Environmental advocates and cycling groups are slamming the Ford government’s proposal to block new bike lanes if they require removing car lanes. Internal documents obtained by CBC News reveal that the potential legislation is part of the Ontario government’s broader strategy to combat gridlock, particularly in Toronto.
However, critics warn that it will not only worsen traffic congestion, but also make streets more dangerous for cyclists and pedestrians. They contend that expanding bike lanes and investing in sustainable infrastructure is a far more effective solution to reduce gridlock, improve public health and cut emissions.
“This is not just about bikes versus cars. This is a direct attack on municipalities and their ability to make decisions that benefit residents,” said Madeleine Bonsma-Fisher, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Toronto who studies active transportation. “This is also an attack on pedestrians. Nearly all projects that create bike lanes by removing car lanes are also 'complete street' projects that enhance safety and comfort for pedestrians.”
She said the government's approach ignores the benefits of reallocating road space, which can create safer, more welcoming environments and promote long-term sustainability.
“The old way of doing things, the “cars first” mentality that the Ford government is taking here, is just not the solution to any of the issues they claim to want to solve.”
Ontario Transportation Minister Prabmeet Sarkaria, speaking at a news conference on Friday in Etobicoke, did not deny the CBC report and stated the government is focused on reducing traffic problems. “We're looking at ways to make life easier for people. We're looking at ways to reduce gridlock in this province. We’ve seen a record amount of gridlock,” Sarkaria said. “With explosive population growth in our cities, it’s getting harder for people to commute, and we have to continue building every mode of transportation.”
Sarkaria emphasized his role as transportation minister is to ensure people have choices for their commutes, whether by bike, public transit or car.
But Bonsma-Fisher argues the government already has tools that could better address gridlock. “The most important thing they can do is create more and better transportation options for people: that means investing in transit, which they are already doing, and supporting municipalities to invest in walking and biking infrastructure.”
Bonsma-Fisher told Canada's National Observer that the government’s proposal could lead to more congestion because cars take up significantly more road space than bikes. She recalled a recent instance when she and 14 other cyclists occupied the same amount of road space as just three cars at an intersection.
“For many of us who depend on two wheels, the timing of this announcement is chilling,” said Michael Longfield, executive director of Cycle Toronto, who regularly uses his bike for short trips and commuting. “In cities and towns across Ontario, people want a more vibrant and friendlier public realm. Folks know that easing traffic congestion is about giving people more transportation options, not fewer.”
Longfield noted that Ontarians are striving for a net-zero future and desire connected communities where not every trip to school, the store, or work relies on cars.
Many cities in Ontario are actively investing in bike lanes, with Toronto and Hamilton at the forefront of efforts to create bikeways that promote a more sustainable and cyclist-friendly urban environment.
Cycling advocates argue that as cities grapple with issues such as traffic congestion, air pollution and public health concerns, there is growing demand for cycling as a viable transportation option.
Longfield argued that Toronto needs to accelerate its cycling network, warning that the proposed legislation could jeopardize many transformative projects and allow a small minority to hinder progress toward a healthier, more vibrant city.
“We know that bike lanes are good for business,” said Longfield. “They’re good for the environment. They’re good for public and personal health. They give us freedom and mobility. Bike lanes save lives.”
Phil Pothen, land use and land development program manager at Environmental Defence, argues that expanding bike lanes is essential for efficient urban transportation and warns the Ford government's approach will worsen congestion rather than resolve it.
“Because protected bike lanes move more people faster than urban car lanes, they've become the essential arteries for commuters and deliveries in many of Ontario's most economically-productive places,” said Pothen.
Pothen told Canada’s National Observer that the growth of safe cycling infrastructure and increased bicycle ridership have been the only positive developments in the past five years, contrasting with the negative impact of underfunded transit operations and the government's focus on sprawl and highways, which have exacerbated traffic issues.
In a statement, Ontario Green Party Leader Mike Schreiner condemned the Ford government's proposal, asserting that addressing traffic problems necessitates providing more affordable transportation options — like biking, walking, or public transit — rather than worsening gridlock. “This is an unserious proposal from an unserious government that doesn’t have a plan to tackle gridlock,” said Schreiner. “There is literally no evidence that bike infrastructure makes traffic worse. What does make traffic worse is building communities where residents have no other option but to drive in order to get where they need to go.”
Comments