I am writing to express my…

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed amendment to the Highway Traffic Act under Bill 60, which would prohibit municipalities from reducing vehicle lanes to install new bicycle lanes.

This proposal is a significant step backward for road safety, municipal autonomy, economic vitality, and Ontario's climate goals. The premise of the bill's title, "Fighting Delays," is fundamentally misleading and is not supported by modern transportation research.

1. This Proposal Will Make Our Roads More Dangerous

The single most effective and evidence-based method for improving cyclist safety and, in fact, safety for all road users (including drivers and pedestrians), is the installation of physically protected bike lanes. On many urban and suburban streets, the only feasible way to create this space is by reallocating a vehicle lane—a practice often called a "road diet."

• Proven Safety: The U.S. Federal Highway Administration has designated "road diets" as a Proven Safety Countermeasure. Studies show they can reduce total crashes by 19% to 47%.

• Local Evidence: In Toronto, the installation of the Bloor Street bike lanes (which involved reallocating space) resulted in a 71% decrease in car-and-cyclist collisions and, notably, a 71% decrease in car-on-car conflicts due to more predictable traffic flow.

• Vision Zero: This proposal directly contradicts the "Vision Zero" policies adopted by many Ontario municipalities, which aim to eliminate all traffic fatalities. It removes one of the most effective tools for achieving this goal. By forcing cyclists into dangerous, mixed-traffic situations, this bill will inevitably lead to more serious injuries and deaths
.
2. This Proposal Misunderstands Traffic Congestion
The claim that this bill will "fight delays" is false. Prohibiting road reallocation will preserve inefficient road designs and worsen the very congestion it claims to solve.

• Inefficient Design: On many four-lane roads, the primary cause of delays is not a lack of capacity but conflict from turning vehicles. A "road diet" that converts four lanes to three (one lane in each direction with a centre turning lane) is proven to improve traffic flow by removing these conflicts.

• No Impact on Congestion: Decades of research show that for roads carrying up to 20,000 vehicles per day, converting lanes has a negligible impact on vehicle travel times but a massive positive impact on safety.

• Induced Demand: The only long-term solution to congestion is to reduce the number of car trips. Adding or preserving car lanes simply fills them with more cars—a concept known as "induced demand." By making cycling a safe and viable option, we can actually reduce the number of cars on the road, easing congestion for everyone.

3. This Proposal Undermines Municipal Authority
This bill is a clear case of provincial overreach that strips local, democratically-elected councils of the power to design streets that best serve their communities.

Municipalities are best positioned to understand their local transportation networks, safety challenges, and community needs. Whether in a large city or a small town, local staff and councils must have the flexibility to use proven, modern engineering solutions. This proposal treats all roads in Ontario with a one-size-fits-all, car-centric approach that is outdated and dangerous.

4. This Proposal Is Bad for Local Economies and the Environment

By discouraging safe cycling, this bill will harm main street businesses and hinder Ontario's ability to meet its climate targets.

• Economic Benefits: Studies, including those on Toronto's Bloor Street, consistently show that patrons who arrive by bicycle or on foot visit more frequently and spend more money per month at local businesses than those who drive. Bike lanes create vibrant main streets and are good for the economy.

• Health & Climate: Active transportation is essential for public health and is one of the most cost-effective ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This bill actively discourages a key method for building a healthier, more sustainable province.
Conclusion

This proposed amendment is not based on evidence. It prioritizes the perceived speed of vehicles over the actual lives and safety of Ontarians. It will make our roads more dangerous, undermine local decision-making, and harm our economy and environment.
I urge the Ministry to listen to transportation engineers, public health officials, and local governments and immediately withdraw this harmful and regressive proposal.