I am writing to express my…

I am writing to express my strong opposition to Bill 212, which proposes the removal of existing bike lanes and increased roadway capacity for cars. This bill’s approach lacks supporting data to justify its premise that removing bike lanes and increasing car lanes will reduce traffic congestion. Studies consistently show that adding road capacity does not alleviate congestion but rather increases it, an effect known as “induced demand.” When more lanes are built, it encourages more drivers to use them, leading to the same level—or worse—of congestion within a few years. For example, research from multiple sources, including the Rocky Mountain Institute (https://rmi.org/more-lanes-do-not-mean-less-traffic/), highlights how expanding highways in urban areas fails to provide long-term congestion relief, instead promoting more car use, pollution, and often further disconnecting communities​

Additionally, Ontario’s transportation strategies should prioritize climate-smart solutions, which means increasing—not dismantling—protected bike lanes. Cities worldwide are investing in protected bike lanes as a crucial part of reducing dependency on personal cars and lowering carbon emissions. Studies from urban planning initiatives in Europe and North America show that bike infrastructure is essential for creating accessible, low-emission transit options. Adding bike lanes not only supports environmental goals but also aligns with international standards for safe, sustainable urban transit. Ontario’s goal should be to provide robust, safe alternatives to personal vehicle use that help reduce emissions and combat climate change.

Furthermore, the choice to prioritize car infrastructure over sustainable alternatives is at odds with what many residents seek: safer, more inclusive transit options that reduce dependency on single-occupancy vehicles. Bill 212’s amendment to remove existing bike lanes is particularly concerning. These bike lanes were funded by tax dollars to improve safety and accessibility for cyclists, making urban spaces more navigable and reducing road conflicts between cars and bicycles. Removing these established bike lanes wastes public funds and disregards the safety benefits these lanes provide. Data from cities like New York and Copenhagen shows that dedicated bike infrastructure not only decreases cyclist injuries but can also lead to more efficient vehicle travel times, as dedicated lanes manage traffic flow better​. (Please see https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/bike-lanes-impacts-1.7358319)

If an extra lane for driving cars is truly necessary, then why not remove parking on these streets? It seems inconsistent to prioritize idle, parked cars over actual living space that could be used for transit or pedestrian paths. How is it that idle cars get to enjoy this precious public space, while residents seeking safer, active transit options are neglected?

The proposed reallocation of public funds to dismantle bike infrastructure contradicts the province's stated goals of enhancing overall transportation efficiency. If the goal truly is to enable all residents—not just drivers—to move efficiently, these resources should be directed toward improving public transit and protected bike infrastructure. Our communities deserve safe, sustainable, and economically responsible transit solutions, and prioritizing car use does not align with this vision.

In summary, Bill 212’s approach is costly, unsustainable, and overlooks the demand for safer, more equitable transit options. I urge a reconsideration of this bill and instead recommend investing in solutions that reflect a modern, sustainable vision for Ontario’s transportation needs.