the ones with the fewest cars, where people can get around by bicycle, bus, or streetcar. These modes of transportation are ones where it is easy for people to stop on a whim to check out a shop or restaurant, and both businesses on these streets and the community benefit tremendously.

5. It sends the wrong message about the future of transportation.
Ontario should be investing in safer, more efficient, and more inclusive transportation systems, not doubling down on car dependency. This legislation would set us back decades in creating streets that serve everyone, not just drivers. I, and many people I know, want the choice to be able to travel without taking a car. When you design infrastructure to make driving the most appealing option, by preventing cycling infrastructure on main roads and preventing dedicated public transportation lanes, you incentive people to ditch alternative modes of transportation and put more cars on the road.

6. I oppose the government’s decision to limit debate and skip public hearings.
Equally troubling is the government’s decision to fast-track this bill by restricting legislative debate and bypassing meaningful public consultation. This approach denies residents, municipalities, and advocacy groups the opportunity to share their expertise and perspectives. Decisions that shape how Ontarians move, live, and work should be made transparently and democratically, not rushed through without proper scrutiny. Limiting discussion on a bill that affects public safety, local autonomy, and environmental sustainability undermines confidence in the legislative process.

For these reasons, I urge the government to remove the provisions of Bill 60 that would prohibit lane reductions. Ontario’s residents deserve safer, healthier, and more sustainable transportation options—not restrictions that make progress impossible.

Thank you for considering my comments.