Bill 212, which would…

Bill 212, which would require provincial approval for all new bike lanes in Ontario, has raised significant concerns based on evidence from urban planning experts and best practices. Here's why such a proposal could be detrimental, particularly when considering lessons from the Netherlands, Strong Towns principles, and the insights from Not Just Bikes:

1. Bike Infrastructure Reduces Gridlock for Drivers
The Netherlands demonstrates that integrating bike-friendly infrastructure benefits all road users, including drivers. By providing safe and convenient alternatives to driving, more people choose to bike or walk, reducing car traffic. As research shows, reducing cars on the road translate into less congestion and better travel experiences for drivers. In contrast, urban planning research shows that prioritizing car-centric infrastructure tends to induce demand—meaning more roads attract more cars, leading to gridlock rather than alleviating it.

2. Economic and Community Benefits
The Strong Towns movement highlights how bike infrastructure is a cost-effective investment that strengthens communities. Bike lanes encourage compact, walkable urban areas that reduce the need for costly car-centric infrastructure like wide roads and sprawling parking lots. They also support local businesses by increasing foot and bike traffic, which has been shown to boost economic activity in city centers.

3. Safety and Quality of Life
Dutch cities prioritize safety through dedicated bike lanes and pedestrian infrastructure, reducing traffic fatalities significantly compared to North America. This focus creates an environment where all modes of transport—cars, bikes, and public transit—coexist more safely and efficiently. Bill 212's centralized control could delay these improvements, keeping unsafe conditions in place.

4. How Bike Lanes Benefit Drivers
In Amsterdam, where bike and public transit options are robust, those who drive benefit from less traffic and faster commutes. In cities without these alternatives, everyone is forced to drive, creating the gridlock many Ontario drivers are familiar with. Investing in bikes and transit reduces this dependency, freeing up road space for those who genuinely need to drive.

5. Local Decision-Making is More Effective
Centralizing bike lane approval risks stalling or blocking essential projects. Local governments are better positioned to understand the specific needs of their communities and implement bike infrastructure tailored to their urban environments. The Netherlands achieved success by empowering cities to innovate and adapt, which Bill 212 would hinder.

By drawing from these proven strategies, Ontario can reduce traffic congestion, improve road safety, and enhance the quality of life for drivers and non-drivers alike. Restricting bike lane development through Bill 212 moves in the opposite direction, perpetuating car dependency, and the traffic and gridlock it creates.