I strongly disagree with…

Dear Sir / Madam,

I strongly disagree with this proposal. This bill along with Doug Ford's recent attacks against bike lanes will be directly responsible for environmental damage, death on the road and worse quality of life for ALL Ontarians.

The province “Recognizes the need to build priority highways faster as our province grows in order to get people and goods out of gridlock”. Our province IS growing, but this growth is not uniformly distributed.

For example, GTA's population growth of 3 million people is expected to account for 47% of the entire province's population growth between 2023 and 2051 (1). Given current traffic conditions on 401 and GTA, how is GTA supposed to accommodate the additional 3 million residents by 2051?

Are all of them supposed to drive? New highways will be bottlenecked by ramps and arterial roads - should we add more lanes to arterial roads as well? Should we start removing sidewalks? What happens to buildings and houses that get in the way - should they be torn down?

The province also “Recognizes that accidents and lane closures can worsen traffic congestion and impact the quality of life of Ontarians.” CARS worsen traffic congestion. Traffic worsens very time the province forces someone to drive rather than bike. Bike accidents never cause a lane closure or a hospital trip. If more people were encouraged to walk, bike or take the bus, then these problems would disappear altogether.

Most cities in Ontario are well aware of this problem, which is why significant investments are being made at municipal level to incentivize biking and take cars off the street. All the progress that is made will be compromised if bike lanes are not connected and if this proposal passes.

Other than the space that cars require, there are numerous other harms associated with car dependency globally. You can refer to the research paper (2), the YouTube video summary (3), or my summary in the appendix below. This provides ample reason for province to pivot towards alternative modes of transportation, or at the very least, allow people to bike if they choose to.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
ADDRESSING COMMON OPPOSITIONS TO BIKE LANES
I also want to present my arguments against common criticisms of bike lanes:

1) Our weather is too cold and unfit for biking: People in Netherlands and Oslo continue to bike in winter with their gloves and jackets on. Besides last year we didn’t see snow till the end of December. Most importantly, people should have the option to bike even if they choose not to.

2) There are far more drivers than bikers so they should be prioritized: Two issues – firstly prioritizing cars is not sustainable and comes with numerous harms as discussed above. Secondly cars should not be prioritized to the point where bikers are neglected completely. And at the very least, it should be the city’s decision, it most definitely should not be a decision implemented across the entire province.

3) No one is using the bike lanes: Ask yourself – what stops you from biking on a sunny day? Typically, this is because they are not protected, feel unsafe, and aren’t connected to the places you want to go. Montreal is building a network of protected bike lanes, and their biking population is on the rise every single year with the effect that there are fewer cars on the streets. If you were in Montreal, you’d be far more likely to bike. We need more investment into bike lanes, not less.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
ADDRESSING ISSUES UNIQUE TO ONTARIO
Other than this, there are some considerations that are unique to Ontario which are discussed here:

1) This proposal actively undermines the $13.5B GO Expansion program. Metrolinx is working to provide better connectivity across GTHA with faster trains, two-way service and 15-minute frequency. However, passengers must by able to reach their final destination from the GO station with ease and without a car. The only place in GTHA where this is currently possible is in Downtown Toronto, but most tips in GTHA do not end at Union Station. For this reason, the GO Expansion will take far fewer cars off the streets than it is able to, and the province will see a very meagre ROI on the $13.5B investment.

2) This is jurisdictional overreach. The province should not be able to strong-arm decisions made by publicly elected city officials relating to mobility on behalf of their constituents. Especially not in Toronto where most people didn’t vote Doug Ford in the first place.

3) This is a massive waste of taxpayer money. Doug Ford has said that the province will pay for removal of bike lanes that do not meet the criteria (which hasn’t been specified yet). As a taxpayer it angers me when I’m hard at work and 30% of my paycheck is taken, only for it to be wasted like this. Why is the province should be prioritizing this with our limited resources while our healthcare and education is struggling?

4) Doug Ford said in 2017 “We have to do everything we can to make sure there’s never a death in the city. One death is way too many when it comes to bicycle riders.” What exactly invoked this sudden departure from Doug’s former position?

