Ontario has introduced legislation – the Reducing Gridlock, Saving You Time Act – that would require cities to ask the province for permission to install bikes lanes when they would remove a lane of vehicle traffic. In a separate statement, the government has also signaled it wants to remove existing bike lanes on major Toronto streets including Bloor, Yonge and University. They argue bike lanes cause congestion.
This argument does not align with a growing international body of evidence showing cycling infrastructure does not slow vehicle traffic. But perhaps a more important issue is that active transportation is a powerful approach to dealing with two of the biggest health concerns we increasingly will face moving forward: the impacts of a sedentary lifestyle and of climate change on health. Legislation which limits bike lanes is a major strike against health – and health equity – in Toronto and across the province.
Cycling is healthy. Regular physical activity is known to protect against chronic conditions including diabetes, cardiovascular disease and cancer, whereas sedentary behaviour increases the risk of many of these same chronic diseases and of premature death. Physical activity is also good for mental health.
Cycling is also good for the environment. The transportation sector is responsible for 28 per cent of the greenhouse gases emitted in Canada, and emissions are going up, in large part because there are now 27 per cent more vehicles on the road, most notably trucks, than there were 20 years ago.
Phrased another way, motor vehicles are contributing to the decline of human and climate health.
“If you build it, they will come.” It’s a phrase popularized by the movie “Field of Dreams,” and research shows it is true – for both bike lanes and roads.
As became clear to all road users during the COVID lockdown, building cycling infrastructure nudges more people to cycle, because they feel safer. This is particularly the case for women, older adults and children. City of Toronto statistics show installing bike lanes on nine routes between 2014 and 2021 boosted ridership three-fold.
By contrast, more roads induces more demand for roads. This effect is likely more prominent on already highly congested streets in urban centres.
We must consider additional health equity issues when discussing gridlock.
Cars are expensive, and ownership is not achievable by all, especially those who are low-income. U.S. research found Black households in poverty spend on average $1,115 more per car than their non-racialized peers due to factors such as insurance, gasoline, vehicle loans and leasing. This research about disparate costs for people who are low-income, racialized or newcomers was echoed by Wellesley Institute earlier this year.
Transit networks are not equitable across the city. Service cutbacks made during the COVID lockdown, and not yet fully restored, have exacerbated this problem.
At the same time, the City of Toronto has acknowledged that its historic practice of investing in cycling infrastructure in the downtown core has resulted in its inequitable distribution across the city. Lower income neighbourhoods in the suburbs have been underserved. Toronto’s Cycling Network Plan, approved in summer 2024, begins to address those inequities. Provincial action to delay or cancel the City’s plan would prevent that.
As we consider where this “bikelash” came from, it is perhaps helpful to reflect on what – and who – informed the proposed legislation. Legislation as far-reaching as this should have undergone purposeful and equitable public engagement. It also warrants a health impact assessment and a health equity impact assessment to ensure it does not make our health worse or increase inequities by mistake.
The government should refocus its “Saving You Time” legislation on saving lives.