I am writing to express my…

I am writing to express my strong opposition to Bill 212, the Reducing Gridlock, Saving You Time Act, 2024, which imposes restrictions on the construction of bike lanes that require the removal of a traffic lane. This bill threatens to undermine the many benefits that well-planned bike lanes offer to urban mobility, public health, and the environment. There are several objective reasons why bike lanes should continue to be prioritized, even if it requires the removal of a vehicle lane.

Contrary to the notion that bike lanes increase congestion, studies show that dedicated bike lanes can actually reduce overall traffic congestion. Cities like New York and London, which have significantly expanded their cycling infrastructure, have seen reductions in car traffic as more people choose biking as a viable mode of transportation. One vehicle lane can move only about 1,000–2,000 cars per hour, while a bike lane can accommodate 5 to 10 times that number of cyclists in the same amount of space. This is especially critical in dense urban areas where road space is limited.

Protected bike lanes have been proven to reduce accidents for both cyclists and motorists. A study in Toronto found that streets with protected bike lanes saw a reduction in all types of accidents, not just those involving cyclists. By creating safer, dedicated spaces for cyclists, we prevent dangerous interactions between cars and bikes, leading to fewer accidents and less road rage. This directly enhances public safety for everyone, not just cyclists.

Biking is a zero-emissions form of transportation, and promoting cycling over car use is critical to achieving climate targets. The transportation sector is a leading contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, and reducing vehicle miles traveled is essential in the fight against climate change. Removing traffic lanes to make room for bike infrastructure is a small but important step in shifting people towards cleaner modes of transport. Studies estimate that cities with extensive bike lane networks can reduce carbon emissions from transportation by as much as 10-20%, which is vital as we work towards sustainability goals.

Encouraging cycling has clear public health benefits. Regular physical activity reduces the risk of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and obesity. According to the World Health Organization, increasing cycling in cities could save billions of dollars in healthcare costs over time. Moreover, fewer cars on the road can lead to better air quality, further improving public health outcomes. Prioritizing bike lanes—even at the expense of vehicle lanes—is an investment in the long-term health of the population and will lower healthcare costs for all.

Bike lanes also have significant economic benefits. Numerous studies have shown that cyclists are more likely than drivers to stop at local businesses and shop, including studies conducted in Toronto. Reducing vehicle lanes to add bike lanes can actually support vibrant, livable streetscapes that attract both residents and tourists. Cities with robust bike infrastructure, like Copenhagen and Amsterdam, are globally recognized for their high quality of life and economic dynamism.

Bike lanes provide affordable transportation options, especially for low-income individuals who cannot afford a car. Many residents rely on bicycles for daily commutes, and restricting bike lane development disproportionately impacts those who do not have access to other forms of transportation. Removing a vehicle lane to create a bike lane is a way to provide equitable transportation options that benefit a broader segment of society.

In summary, I strongly urge you to reconsider the implementation of Bill 212. Rather than reducing bike lane development, we should be accelerating it to create a safer, healthier, more sustainable, and economically vibrant urban environment. While removing a traffic lane may feel counterintuitive, the benefits of investing in cycling infrastructure far outweigh the costs. Cities that have embraced bike lanes have consistently reported lower traffic congestion, fewer accidents, better air quality, and stronger local economies.

Thank you for considering my perspective, and I hope you will act in the best interest of both current and future generations by opposing this bill.