In a province grappling with a housing crisis and crumbling transit, the Ontario government has chosen to wage war on bicycle lanes, claiming they are the primary cause of gridlock. Jason Slaughter dismantles this narrative with surgical precision, revealing a policy that not only contradicts decades of urban planning research but also ignores the very safety data the administration claims to prioritize. This is not merely a debate about traffic flow; it is a case study in how political distraction can override evidence-based governance.
The Myth of the Traffic Culprit
The core of the legislation, dubbed the "Reducing Gridlock, Saving You Time Act," mandates that cities must seek provincial approval before installing any bike lane that affects car lanes. Slaughter immediately identifies the absurdity of the premise: "Toronto has absolutely terrible traffic congestion and it has been getting worse over the past few decades but there are 5,600 km of roads in Toronto and less than 3% of the have bike Lanes on them." He points out that the government is targeting less than 40 kilometers of protected infrastructure in a city where car travel times are rising even on streets without bike lanes.
The administration's justification relies on cherry-picked data, citing a 2011 census figure that only 1.2% of residents commute by bike. Slaughter notes that this data is "totally out of date" and ignores the reality of modern urban mobility, where cycling serves school runs, shopping, and social visits, not just the daily commute. A 2019 survey found that 44% of Torontonians identify as utilitarian cyclists. The argument that removing lanes will solve congestion overlooks a fundamental principle of traffic engineering: on city streets, flow is constrained by intersection capacity, not lane count. As Slaughter explains, "one car Lane provides more than enough capacity between intersections which is why in the Netherlands it's been common practice for years to build streets with only one lane in each direction for cars."
Critics of bike lanes often argue that removing car lanes inevitably slows emergency response times. Slaughter counters this by noting that Toronto's own fire and ambulance services have raised no concerns, with deputy fire chief data suggesting response times have actually improved since the lanes were installed.
"A civilized society should never accept trading people's lives in order to shave a few seconds off of a driver's rush hour commute."
The Economic Reality of Slower Streets
Perhaps the most damaging blow to the government's narrative is the economic impact. The legislation frames bike lanes as a burden on local commerce, yet the evidence suggests the opposite. Slaughter highlights the response from the local Business Association on Bloor Street, which warned that removing lanes would be "disastrous for the area." This aligns with a Toronto City study showing that retail sales on Bloor increased after bike lanes were installed, a trend not seen on nearby streets.
The mechanism is simple: speed kills commerce. "There is a direct correlation between the speed and volume of car traffic and the financial viability of local businesses because cars don't buy things people do," Slaughter writes. When traffic moves slowly and consistently, pedestrians feel safe to stop and shop. The Ontario Society of Professional Engineers has also weighed in, calling the bill "a step in the wrong direction for Ontario's future." This consensus among engineers and business owners suggests the policy is driven by ideology rather than economic reality.
Distraction as a Political Strategy
Slaughter argues that the timing of this legislation is not coincidental but strategic. With the province facing severe issues in healthcare, finance, and a housing crisis described as "one of the worst in the world," the Premier is using bike lanes as a scapegoat. The author, who has renounced his Canadian citizenship to live in the Netherlands, observes that "populists can tell a good story and are very good at getting elected they're typically not so great at actually managing a government."
The administration claims the legislation is necessary to "bring sanity back to bike lane decision," yet it ignores a leaked document from its own Ministry of Transportation staffers that advised against the policy. The real issue, Slaughter suggests, is the failure to deliver on major transit projects like the Eglinton Crosstown light rail line, which has been under construction for 14 years with no public completion date. By attacking bike lanes, the government distracts from the fact that "viable alternatives to driving and traffic is terrible in Toronto because there are very few viable alternatives to driving especially in the suburbs."
The hypocrisy is stark when the Premier himself admits the value of separated infrastructure. After riding a bike for the first time in 35 years, he stated, "I felt so much safer when there was it was separated." Slaughter seizes on this contradiction: "one death is way too many when it comes to Bicycle Riders we have to make sure that there's never a death in the city." Yet, the legislation proceeds to remove the very infrastructure that ensures that safety.
Bottom Line
Jason Slaughter's analysis exposes a policy that is scientifically unsound, economically damaging, and politically motivated. The strongest part of his argument is the synthesis of safety data, economic studies, and traffic engineering principles to show that bike lanes are part of the solution, not the problem. However, the piece's greatest vulnerability lies in the political reality: evidence rarely defeats a well-crafted populist narrative, and the administration shows no sign of listening to the experts. Readers should watch for the next phase of this conflict, where the removal of infrastructure will likely lead to the very safety and congestion issues the government claims to solve.
"People will die as a result of this legislation and it won't just be people on bikes."
The ultimate verdict is clear: this legislation is a distraction from the administration's failures, trading human lives and economic vitality for a few seconds of perceived time savings on the road.