I am writing to express my…

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed framework requiring the removal of sections of bike lanes on Bloor Street, Yonge Street, and University Avenue in Toronto, as well as the broader authority to review and remove existing bike lanes and to regulate future bike lane installations. This proposal undermines evidence-based urban planning, local decision-making, and sustainable transportation goals.
1. Governance and Local Decision-Making
The proposal represents a concerning overreach into municipal governance. Decisions regarding local infrastructure, including bike lanes, should remain with municipalities, which are better positioned to assess and address the transportation needs of their communities.
Granting the province the authority to override local bike lane decisions sets a dangerous precedent. It risks politicizing infrastructure development and undermines the principle of subsidiarity, whereby decisions are made at the level closest to the affected community. Toronto has conducted thorough consultations and implemented bike lanes as part of an evidence-based approach to reduce congestion and improve mobility. This provincial overreach disregards that effort and undermines the autonomy of local governments.
2. Evidence-Based Decision-Making and Long-Term Impacts on Congestion
The argument that removing bike lanes will alleviate congestion lacks supporting evidence. Numerous studies have shown that bike lanes:
- Reduce traffic congestion: By encouraging cycling, bike lanes decrease the number of cars on the road. Removing bike lanes will likely result in more vehicles, exacerbating congestion.
- Improve efficiency of road use: Bikes take up far less space than cars, allowing more people to move efficiently through urban areas.
There is no substantial data demonstrating that returning bike lanes to motor vehicle traffic will lead to long-term congestion relief. In contrast, evidence consistently shows that infrastructure encouraging alternative modes of transport reduces overall traffic volumes.
3. Cycling as a Key Component of Transportation Systems
Cycling infrastructure is a cost-effective and sustainable way to meet growing transportation demands:
- Cheaper and healthier transportation: Cycling is not only an affordable mode of travel but also contributes to healthier populations, reducing healthcare costs in the long term.
- Economic benefits: Cyclists are active contributors to local economies. Studies have shown that cyclists tend to spend more per trip at local businesses compared to drivers.
- Environmental benefits: Cycling infrastructure aligns with the province’s commitments to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and promoting sustainable development.
Removing bike lanes contradicts these objectives, increasing reliance on cars and worsening air quality and emissions.
4. The Costs of Removing Bike Lanes
The removal of bike lanes would be a costly and counterproductive exercise:
- Financial costs: Removing existing bike lanes and restoring the road for vehicle traffic will require significant taxpayer funding, which could be better invested in improving infrastructure.
- Public health costs: Eliminating bike lanes discourages active transportation, increasing public health burdens associated with inactivity, such as obesity and heart disease.
5. Cyclists are Taxpayers and Residents
Cyclists are not a niche interest group; they are taxpayers and residents who rely on safe infrastructure to commute, shop, and contribute to their communities. Decisions about infrastructure should reflect the needs of all road users, not prioritize one mode of transport to the detriment of others.
---
Recommendations
I urge the Ontario government to:
1. Respect municipal autonomy: Leave decisions about bike lanes to local governments, which have the expertise and stakeholder input necessary to make informed decisions.
2. Use evidence-based criteria: Ensure that all transportation decisions, including those about bike lanes, are based on comprehensive studies and data demonstrating their long-term impacts on congestion, the environment, and public health.
3. Invest in sustainable transportation: Focus on enhancing cycling and public transit infrastructure, which provide scalable, cost-effective, and environmentally friendly solutions to urban mobility challenges.
4. Avoid expensive removal projects: Prioritize spending on projects that deliver measurable benefits to Ontarians, rather than costly and counterproductive bike lane removals.
The proposed framework fails to account for the demonstrated benefits of cycling infrastructure and risks setting Ontario back in achieving sustainable and equitable urban transportation. I urge the government to reconsider this proposal in favor of policies that promote local decision-making, evidence-based planning, and the long-term well-being of all Ontarians.