Guelph may never have a safe cycling network under new provincial bike lane rules, warn city officials.
As it is, cyclists are disproportionately involved in collisions that result in serious injury or death.
Though it’s not yet known precisely which roads projects will be impacted, or to what extent, those are among the city’s comments to the provincial government ahead of the passing of Bill 212, which makes it so provincial approval is needed before bike lanes can be installed on roads where at least one vehicular traffic lane would be removed.
It also allows for the ordered removal of existing bike lanes.
“While efficient traffic flow is crucial in road design, it should not come at the expense of the safety of vulnerable road users,” states deputy CAO Jayne Holmes in the submission, referring to the legislation’s stated purpose. “While we understand that the scope of this proposal does not necessarily extend to all cycling lanes, we want to re-iterate the value of dedicated cycling infrastructure in creating a resilient transportation system and enhancing overall road safety in Guelph.”
Bill 212 received royal assent on Monday, meaning it’s now in effect. As a result, municipalities have to demonstrate that proposed bike lanes won’t negatively impact vehicular traffic flow.
“With the worst travel times in North America, gridlock in Ontario is at a tipping point, and we need to act now," said Prabmeet Sarkaria, Minister of Transportation, in a news release announcing the legislation, of which bike lanes is only part, last month.
Asked which city projects, including the downtown revitalization effort, would be impacted, Holmes provided the following statement:
“The process to get approval from the province on potential bike lanes is not yet clear for any of our projects. Staff (is) looking to touch base with the province to get more clarity.”
The city’s cycling network is the product of numerous city council-approved plans and policies, formed following public engagement, traffic studies, safety audits and environmental reviews, Holmes notes in her comments to the province.
This added layer of review and approval “may delay or fully hinder the city from realizing its goals of developing a safe and efficient cycling network.”
“These studies and strategies have required substantial time, cost and effort to complete, and represent the vision of Guelph city council and the Guelph community,” the deputy CAO wrote. “As the level of government closest to the community, Guelph city council and staff are best positioned to make infrastructure planning decisions informed by local context, input from residents, and local growth and transportation needs.”
If the province orders existing bike lanes to be removed, it should pay for that work to be done, she added.
Cycling accounts for about three per cent of trips taken in the city, but cyclists are involved in 9.9 per cent of serious injury collections.
“This discrepancy speaks to the need for safer cycling infrastructure, especially on major roadways connecting to key destinations,” wrote Holmes. “Extensive academic research supports the finding that protected dedicated cycling infrastructure increases trips by bikes and decreases the number and severity of collisions involving cyclists.”
Bike lanes are used by more than cyclists, Holmes pointed out, including those taking advantage of micro-mobility opportunities such as the province-led pilot project for electric scooters currently underway.
“Providing infrastructure that supports alternative modes such as bikes, scooters and other micro-mobility devices is a practical method to mitigate congestion, and to ensure that the transportation system remains resilient in the face of rapid population growth. The removal of cycling facilities in favour of traffic lanes has the potential to cause ‘induced demand’, where the additional vehicular capacity causes an increased use of cars as opposed to alternate modes of transport, resulting in continued congestion.”
