Ontario Court Denies Injunction to Stop Bike Lane Removal
By Everett Kehew
On March 14th, the judge finally delivered the verdict: bike lane removals would proceed as planned.
The announcement came after weeks of tense deliberation in the Ontario Superior Court, where the provincial government was fighting an injunction requested by a group of cycling advocates.
Cycle Toronto, a grassroots organization fighting for improvements in cycling infrastructure, had taken the government to court over their controversial Bill 212, also known as the Reducing Gridlock, Saving You Time Act.
The act gives the government of Ontario oversight of all potential bike lanes in the province; municipalities now have to seek approval from the Minister of Transportation before they build new bike infrastructure.
The most controversial part of the bill, however, is the removal of bike lanes from major arterial roads in the City of Toronto. Bike lanes on Bloor, University, and Yonge streets are slated to be removed at a cost of over $48 million, notwithstanding the $27 million it cost to build them in the first place.
In response, Cycle Toronto brought a charter case against the province, arguing that the removal of the bike lanes interferes with their right to “life, liberty and security of the person” as outlined in Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Rider safety: the top concern
When Michael Longfield heard that the injunction had been denied, it had been ages since he had been on his bike. Just six weeks earlier, while biking in a painted bike lane on St George Street, he had his femur broken when a motorist opened their door without checking for incoming cyclists—a type of accident known as getting “doored”.
As the Executive Director of Cycle Toronto, Longfield had been involved in the charter case every step of the way. The news of the decision was made more frustrating by the fact that his injury could have been prevented by the kind of separated bike lanes that the bill planned to removed.
The risk caused by lack of adequate bike infrastructure is the basis of the charter case. Cycle Toronto has built its argument on the premise that the removal of the bike lanes will demonstrably increase injuries and fatalities among riders.
Advocates have pointed to provisions in Bill 212 that seem to admit to this fact; the legislation includes sections that prevent anyone from taking the government to court due to its decision to remove bike lanes. Bronwyn Roe, a lawyer with one of the firms representing Cycle Toronto, told TVO that “These are bike lanes the city has, after years of study and review, put in place for the specific reason that they increase safety for all road users and, in particular, people riding bikes.”
Reducing congestion or increasing confusion?
Increased risk for cyclists is not the only issue with the legislation. There is a strong case that it will actively work against the problem it claims to solve: congestion.
Studies in New York, Washington, and Vancouver have all shown that bike lanes reduce congestion rather than increase it as the province claims. The additional space for cars created by tearing up bike lanes is outpaced by the phenomenon known as induced demand.
The premise of induced demand is simple: if you encourage people to use cars by opening up more lanes of traffic, more people will take their cars.
Data from the City of Toronto supports the claim that the implementation of of bike lanes does not negatively affect congestion. The Bloor Street bike lanes have reduced congestion and increased emergency response times—which doesn’t stop the province from using emergency response times to justify the legislation.
Additionally, people who bike or walk have been shown to stimulate local business. The implementation of bike lanes increased monthly consumer spending at Bloor Street businesses from $186 to $245.
According to reports by the Trillium, the provincial government circulated reports internally that contradicted the premise of the legislation, including studies of other urban centres that disprove their position that bike lanes cause congestion. They refuse to acknowledge data collected by the City and have continuously cited outdated and inaccurate numbers in their reports and press releases.
Why target bike lanes?
In the absence of data to support their reasoning, the purpose of Bill 212 remains an open question. It comes as the latest in a series of moves that Doug Ford’s Conservatives have made to interfere in municipal affairs, like the Strong Mayor legislation of 2022. But why have bike lanes in particular become a flashpoint?
The issue has been driven by a group called Balance on Bloor, which congregates around the Crooked Cue, a pool hall owned by one of the group’s members, located on Bloor St in Etobicoke. The group bills itself as grassroots, despite being led by a real estate investor, a real estate agent, and the owner of a financial services company, all of whom have made donations to the Conservative party.
Etobicoke-Lakeshore MPP Christine Hogarth has worked in concert with Balance on Bloor to make bike lanes a key issue in provincial politics. The group’s messaging mirrors that of the province, highlighting increased traffic and emergency response times despite claims to the contrary from Toronto’s deputy fire chief.
Echoes of amalgamation
In many ways, the politicization of bike lanes follows a longstanding division between the downtown core of Toronto and its suburban neighbours, which has often been mediated by provincial politics.
Prior to 1997, what is now known as Old Toronto was its own municipality, and its government was left wing. Despite a referendum in which three quarters of Torontonians voted against it, Old Toronto, Etobicoke, York, North York, East York, and Scarborough were amalgamated into one metropolitan area, thus diluting the influence of the left wing of City Council.
Amalgamation was adopted in large part because it made it easier to implement large-scale infrastructure projects. Previous transit projects, like expressways, had a long history of causing friction between the car-centric suburbs and the public-transit-focused core.
It should come as no surprise that opposition to bike lanes is the product of a car-centric suburb like Etobicoke, where Doug Ford has his seat. This is hardly the first time that transit has served as the forum in which the outer rim of conservative voters clash with downtown progressives to secure their vision for the city, nor is it the first time that a conservative premier has dipped into municipal issues to erode downtown’s power to oppose his policies.
The case continues
Despite the injunction being denied, advocates still have hope that the charter case will stop the legislation in its tracks. The province may have been given permission to proceed with removals but, once the case is heard on April 16th, it is possible that the legislation is deemed illegal.
And Toronto cycling activists have reason to be hopeful: Cycle Toronto saw its membership double from 18,000 in 2020 to 35,000 in 2023, signalling a surge in community mobilization around the issue.
For Michael Longfield, hope remains that the lanes might not be taken out before the case is heard, but his organization gearing up for a legal fight nonetheless. It may still be a while before he can ride his bike again, but he can hope that when he does, it will be in a bike lane.