In recent decades the City…

In recent decades the City of Toronto has listened to its residents and sought to create a more vibrant and equitable public realm. City planners know that it's essential to build infrastructure for a greener, healthier future for future generations. The available data indicates that easing traffic congestion is about giving people more safe and sustainable transportation options, not fewer. Due to recent improvements in our city’s cycling network, people have discovered that not every trip to school, to the store, or to work has to be taken by car. This shift in mindset and behaviour is a direct result of thoughtfully planned and executed pilot projects, consultations, and observations of what works or doesn’t work in other cities. I object to Bill 212 because it interrupts this shift towards a more sustainable and equitable model of transportation, and I am deeply concerned about its potential impact in both the short and long terms. This new legislation will put so many transformative projects at risk and will allow a small minority of voices to block progress on our growing cycling network here in Toronto. And, in communities across the province that are just beginning to embrace the benefits of complete streets, this anti-bike lane legislation could indefinitely pause progress.

People who ride a bike to get around do so for different reasons. Some cannot afford a car and their public transit options aren’t optimal. Others prefer to get some exercise while commuting to work or school. Still others are traveling short distances around parts of the city as they drop a child off at school, then go to work, and then pick up some groceries on their way home. The connectivity of Toronto’s cycling network has now improved significantly, so much so that many people have changed their minds about biking in the city and now choose to hop on their bike for most trips. These people have told anybody who will listen that they started biking because they felt safe on protected bike lanes on Bloor, Yonge, and other streets they need to use to get around. I was thrilled to see increased bike route options effecting positive change in people’s lives, including improvements in both their physical and mental health. It felt as though people who were previously ignored by city planners were now finally being acknowledged as residents with valid needs. And also, I felt that Toronto was at long last acting on its promise to transform the city into a progressive and sustainable urban centre.

A dangerous perspective is currently being promoted – one that pits bikers against drivers. As a seasoned commuter cyclist, I have recently felt a change of attitude from other road and public space users, including drivers, fellow cyclists, and pedestrians. People are on edge. When our leaders point to bike lanes as the cause of gridlock, and therefore the cause of anxiety and/or fear people experience when moving around in the city, they ignore the many real factors at play. The faulty reasoning behind the scapegoating of Toronto bike lanes is damaging to everyone, including drivers. Adding (or bringing back) more lanes for cars will not make gridlock disappear. Perceiving that traffic will be lighter with the addition of a lane, more people will choose to drive, resulting in approximately double the number of vehicles on that arterial route. And disturbingly, people who are now choosing to bike will get back in their cars because they don’t feel safe. The result: gridlock, again. This supply and demand principle has been demonstrated in countless studies and is summed up clearly in this report by UC Davis’s Susan Handy.

In Toronto, space is tight. While I would love to see all arterial roads become complete streets, I realize that scenario is unrealistic. Bike routes that meander through neighbourhoods can be effective, and personally I have benefited greatly from the Winona/Shaw north-south route. While traveling on this route I often see over 100 other people biking in the 8 minutes that I’m using it. There is an absence of north-south routes west of Winona/Shaw so in order to be safe, bikers have to go quite a long way around to get to their destination. I can work with that, and I think most Toronto residents understand that since we all need to share available road space, we can’t expect protected bike routes on all major roads. Advocates and regular Toronto residents worked tirelessly with the City of Toronto, residents’ associations, and BIAs for years to secure protected routes on key roads, including Bloor/Danforth. People who use bike lanes are prepared to be reasonable, but when we hear that an alternative route will be created to replace the Bloor bike lanes we fought so hard to get, we must speak up and request our right to a viable route. Any other route will take up to a decade to put in place (and that’s if everything goes smoothly), and it will not be direct since there is no equivalent east-west street running parallel to Bloor within a reasonable distance. So many bikers depend on this route, including University of Toronto students, people commuting to work or running errands, and people delivering food or other services. While it’s true that some of these residents could take the subway, they choose to bike for some of the reasons mentioned above including sustainability and optimal health, and that choice should be applauded. To ease congestion, wouldn’t it make more sense to encourage people in single occupancy vehicles to choose TTC instead?

I sincerely hope you will take my views into consideration. In closing, I would ask you to take a moment and consider the bigger picture. When we think of Toronto in 50 years, in 100 years, even in 200 years, what kind of city do we envision? If we expect this city to survive and thrive, we need to support sustainable development. We can’t encourage people to make sustainable choices if the infrastructure is not in place.