Nov. 29, 2016…

Nov. 29, 2016
Arielle Mayer
Senior Policy Analyst
Ministry of Transportation
Policy and Planning Division
Transportation Planning Branch
Environmental Policy Office
777 Bay Street, Suite 3000
Toronto, Ontario M7A 2J8

Dear Ms. Mayer,
Following are comments from the David Suzuki Foundation re: EBR Registry Number 012-8772 (MTO Discussion Paper on Cycling Initiatives under the Climate Change Action Plan).

Introduction

We would like to begin by thanking the government for its ongoing commitment to cycling infrastructure. Given that transportation is the largest single source of GHG emissions in the province, it is vital that we help Ontarians reduce the use of private gasoline-burning vehicles and embrace public transit, walking and cycling. We are pleased to see the ministry explicitly state its "goal is to enable more Ontarians living in urban areas to cycle for commuting and other frequent trips instead of travelling by car." Your suggestion that, at least on some occasions, bicycles can substitute for automobiles is commendable.

We are also heartened that the Climate Change Action Plan proposes to invest significant funds — between $150 and $225 million — on cycling infrastructure. We believe this money will have numerous co-benefits, helping to improve air quality, mitigate climate change and improve Ontarians' physical fitness. It should also lower health-care costs by making cycling safer and therefore reducing cycling-related injuries. We would like to see spending at the upper end of the investment range, a policy also supported by mayors across the province.

Plan to improve commuter cycling networks

1) What infrastructure should be prioritized to make cycling in Ontario safer and more convenient?

We strongly support the creation of protected bicycle lanes. Physically separated lanes offer cyclists, especially youthful ones, far greater protection than painted lines on a road. It is especially important to provide protected lanes near schools. We know cycling numbers will not increase substantially unless people feel safe riding their bikes. Lanes that are physically separated — by means of flexi-posts or raised curbs — add enormously to riders' sense of safety.

2) What evidence can demonstrate the impact of cycling infrastructure investments on the number of cyclists and on GHG emissions?

Toronto recently installed physically separated bike lanes on Richmond, Adelaide, Sherbourne and Bloor streets. Ridership on these thoroughfares has expanded significantly. Cycle Toronto reports cycling volumes on Sherbourne have tripled. Jacquelyn Hayward Gulati, acting director of transportation infrastructure management at the City of Toronto, says Adelaide has seen a 300 per cent increase in bicycle use. Local cycling organization Bells on Bloor has documented an increase of over 75 per cent compared with last year in the number of bikes on the section of Bloor that now has a protected lane. Writing in The Walrus, Don Gillmor argues, "A year after the installation of dedicated bike lanes (which provide a physical barrier between cars and bikes) in five US cities, cycling volume increased as much as 171 percent."

These is also evidence that bike lanes, by incentivizing a reduction in car use, can contribute to important GHG reductions. Earlier this year, researchers at McGill University found that a seven per cent increase in the length of Montreal's bike network correlated with a drop of about two per cent in GHG emissions. "A Global High Shift Cycling Scenario", a 2015 research paper co-authored by the University of California, argues a robust but realistic increase in cycling and e-biking could result in a global CO2 emission reduction of almost 11 per cent by 2050. Importantly, the paper notes that to achieve this reduction, governments need to quickly "develop cycling and e-bike infrastructure on a large scale."

Local cycling infrastructure

3) For local cycling networks, what types of cycling infrastructure would best support commuter cycling?

Following the lead of Share the Road, we support "context-specific designs aimed at developing connected low-stress commuter networks." Again, we believe protected bike lanes are an absolutely crucial element here.

We also strongly support lowering speed limits. Toronto is in the process of reducing speeds on many side streets (to 30 km/hour) and some arterials (to 40km/hour), and we urge the province to mandate this wise practice in all municipalities. As mentioned above, cycling numbers will not increase significantly unless residents feel cycling is safe. And requiring cars to slow down is a key piece of this. In its Road to Health report, Toronto Public Health explains that "increases in safety and in mode share [toward cycling] tend to go hand-in-hand." Lower speeds save lives, and cyclists know this. TPH cites data from the World Health Organization showing that a "pedestrian is 8 times more likely to die as a result of a collision when a vehicle is going 50 km/hr than when it is going 30 km/hr (WHO 2004)."

As well, we support greater use of the bike-share program. The University of California study referenced above states: "given that bike share systems have catalyzed dramatic increases in private bike use in many cities, especially when paired with bicycle infrastructure and other policies that support cycling, these systems can have strong indirect impacts on total cycling levels and benefits." Share the Road cites the example of Hamilton, Ontario, where "bike share members reported a 70% decrease in automobile use and a reduction in carbon of 132,433kg based on the number and distance of trips taken." Integrating bike share with public transit is especially helpful. A 2016 paper from the Toronto Centre for Active Transportation says, "promoting cycling to/from transit stations can play a critical role in addressing and mitigating the first mile/last mile problem."

Provincial cycling infrastructure

4) What types of cycling infrastructure on provincial highways would best support commuter cycling?

Again, if we are serious about providing incentives for commuter cycling we must reduce speed limits and provide separated bike lanes. While these policies may seem more appropriate for municipal roadways, they are, in fact, necessary on provincial highways. We will never get large numbers of people cycling on highways if they are being passed by cars moving at 80 kilometres an hour, especially if they are not protected by a physical barrier.

We also believe that the inclusion of cycling infrastructure in new provincial highway projects should be automatic.

Bicycle parking

5) What types of bike parking facilities (e.g., bike racks, lockers, fee-based enclosures) are needed to support cycling for commuting and other frequent trips?

We support all the parking facilities listed here. We agree with Share the Road that APBP Bicycle Parking Guidelines should be followed. Our only caveat is that any bike-parking fees should be affordable for low-income Ontarians.

6) What types of government-owned, publicly accessible facilities should have bike parking?

We are keen to see more bike parking at schools and universities. Encouraging cycling among young people is especially important if we are to create a pro-cycling cultural shift. We also favour bike parking at hospitals and community health clinics, as this sends a message that cycling promotes wellness.

7) What types of transit or transportation stations should have bike parking to support improved cyclist access (e.g., GO Stations, LRT stations, bus terminals)?

We believe bike parking should be available at all of these stations. As mentioned above, cycling can be an excellent solution to the first/last mile problem. Especially useful are parking facilities that are covered, particularly in northern communities where weather can be severe.

8) What types of private facilities could potentially be eligible to receive provincial funding for bicycle parking facilities?

To be eligible, private facilities should be near low-stress cycling networks. "Bicycle-friendly businesses" and those that participate in programs such as Smart Commute should be given special consideration for funding.

Thank you for reading this submission and considering its recommendations.

[Original Comment ID: 202519]