Hello, I am writing in…

Hello,

I am writing in response to the requests for feedback regarding Bill 212.

With all due respect, this rather aggressive and reckless approach to the removal of bike lanes is not a sustainable solution, and it will do very little to address traffic congestion in the long-term due to the known concept of induced demand and the bulky geometry of motor vehicles.

While there may be temporary relief to traffic flow should the bike lanes be removed, the reality is that many downtown arterial curb lanes outside of peak hours had previously been occupied by parked vehicles, effectively reducing the road's capacity to a single lane in each direction at most times (see any Google Street View imagery of Bloor prior to 2016).

Moreover, there was no guarantee that a parking space would be available at any given moment, well before the bike lanes were installed. For those who absolutely must be driven to their destinations along Bloor and Danforth, for instance, there are already many public parking lots parallel to the corridors and ample parking available within a 250-metre walk along perpendicular streets.

For those who are unable to cycle, it is also important to consider that the vast majority of commuters along those corridors are situated underground rather than on the roadways. The double-tracked subway lines along Bloor-Danforth have a capacity of 500,000 passengers (https://web.archive.org/web/20221128201644/https://ttc-cdn.azureedge.ne…), whereas a 2-lane road can often only accommodate 43,200 vehicles per day, but only under uninterrupted traffic conditions (https://youtu.be/kqOxBZJ6c1g?si=ZoXptxdjb34SEWtG). Most urban traffic counts fall short of this figure dur to frequent stoppages, and most cars also contain only a single occupant during peak hours.

Restoring an additional vehicular lane for the sake of parking availability or throughput will do little to improve upon the current status quo. Even if restored, vehicular through traffic will not patronize local businesses any more than cyclist or foot traffic. Due to the difficulty of finding legal parking spaces on a regular basis, it is much easier to facilitate cyclist/foot traffic, particularly in the dense, walkable neighbourhoods within the central city, and the data often shows that increased patronage from patios generates much more revenue than a stationary, empty vehicle (https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2022/11/22/torontos-curbside-patios…).

Short of demolishing existing buildings or sidewalks to create more lanes, it is simply not practical to continue to encourage private motor vehicle use in Toronto. The city's streets simply do not have an adequate supply of space to accommodate a further influx of motor vehicles, be it in live lanes or on-street parking, therefore alternative modes of transport must seriously be considered. This is the only solution to traffic congestion.

It is also important to note that most adult cyclists also happen to drive regularly, yet they continue to choose not to cycle in the city due to safety reasons, The residents of Toronto should be given fair, viable alternatives to driving, and the removal of bike lanes has a direct negative impact to the viability of cycling as a mode of transportation within urban areas.

Decision-makers should also consider the deaths of 6 cyclists in Toronto in 2024 alone, many of which are preventable with proper, protected cycling infrastructure (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/30-road-deaths-in-2024-vision-ze…). In recent years, dangerous driver behaviours have become increasingly prevalent, with abrupt swerving, distracted driving, and even intentional collisions being major causes for concern.

Many cyclists, particularly commuters, are not only trying to reach their destination on time, but they are also trying to reach their destination in one piece without the unnecessary added security of 1500 kg of metal to transport a single occupant.

Relegating cyclists to circuitous, indirect side streets further cements cycling as a merely recreational activity and not a viable alternative to driving, not to mention there are little to no such routes crossing freeways such as the 427 and 401, or ravines such as the Humber and Don River Valleys.

Cycling also happens to be a mode of transport with a low barrier to entry, due to a considerably lower mandatory principal and no recurring fuel/insurance costs associated with vehicle ownership.

Removing existing protected bike lane infrastructure would further raise this barrier to entry and will continue to label it as a mere pastime for experienced sports cyclists rather than casual riders trying to reach their destination safely.

In a modern-day urban environment, the choice to choose the safest and most efficient mode of transport should be prioritized, not the convenience of motor vehicles. This is the premise behind "complete streets".

In conclusion, as an urban cyclist, commuter, and occasional driver, I implore the government to reconsider what is quite frankly a regressive approach to solving congestion.

Thank you for your time.