To Whom It May Concern, I am…

To Whom It May Concern,

I am writing as a resident of the London/Ontario region (and an avid cyclist and father) to register my strong opposition to Bill 60. The provisions in this Bill that restrict municipalities from reducing vehicle lanes in order to install bike lanes, and otherwise circumscribe local decision-making around active transportation infrastructure, are deeply misguided and harmful.

Local governments, planners and communities know their streets, know where the risks are, and have consulted citizens; this Bill hands overriding power to the provincial government in a way that violates that principle.

Many communities rely on “road re‐configuration” (reducing a car lane, narrowing lanes, reallocating space) as the most cost-effective and pragmatic way to build separated bike lanes and safer active transportation links. Bike Ottawa writes: “These retrofits are the single most important tool … because it is MUCH cheaper and easier than redesigning an entire roadway, curbs, sidewalks and all. This bill stops that work cold.”

In my own experience: as a parent of a seven-year-old (Oscar) who rides his bike and often rides with me, I have seen how Halifax-style or even London-Ontario style neighbourhood bike lanes give peace of mind. I worry that if municipalities cannot reallocate road space, those sorts of low-stress routes will never materialise.

The Bill’s rationale appears to rest on assumptions about reducing “gridlock” for drivers; yet cycling advocates (including Cycle Toronto) point out that the evidence shows that bike lanes do not cause lasting traffic congestion and that removing or blocking them may lead to greater risks for vulnerable road users.

For example, Cycle Toronto’s press release notes that their legal challenge revealed the province’s own internal advice: “The removal of the target bike lanes … will not achieve the asserted goal of reducing congestion.”

From a personal standpoint, every time I ride on a busy street without protected or separated lanes, I feel the risk: passing buses, cars cornering, lack of buffer, and that affects my decision to ride with my son. If we can’t create safe environments, we risk losing active transport altogether.

As Bike Ottawa puts it: “Forbidding the city from retrofitting an overbuilt, four-lane road into a safer and more accessible two-lane road configuration with wider sidewalks and bike lanes is bad asset management.”

In many parts of Ontario, roads were built for past decades’ heavy car use and lower active‐transport numbers. Reallocating space is not a fad, it’s the pragmatic way to increase capacity of people, not just vehicles: more people per lane, lower emissions, healthier citizens.

Encouraging cycling is not just about recreation, it’s about offering transport choice, reducing emissions, improving public health, and offering mobility to people who cannot or choose not to drive. The Bill’s narrow focus on preserving motor-vehicle lanes works against those objectives.

As a father raising a young child, I feel strongly that the future of our cities should support children being able to cycle safely to school, not just being driven. If municipalities are prevented from creating safe bike lanes, we revert to a future that privileges cars and marginalises non-drivers.

The hidden, buried provision on bike lanes (Schedule 5/Part XII.1 of the Highway Traffic Act) is a dangerous step backward for active transportation, for safety, and for local democracy. I urge the government to remove or substantially amend the sections that restrict municipalities from reallocating vehicle lanes for bike lanes. Treat bike lanes not as an afterthought or adversary to cars, but as indispensable infrastructure for modern, livable, healthy, equitable cities.

If I were to summarise my view in one sentence: “If our children cannot ride safely along neighbourhood routes because of legislation that privileges motor vehicles over human-powered mobility, we are choosing the wrong future.”

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.