I strongly oppose Bill 212,…

I strongly oppose Bill 212, Reducing Gridlock, Saving You Time Act. Limiting bike lanes in this way is a step backward for urban mobility - not only in the City but for the province as a whole. As both a cyclist and a motorist, I understand the importance of effective congestion relief policies. However, restricting bike lanes completely misses the mark given the body of literature and case studies of cities who have effectively managed congestion.

Evidence suggests that bike lanes often reduce traffic by providing safe alternatives for trips that might otherwise require a car. The body of research on cycling and bike lanes show that separated lanes improve traffic flow, while offering a safe, cheap, accessible, and sustainable alternative to using a car for many people (thus reducing the number of cars on the road, doubly reducing congestion). See for example,

Duranton, G., & Turner, M. A. (2011). The fundamental law of road congestion: Evidence from US cities. American Economic Review, 101(6), 2616–2652. This highly influential paper presents the "fundamental law of road congestion," which argues that increases in road capacity generally lead to proportional increases in vehicle traffic, negating congestion relief. The findings underscore the need for alternatives to car-centric congestion solutions, supporting investments in multimodal infrastructure like bike lanes.
Pucher, J., Dill, J., & Handy, S. (2010). Infrastructure, programs, and policies to increase bicycling: An international review. Preventive Medicine, 50(S1), S106-S125. This review synthesizes studies from multiple countries, this paper is often referenced for the insights into how dedicated bike infrastructure can shift travel behavior away from cars, which has been shown to alleviate congestion in urban settings.
Buehler, R., & Pucher, J. (2012). Cycling to work in 90 large American cities: New evidence on the role of bike paths and lanes. Transportation, 39(2), 409-432. This paper presents empirical evidence that the presence of bike lanes and paths correlates with higher cycling rates and lower car dependency in large American cities. The study argues that bike lanes can reduce traffic congestion by enabling more residents to cycle, especially for short trips that might otherwise be taken by car.
Jacobsen, P. L. (2003). Safety in numbers: More walkers and bicyclists, safer walking and bicycling. Injury Prevention, 9(3), 205-209. While focused on safety, Jacobsen’s research is seminal in showing that increased numbers of cyclists and pedestrians make cities safer and more navigable for all users, leading to potential reductions in car use and urban congestion as cities become more bike-friendly.
Marshall, W. E., & Ferenchak, N. N. (2019). Why cities with high bicycling rates are safer for all road users. Journal of Transport & Health, 13, 100539. This study offers insights into the “safety in numbers” effect and argues that cities with high cycling rates experience reduced traffic conflicts and improved overall flow. It has become foundational for advocating dedicated cycling infrastructure as part of a strategy to improve urban mobility and reduce congestion.
Buehler, R., & Pucher, J. (2012). Cycling to work in 90 large American cities: New evidence on the role of bike paths and lanes. Transportation, 39(2), 409-432. This study analyzed the impact of bike infrastructure on traffic flow, finding that cities with dedicated bike lanes and paths experienced increased cycling and reduced automobile traffic.

This bill would not only halt progress but lead to the wasteful removal of functioning infrastructure—an inefficient use of taxpayer money. Instead of promoting regressive policies, we should be investing in modern, multimodal transportation that benefits all road users.

Ontario’s cities need forward-looking policies that recognize cycling as a key element of urban transit. Please reconsider Bill 212 as written and support sustainable, evidence-based transportation planning and policies instead.