Climate Action Partnership…

Climate Action Partnership strongly opposes Schedule 5 Part XII.1 of Bill 60, which would
prohibit municipalities from removing lanes presently used by motor vehicles to be
reallocated towards safer space for transit, pedestrians, and active and/or e-mobility
travel. The vague language used in this section of the Omnibus Bill 60 of not allowing
reallocation of motor vehicle space to other use for bicycle lanes and “any other
prescribed purpose” is of significant concern in addressing the inequities for safe places to
travel for those most vulnerable on our roads and communities.

For over 20 years, through initiatives like The Centre for Active Transportation, Climate
Action Partnership has partnered with municipalities, agencies, researchers, and
communities to advance evidence-based transportation solutions. Our Sustainable
Transportation Team brings expertise in behaviour change, road safety, transportation
equity, and micromobility governance.

We know what makes streets safer and work better for all road users. Bill 60 undermines
the evidence and needs to be withdrawn in the interest of Ontarians for five key reasons:

1) The evidence is clear that bike lanes don’t cause congestion, in contrast to the
implication of the “Roadway Capacity” Part title.
As was established during Cycle Toronto’s recent successful charter challenge of Bill
212’s attempted removal of several Toronto bike lanes, there is a lack of evidence that bike
lanes increase congestion. In fact, in some circumstances, bike lanes can reduce it by
enabling modal shifts away from car use. By contrast, prioritizing car lanes reliably
worsens traffic through induced demand.

2) Bill 60 contradicts road safety best practices and Vision Zero
Protected bike lanes are a proven tool to reduce the rates of people killed or seriously
injured on our streets, not just among people on bicycles, but for calming traffic and
protecting everyone. Obstructing their construction contradicts the Province’s own push
for traffic calming in the wake of its ban on speed cameras. Furthermore, more than a
dozen Ontario municipalities have adopted Vision Zero strategies to eliminate traffic
deaths, and a bike lane ban would undermine the potential for these strategies to be
delivered and save lives. Setting these strategies up to fail wastes even more taxpayer
dollars, with no public co-benefits in return.

3) “Any other prescribed purpose” is dangerously vague
This language opens the door to blocking any range of other proven safety and congestion reducing measures, such as dedicated transit lanes. The Bill is devoid of any mechanisms to ensure transparency and accountability in how the Province may prescribe which measures will be eligible and which will not.

4) Risking Delays, Stalling Building for municipalities with plans in motion
The Bill only excepts actively contracted projects or those with construction commenced
from the restrictions laid out in sub-section 1. This still risks derailing many projects
already in planning stages across Ontario, not just possible future projects. In these cases,
the Bill stands to muddy already-advanced planning, delay implementation, and could
force municipalities into costly redesigns – e.g., needing to undertake land acquisition,
utility relocation, or more complex engineering in cases that could have otherwise been
quick build safety upgrades.

5) Bill 60 threatens the lowest-cost transportation opportunities – for individuals and
society – in the middle of an affordability crisis.
Ontarians were already facing a housing affordability crisis, and are already feeling the
added squeeze from tariffs and rising costs. With Bill 60, the Province threatens to make it
harder for Ontarians to cycle safely (or, possibly, benefit from dedicated bus lanes, if the
Province were to prescribe these). Per kilometer of travel, cycling is the most cost-effective
mode of transportation in urban areas, both in terms of price for individuals and in terms of
public investment needed for the benefits. In our ERO submission on Bill 212 via The
Centre for Active Transportation, we also elaborated the evidence from our peer-reviewed
research on the local economic impacts from bike lanes on commercial streets in Toronto
speaking to the benefits of bike lanes for local businesses by enabling more foot traffic.

These are a few of the reasons that Schedule 5 of Bill 60’s vague, sweeping clauses
threaten decades of progress in making Ontario’s streets safer, providing more affordable
ways of moving more Ontarians, improving the safety of active transportation to achieve
public health and transportation outcomes, and cutting greenhouse gas emissions and air
pollution by making it easier for folks to start and stay cycling.