Hello, as an employee of…

Hello, as an employee of ICLEI Canada who works closely with municipalities every single work day and has supported the creation of many climate action plans where sustainable, active transportation is a key component, I can confidently say that municipalities seek to shift transportation mode share away from single occupancy cars and towards public transit, walking, and riding bikes. As the Clean Air Partnership (CAP) has stated, I am "highly concerned that the government of Ontario would undermine years of work in developing well-researched policies, implementation strategies, and equitable community engagement processes that went into creating these critical transportation plans. Bill 212 will not only undermine crucial work on reducing GHG emissions, but it will also have massive negative impacts on public health and cause preventable deaths of vulnerable road users."

This statement can be supported on MANY fronts as the CAP has outlined below:

"The CAC has concerns with Bill 212 on a number of fronts:

1. Respect for local democracy – Bill 212 provides the Minister of Transportation with an unprecedented level of control over local streets. No provincial or state government in North America has anywhere close to the level of oversight of community roads that Bill 212 would grant the Minister. Local municipal governments work very closely with\ community associations and business improvement areas to design, build, and maintain road infrastructure that meets the needs of local residents. By granting the Minister of Transportation power to ignore these community-led processes, Bill 212 would undermine one of the very basic principles of our democracy.

2. Making transportation more expensive – The average cost of owning and maintaining a car in Canada is more than $16,000 annually (https://www.ratehub.ca/blog/what-is-the-total-cost-of-owning-a-car/). In comparison, the average cost of owning and maintaining a bike in Canada is $300 a year (https://www.vtpi.org/tce.pdf). For many economically marginalized and working-class Ontarians, riding a bike is an accessible and affordable means of accessing jobs and educational opportunities. Transportation costs make up 15% of an average Ontarian’s household budget. Bike lanes provide a safe and economically affordable transportation option that saves Ontarians precious dollars from their family budgets.

3. Bike lanes and congestion – The base supposition of Bill 212 is that removing bike lanes will improve traffic congestion in Ontario. This is not supported by any evidence or best practices for traffic management. The data on the movement of people and goods is clear (https://nacto.org/publication/transit-street-design-guide/introduction/…). Studies (https://epub.wupperinst.org/frontdoor/deliver/index/docId/6597/file/659…) in European, North American, and Ontarian cities have either found that bike lanes have no or negligible effects on car traffic volume and driving times. Congestion is instead caused by an overreliance on car-dominant infrastructure. Studies have shown that the more infrastructure dedicated to the movement of cars, the more people will drive, the worse congestion gets (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-06/traffic-jam-blame-in…). By making it more difficult for people to get around without a car, Bill 212 will make congestion worse, not better. Bike lanes are not the cause, nor are they a significant contributor to congestion. They are in fact, in combination with other forms of sustainable transportation infrastructure, the solutions to traffic congestion.

4. Increased red tape – The scope of Bill 212 applies across the province in urban, suburban, and rural communities. The bill grants the Minister of Transportation final say over all roadways in the province, not just major arterial roads. This entirely unnecessary new process will create mountains of red tape and lead to severe delays in delivering important state-of-good repair projects to Ontario’s roads. For smaller municipalities and rural communities, in particular, who often work with limited resources and staff capacity, this additional step in their transportation planning process will create costly financial burdens for already under-resourced communities.

5. Bike lanes make business sense – Study after study has found that creating more walkable and bikeable neighbourhoods leads to better performances for local businesses (https://tcat.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/8e2c-Bloor-West-Economic-Imp…). Cycling and pedestrian infrastructure make it easier for a greater volume of people to safely reach and spend time on dense streets compared to car-centric infrastructure. Infrastructure for bike lanes is also less expensive to build and maintain than infrastructure for cars. Bill 212 will make it more difficult for cities to implement cost-effective, pro-business streets for their communities.

6. Bike lanes save lives – Research has found that bike lanes make cities safer for all residents - not just for those on bikes, but also for those who drive, those who walk, and those who take public transit (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/231890494_Evidence_on_why_bike…). While it may sound counter-intuitive, adding more bikes to the roadway mix makes streets safer. The presence of bicycles has a calming effect on traffic, and that benefits everyone. Simple and inexpensive investments in basic infrastructure like bike lanes make streets more welcoming to riders and safer for us all. Bill 212 will remove a critical public safety tool from municipalities' toolkit and will create even more dangerous roads for all Ontarians."

While I recognize that congestion is a major concern in the province, Bill 212 is not the correct approach to addressing the province’s transportation woes. It will not improve congestion or local air quality. I agree that there are certain streets that may not as of yet benefit from bike lanes, but this decision should be informed and approved by the local municipalities that have the local expertise needed to skillfully and effectively approve of these placements, decisions, and priority areas of development. Without having lived in these cities, biked on these streets, or even driven a car on these streets, there is no way that provincial employees will have the local expertise that is required to inform these important and life-changing decisions.

Bike lanes do not cause congestion, cars do. Bikes don't create injuries and safety concerns, cars do. Creating bike lanes takes cars off the road and puts more bikes on the road, lessening congestion and increasing the health and safety of the public. Taking cars off the road should be the province's priority if they truly wish to reduce congestion and increase the wellbeing of their public body as they state. If you don't trust the experts in the matter as outlined above in CAP's statement, trust the lived experience of your residents and Ontarians, especially ones that live in busy metropolitan cities such as Toronto such as myself. Please take into account that there is a reason organizations such as CAP that have YEARS of local lived experience in this matter as well as ordinary residents are so passionate about this matter. It is because this is about US and OUR safety, and it is what has been municipalities have been working towards for YEARS, that is about to be put back 10 steps by the province because they haven't done their research. I apologize for being blunt, but apparently bluntness is required to get our point across. I urge the reversal of Bill 212 and recommend that, instead, the Ministry of Transportation collaborate with local municipalities to enhance access to safe, affordable, comfortable, sustainable, and healthy options for walking, cycling, and public transportation for all Ontarians.

I appreciate the opportunity to provide input into this matter and I hope it is actually taken into account and is not just a formality.