This proposal seems to miss…

This proposal seems to miss the point that bike lanes encourage cycling that, in turn, removes cars from the road and, so, reduced congestion. I personally drive, cycle, walk, and take transit; it all depends on what makes sense for the specific trip and conditions. Bike lanes are a major consideration since they can make a bike trip faster and safer where they exist.

Instead, this proposal appears to start from the premise that bike lanes cause congestion. This is counter-factual. Studies have shown that for both bike and car lanes when you increase the number of lanes you increase usage, but that it takes time for that impact to emerge. So, if you increase bike lanes, you need to have patience to reap the longer term benefits of less congestion. And if you increase car lanes, you eventually get increased congestion. There is also evidence to suggest that bike lanes are good for business; after all, when you are not simply driving past a store at 30 or more km/h and do not need to find parking, you are more likely to drop into the store and buy something (please see the first link).

I object to the section on environmental implications. I agree that it is not possible to state in specific terms what the implications will be since there are so many variables. However, as a public servant who at times is called upon to address the environmental impacts of proposed policies (though I do not work in the environmental sector), I know that it is possible to consult with colleagues and make projections about broad implications.

By limiting the number of bike lanes - and potentially taking away bike lanes and "restoring" car lanes - it is reasonable to assume that a result will be to limit the number of cyclists, many of whom will then drive. This is bound to have a negative environmental impact, regardless of the fuel used to power the cars. By writing "Implications to the environment will be considered as the ministry identifies and develops the criteria for evaluating proposed new cycling lanes" you are simply evading the question.

I also object to the imposition of provincial authority in these matters. We have municipal staff and politicians who are perfectly capable of dealing with the issue. They may or may not make good decisions on an individual level but to add an extra layer of bureaucracy - particularly from a higher level of government - makes no sense.

Cities need multiple ways for people to make their daily trips. The basic infrastructure is heavily weighted toward private cars but people's habits have been changing. Cars are expensive to purchase and to run and maintain, take a heavy toll on the environment, and cause a great deal of property damage, pain, and death in accidents. Balanced against this, they are (usually) convenient ways of getting around and we greatly rely upon them. But because of the negatives, people are mixing things up, using bikes, transit, and walking, so we need to diversify our transportation systems.

Compared to the real estate taken up by car lanes, bike lanes are a minuscule presence in our cities. Focusing on limiting them - and possibly getting rid of them - is a misguided approach. Please reconsider this proposal.

Thank you.