As a transportation engineer…

As a transportation engineer, I would like to support various points identified by many professional associations and explain why Bill 212 should NOT be approved as is. Bill 212 does not clarify what criteria will be used to approve or disapprove the installation of bike facilities and in what moment of the Cities planning process the provincial assessment will occur. It should be noted that the decision to install a bike lane is made many year before the actual design process even starts through Cities' Transportation Master Plan and Official Plan, which align with the City values and long term goals.

Besides the lack of details of how and when the provincial evaluation would occur, the Bill does not present any evidence to the statement that bike lanes increase congestions in urban areas. Although it might "feel like" it does, such an important decision cannot be made based on "feelings" and the Bill cannot pass without supporting scientific research and observation. On the contrary, there are innumerous academic materials supported by evidence showing that bike lanes actually reduce traffic congestions. As I have not seen professional groups breaking down the reasons fort that, I wanted to explain why this occurs in a didactic way. Due to the induced-demand phenomenon, in dense areas like urban cities, the wider the roadway is, the higher the traffic volume will be. When you remove a bike lane from a busy road, it will not take long for that space to be occupied by motor vehicles as people will need to go to their destinations (only using a different mode). And if a road does not have a bike lane yet and is not yet congested, it is just a matter of time for congestion to occur as the population grows around it.

In urban areas, short to medium distance trips represent the majority of daily trips (to grocery shops, schools and to the closest transit station or work). Bikes are mostly used in short to medium distances and they are an efficient alternative to reach those destinations, specially when roads are congested. The majority of people does not use bicycles if there are no safe facilities to separate them from motor vehicles. That is why bike lanes are crucial to provide a transportation option to people who want to avoid congestions or cannot drive for any reason. The more connected the cycling network is and the safer the cycling facilities are, the more people will prefer to ride to their destinations. Bikes are the second most flexible and efficient mode of transportation (after cars) and in congested areas, it becomes the most efficient mode as bike lanes accommodate many more people than cars in the same given area (specially as most cars carry only 1 to 2 people in daily trips). That is why cities around the world are implementing more and more cycling facilities: that is the MOST EFFICIENT transportation mode in urban areas. Besides that, bicycles are sometimes the only option to people that cannot afford or buy a car.

It should also be noted that before the implementation of any cycling facility, transportation professionals develop feasibility studies that does consider the impact of such facility to existing and future traffic volumes and not a single cycling facility is installed if it is expected to make a traffic that operates well to fail. If the traffic is failing in a road with a bike like, it is because the traffic would fail anyway without the bike lane.

I understand that Premier Ford wants to address complaints about traffic congestion, but removing bike lanes from roads or preventing them from being installed for the reasons presented in the Bill 212 will only make congestions worse and he will lose a huge number of supporters because of that. He will be forever remembered for being the Premier who delayed transportation progress and deteriorated the transportation system. I am not even mentioning the negative impacts to road safety, equity and community building that Bill 212 will cause in my comment to not make it even longer. I ask the Parliament and the Committee to NOT approve the Bill 212 for all the reasons mentioned above.