I strongly disapprove of…

I strongly disapprove of this bill. Research both locally and globally consistently shows benefits from protected biking infrastructure among central routes for both drivers and bicyclists in many ways, including safety for all road users, no increase to or even reduced congestion for drivers, benefits for local businesses, and allowing accessibility and options for everyone to choose their preferred mode of transportation - or even use the only option(s) that might be possible for them. The provincial government would be adding "red tape" and bureaucracy to local government efforts to increase transportation options. Bike lanes are essential infrastructure for myself and others - including those who are unable to drive for physical, financial, or other reasons; driving is not an option for everyone and non-drivers should not be deprioritized. Research consistently shows that protected bike lane infrastructure improves safety for both bicyclists and drivers, by limiting their chances of interaction; this also benefits drivers by keeping bicyclists from sharing car lanes - removing bike lanes will not reduce bicycle trips, it will force them to share lanes. Focusing only on benefits for drivers, which are unfounded, would be a choice that objectively sees non-car drivers as less important - including devaluing their safety - an absolutely appalling choice even if it were to improve travel time for drivers, which is incorrect. Improved biking infrastructure also supports other transit projects by helping to connect more people to subway stations, for one example. The proposal to move bicycle infrastructure away from main streets is similarly a poor decision that lacks insight and goes against established research findings. Side streets in Toronto and other areas of the province are poorly connected and/or would significantly increase the travel time for cyclists which would negatively impact the amount of cyclists and their trips they can, or are willing, to take - due to time, physical capabilities, among other factors. Additionally, cycling infrastructure on side streets distances cyclists from where the majority of destinations are (e.g.: shops and restaurants) by requiring additional distance/time, sometimes substantially so, for cyclists to travel on foot or bicycle to the main street, further reducing their use - a negative impact for both cyclists and local businesses. Many residents on side streets would arguably also object to cycling infrastructure in front of their residences rather than on main streets. Research consistently shows that reduced street parking in front of businesses does not lead to less patronage, and often increases it as they become more accessible to local residents who don't or don't want to drive (which also benefits car traffic by removing drivers who would otherwise have to drive to the businesses without good cycling/walking/public transit means). Induced demand is a well established concept which shows that more space for drivers does not improve congestion and may even worsen it - the more space for driving, the more people that will drive from outside the area that would have previously taken alternate routes or not gone at all - remembering that the majority of drivers will not be supporting local businesses to the extent that local residents using other modes of transportation would - they often drive straight through the area rather than stopping. Overall, this proposed bill is without question disparaging to non-drivers, is strikingly in contrast to research findings, and importantly it will not at all lead to the purported results. See the links attached for only a small sample of research findings and articles which speak to the comments I've made here.