Opposing the proposed…

Opposing the proposed amendment to grant the province approval authority over bike lanes on municipal roads is crucial for several reasons. While it may appear that the amendment is meant to streamline or standardize bike lane development, it represents a significant overreach that undermines local governance and decision-making, potentially setting a dangerous precedent for other areas of municipal autonomy.

1. Erosion of Municipal Authority and Local Autonomy
Municipalities like Toronto are best positioned to make decisions about local infrastructure, including bike lanes, as they are directly accountable to their residents and have intimate knowledge of local conditions. Ceding control to the province threatens the democratic principle of local governance, weakening municipalities' ability to plan and respond to the needs of their communities.

Cities are diverse in their traffic patterns, transit needs, and geography. What works for Toronto may not be ideal for other cities or towns. The province, with its broader and less granular focus, may lack the nuanced understanding required for making effective decisions about bike lanes in specific neighborhoods.

2. Bike Lanes as Critical Infrastructure for Sustainable Cities
Bike lanes are not just an alternative form of transport; they are critical infrastructure in the fight to reduce congestion, lower greenhouse gas emissions, and promote healthier, more sustainable urban living. Cities worldwide are increasing bike lane networks as part of comprehensive transit solutions aimed at reducing car dependence. The province's potential interference with these efforts runs counter to global trends in urban planning and environmental stewardship. Reducing lanes for automobiles and increasing space for bikes is not merely a loss of road space but a gain in efficiency and sustainability.

Furthermore, single-use automobile trips are among the least efficient forms of transit. In Toronto, traffic congestion is a major issue, and bike lanes are a proven tool in reducing congestion and promoting multi-modal transport. Prioritizing cars over sustainable transport options such as cycling and public transit reflects outdated thinking and will only exacerbate long-term challenges.

3. Economic and Environmental Costs of Automobiles are Understated
The true cost of single-use automobiles in urban centers like Toronto is vastly underrepresented. Not only do they occupy immense amounts of road space relative to the number of people they transport, but they also impose hidden costs related to pollution, road maintenance, and public health. Noise pollution, air quality degradation, and carbon emissions are just some of the externalities that make automobile-centric planning unsustainable in the long term.

Removing vehicle lanes to install bike lanes is not simply a subtraction—it is an investment in a cleaner, more efficient urban future. Bikes take up far less space than cars and can move more people with less infrastructure, at a fraction of the cost. The public burden of single-use cars on healthcare (due to pollution-related illnesses), on public infrastructure (due to wear and tear), and on climate change (due to emissions) must be considered when discussing the balance between car lanes and bike lanes.

4. Data Collection Mandates Should Serve Local Interests, Not Provincial Control
While data collection on bike lanes can be beneficial for planning, it must be driven by local interests and the need to improve services for residents. The proposed requirement for municipalities to provide information to the province could be used to undermine or obstruct bike lane installations, rather than support their thoughtful expansion. Centralizing control over this data serves no local interest and risks politicizing infrastructure decisions that should be driven by local needs and priorities.

A Provincial Mandate Could Slow Progress and Innovation
Toronto has made significant strides in expanding its bike lane network, which has helped shift more people toward cycling as a viable transit option. Allowing the province to weigh in on these local decisions could slow or even reverse the progress made. The delays, bureaucracy, and potential for conflicting interests that come with provincial oversight will almost certainly inhibit innovation in urban mobility.

Moreover, local governments have developed detailed master plans and frameworks based on extensive community consultation and urban planning expertise. Provincial interference risks derailing these evidence-based plans in favor of less-informed, one-size-fits-all policies.

This amendment is not about improving urban mobility or increasing efficiency. It is about stripping municipalities of their ability to make decisions that are in the best interests of their residents. The province should support municipalities in their efforts to build sustainable, multi-modal transit systems that include cycling infrastructure, not take control away from local governments. Toronto and other cities should retain their authority to prioritize bike lanes where appropriate, as these are integral to reducing congestion, promoting sustainability, and addressing the true costs of urban automobile dependence.

Rejecting this amendment is crucial to preserving local autonomy, promoting sustainable urban transit, and ensuring that bike lane development reflects the needs of the communities they serve.