The intention of this…

The intention of this legislation to remove existing bike lanes, especially in the City of Toronto, is deeply frustrating and even frightening.

Numerous independent studies have found that adding new lanes of traffic to address gridlock has a negligible impact on traffic flow. Anyone who has spent time driving in urban areas knows that you can have multiple lanes on a major thoroughfare and if even one lane is obstructed due to a stalled vehicle, the road may as well be a side street. So to contend that restoring a lane for cars while removing a bike lane will consistently improve travel times is a fallacy.

Aside from the practical issues with this legislation, there are obvious concerns over safety. Bike commuters have every right to use major roads as cars do, and removing protected bike lanes will only endanger them. Cyclists will not simply use slower, less direct side streets just because they have new protected lanes, especially if it means getting to their destination more slowly. This will put cyclists back in the same lanes as cars, and so I am deeply afraid that people I love who cycle will be hurt due to this legislation.

The bill seems like an empty attempt to cater to voters of car-dependent areas who have an emotional (and not fact-based) reaction to bike lanes in their neighbourhoods. Traffic issues, specifically in Toronto, come down to many variables, especially the ongoing attempts to catch up with years of underinvestment in road maintenance and transit construction. Many projects are happening simultaneously, causing short-term pain for long-term gain. Gridlock in the province can be addressed, but it will be through holistic solutions like public transit and traffic infraction enforcement, and not knee-jerk reactions done as a stunt before an election. If we truly aspire to be the envy of the world, we must look to countries where infrastructure serves everyone, not merely car owners.