I’m writing to express my…

I’m writing to express my concerns about Bill 212 and its potential negative impacts not only on the environment but also on the health and safety of the people of Ontario, and economic impacts. The removal of bicycle lanes and the potential prevention of their implementation will not reduce gridlock/car traffic, and will likely make it worse in the long-term. Just on this aspect of Bill 212 alone, several groups of experts – from clinicians and researchers at University of Toronto (1), engineers (2) – and municipalities (3-5) have spoken out against it, citing concerns around safety, environmental harms, provincial overreach, and the general lack of evidence supporting the underlying premise of the Bill.

Dedicated bike lanes are a tool that many jurisdictions have used to improve overall both cyclists’ and road safety, in efforts to reduce road user injuries and deaths. Looking to Montreal, QC, separated cycle tracks have been found to have a lower injury risk, compared to riding on the street (6). A study looking at the implementation of cycle tracks in Toronto found that the rate of cyclist-motor vehicle collisions decreased despite the increased volume of cyclists using the cycle tracks (7). The presence of bike lanes have also been found to have a traffic calming affect, which helps reduce the risk and severity of traffic collisions (8). Seeing that Toronto is seeing the a record high of cyclist fatalities this year so far, road safety should be prioritized over drivers’ convenience.

It’s an often repeated claim that building bike lanes on roads increases traffic congestion (like this Bill is suggesting). However, cities all over the world have found that reallocation of space from cars to other modes of transit, when implemented carefully, is an effective way to manage traffic (9). Building out a connected bike lane network is part of this, along with increasing affordable, reliable and extensive public transportation options. When given safe and sufficient alternatives to cars, people will choose them.

And people do use bike lanes when they are built (10)! The City of Toronto found that bike lane along Bloor Street, Yonge Street and University Avenue daily usage had double to triple digit percentage increases after they were built compared to before. Some people choose to cycle instead of drive cars when bike lanes are built (11), while others bike more as a result of their presence.

Consider also that many jurisdictions have been moving away from car dependent infrastructure and reducing space allocated to cars to reduce air pollution, which has increasingly been found to be harmful to human health (12-13). The removal of bike lanes and potential to prevent municipalities for building them may discourage some people from cycling; when coupled with little discouragement to drive and trying to make it more convenient, traffic-related air pollution levels will increase. The Ontario Hospital Association recently released a study projecting that millions more people in Ontario will have chronic diseases, many of which have been associated with or are exacerbated by air pollution, by 2040. Given this, it would be in the best interest of the government to promote and implement policies that positively contribute to people’s health, which the contents of Bill 212 don’t seem to do.

It’s important to emphasize that bike lanes work best when they are built where people want or need to go, such as main streets where businesses or places of employment are located, just like Bloor Street, Yonge Street and University Avenue (14). While bike lanes might not be as beneficial for businesses on wider, busier streets, bike lanes have been found to have minimal negative effect on, and often positively benefit businesses where this infrastructure is built (15-16), particularly small businesses and restaurants. This has also been supported by the Bloor St W pilot study of the bike lanes in the Annex and Korea Town neighbourhoods (17).

In the interest of brevity, I have not mentioned all that issues that will be negatively affected by Bill 212. The provincial government has a responsibility to take into account evidence and guidance from experts in developing and implementing sound policy, yet this Bill is a demonstration that the Progressive Conservative government is ignoring that responsibility to the detriment to the very people they were elected to represent. This leads me to question what is convincing the Progressive Conservative government to force through Bill 212 despite the evidence against it.