---------------------------------------------------------------------
CONCLUSION

In conclusion I strongly oppose this proposal. I sincerely hope that the environmental ministry will faithfully weight the pros and cons of this proposal before making a decision, and I hope Doug Ford and his administration can provide more details about why they are proposing such an appalling bill in the first place.

The future of this province is in your hands. Please choose wisely.

Thank you,
Aryan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
APPENDIX: Harms to people and environment associated with car dependency.

CATEGORY 1: decline in health and wellbeing

1) Car crashes: Car crashed kill 3500 people every single day. This is roughly the same as 10-20 passenger planes crashing every day, killing everyone onboard. The number of permanent and life-altering injuries resulting from car crashes is significantly higher.
2) Air, land and water pollution: Car exhaust is responsible for large quantities of pollutants, such as carbon monoxide, nitrous oxides, sulphur dioxide, etc. Tires and break pads result in material aberration. Small particulate matter is especially dangerous as it passes through organic barriers with ease. Upto 90% of particulate matter in urban areas is traffic related. The combined result is an increased risk in respiratory and circulatory diseases, including cancer. Electric vehicles will produce less exhaust related pollution, but more material aberration as the vehicle is heavier.
3) Noise pollution: Automobiles are the largest source of noise in urban areas. Health effects include high blood pressure, tinnitus and hearing loss, stress, anxiety, sleep disturbance and cognitive impairment.
4) Light and thermal pollution: Roads and parking lots are required to be brightly illuminated at night, again causing sleep disturbance, and causing harm to birds and other wildlife. Large and wide asphalt roads also absorb heat and exacerbate heatwaves.
5) Sedentary travel: Human body is made to move. Sedentary travel increases risk of several cardiac and vascular diseases. Walking and biking regularly results in improved physical and mental health. Children have become especially sedentary, as car centric outdoor environments are dangerous for them. Proportion of children walking or biking to schools in US has declined from 48% in 1970s to 11% in 2017.
6) Social isolation due to car dependency: Results in increased risk of cardiovascular diseases and cognitive decline. Again, children are again particularly impacted.

CATEGORY 2: Environmental damage

7) Carbon emissions: 72% of all transportation-related CO2 emissions come from road vehicles.
8) Pollution from resource extraction: Oil extraction and mining for metals required for automobile manufacturing all have impacts on air, water and soil.
9) Tires: Tires are not biodegradable. About 35% of microplastics that are released into the ocean come from tires and road markings.
10) Other pollutions: Road salt runoff contaminates freshwater ecosystems. Oil spills damage marine ecosystems.
11) Land use: Roads fragment habitats for wildlife and result in wildlife collisions. Also results in habitat loss and exacerbations of natural disasters like flood and wildfires.

CATEGORY 3: Social injustices
Benefits and harms of automobility are not equally distributed.

12) Unequal distribution of harm: Cars are designed for typical male anatomy. Women are 47% more likely to be seriously injured in a car accident than a man.
13) Inaccessibility: Car-centric built environment is hazardous to people with disabilities and people with visual and hearing impairments. Prioritizing automobility also makes the environment inaccessible for those who can’t afford or choose not to drive.
14) Unequal street space distribution: Streets are for everyone but automobiles consume far more than any other mode of transportation. One person in a car requires the same amount of space as 20 people in a bus or a tram.
15) Parking: Parking space is useless to anyone not driving. Cost of free parking is baked into the price of goods and services, meaning non-drivers subsidize parking for those who drive.
16) Housing: Space required to support automobility leads directly to scarcity of space for housing. One off-street parking spot consumes the same amount of space as the average living space per person in places like China and Spain.
17) Inequitable allocation of time: In 1974 the typical American make spent 4 of the 16 waking hours either driving, or earning the money required to drive. As more people drive, traffic worsens, and this problem only exacerbates.
18) Financial burden: Car-dependent built environment necessitates car ownership for rich and poor alike. Car ownership costs about $10k every year for most people, meaning owning a car for a month costs more than the price of a bike that will likely last for a lifetime.