While the proposal to remove…

While the proposal to remove sections of the bike lanes on Bloor Street, Yonge Street, and University Avenue in Toronto may be framed as a solution to reduce traffic congestion, it fails to address the broader issues of urban mobility and sustainability. The decision to prioritize lanes for motor vehicles over safe cycling infrastructure is a step backward in the fight for cleaner, greener, and more livable cities.

First, reducing bike lanes in favor of additional vehicle lanes runs counter to the growing global consensus on the importance of expanding cycling infrastructure as part of a strategy to reduce traffic congestion, improve public health, and address climate change. Ontario’s urban areas, particularly Toronto, face significant air quality issues and gridlock. Encouraging more people to shift from private cars to alternative forms of transportation—like cycling—is a proven method for reducing carbon emissions and alleviating congestion. Taking away bike lanes undermines efforts to create a sustainable, future-focused transportation system.

Second, the province’s approach to requiring municipal approval for bike lanes and establishing a review process for existing lanes creates unnecessary barriers to the implementation and continuation of bike infrastructure. The added layer of provincial oversight may delay or even block critical investments in safe cycling spaces, making it harder for cities to meet the needs of their growing populations. With more people using active transportation, removing bike lanes only serves to reduce options and access to safer, healthier travel choices.

Third, the proposed criteria for assessing bike lanes, including environmental implications, appears vague and could lead to subjective decision-making. This could allow for political motivations to influence infrastructure choices, rather than prioritizing data-driven, evidence-based policies that focus on public health, safety, and long-term urban planning. A more robust and transparent process would be necessary to ensure that any changes to cycling infrastructure are made with a clear focus on enhancing mobility and improving public life, rather than bowing to pressures from drivers who may feel inconvenienced by alternative transportation options.

Finally, the proposed exemption from the Environmental Assessment Act for these changes raises significant concerns. The Environmental Assessment process is a crucial tool in ensuring that infrastructure changes are made with consideration for long-term environmental, social, and economic impacts. Removing this safeguard creates an alarming precedent, where decisions about public space and urban mobility could be made without proper public consultation or accountability.

In conclusion, while traffic congestion and gridlock are important issues to address, removing bike lanes in favor of more lanes for motor vehicles is not the answer. Ontario should be investing in making cycling safer, more accessible, and more attractive to people of all ages and abilities—not rolling back the progress that has been made in creating a sustainable, multi-modal transportation network.

The government should prioritize expanding and improving cycling infrastructure to help build a more resilient, livable, and environmentally conscious city for all residents.