To Whom It May Concern: I…

To Whom It May Concern:

I would like to express my immense concern with the proposed Bill 212.

For context, I am a female in my mid-30s. I have lived in the University-Rosedale district for the past 11 years and have previously lived in the Eglinton-Lawrence district, Montreal, Europe, and the Middle East. My preferred mode of transportation in recent years is walking when possible.

I sincerely hope the government reconsiders the proposed legislation for the following (non-exhaustive) list of reasons:

1) As a pedestrian living and working near many of the recently installed bike lanes, (Bloor Street, College Street, Yonge Street, University Avenue), I spend almost all of my commuting time along these corridors and feel much safer since the installation of the bike lanes, whether I am walking, driving, taking public transportation, or biking.
2) I am concerned about bike rider safety. This year has been the deadliest year for bike riders in Toronto. I think it would behoove the government to encourage further safety measures rather than remove them.
3) Real-world utilization of these bike lanes is evident. Also, I have met many people who have started to commute by bicycle because they finally feel safe enough to do so. Furthermore, a well-developed bike-lane network will ultimately relieve congestion and benefit motorists. There are countless studies that support this. Bike lanes are not the cause of congestion, and removing or limiting them is not going to achieve the desired outcome.
4) I am troubled by the idea that the provincial government would waste tax dollars on removing and discouraging progressive infrastructure. Any infrastructure that is removed will surely be reinstalled as the developed world moves towards encouraging active transportation to mitigate congestion, climate change, and to improve population health. I also believe that municipal governments should be trusted to make decisions about their road infrastructure without interference from the province.

This proposed legislation is not informed by data. It is regressive, dangerous to our most vulnerable users of the road, short-sighted, and will result in the unnecessary use of tax-payer dollars. If the intention behind Bill 212 is to “reduce gridlock and save time”, perhaps the Ontario government can make data-driven decisions and take cues from cities and countries that have done so successfully, such as the Netherlands. Obviously fewer cars within the downtown core will alleviate congestion (thus embracing and investing in public transit and encouraging active transportation would be beneficial), but traffic movement can be cost-effectively be optimized by: (1) programming traffic signals that minimize conflict and reduce the number of times that any road user will cross the path of any other road user while optimizing the movement of as many people as possible, not just car users; (2) using traffic dependent detectors (which detect real time traffic and govern lights accordingly) as opposed to detection circuits currently used; (3) programming traffic signals to work independently (multi-phased lights) which safely allow for efficient movement of multi-direction traffic; and (4) transit signal prioritization.

I am rationally struggling to understand the government’s decision to introduce this bill, and hope it will reconsider it before bringing it to a vote. Thank you for considering my response to this proposed legislation.