May 15, 2012

DELIVERED BY COURIER

The Honourable Jim Bradley Minister of the Environment 77 Wellesley Street West 11th Floor, Ferguson Block , M7A 2T5

Attention: Hon. Jim Bradley

Dear Hon. Jim Bradley,

Re: Bike Lane Decommissioning and Addition of Reversible Lane Our File B7401

Summary and Background

We represent the Toronto Cyclists Union, recently renamed Cycle Toronto, on matters related to the Jarvis Street bicycle lanes. We are writing to request that the Ministry of Environment issue a Part II Order for the Jarvis Street Bike Lane decommissioning and addition of a fifth reversible lane in the City of Toronto on the grounds that the project is likely to have significant environmental effects, is a matter of great public concern and because the City has unreasonably refused to conduct a screening level assessment in accordance with the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment. The installation of bike lanes on Jarvis Street was a success

Prior to 2009 the configuration of Jarvis Street included a fifth reversible lane and no cycling paths. The Jarvis Street Streetscape Improvement Environmental Assessment was conducted in 2009 to assess the removal of the fifth reversible lane on Jarvis Street, which was a safety hazard, and reconfigure the streetscape. This assessment was a Schedule C Environmental Assessment under the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MCEA). In May 2009 approved the EA which favoured the installation of bicycle lanes. The bicycle lanes, which necessitated the removal of the centre reversible traffic lane, were reinstalled in July 2010.

These bicycle lanes have been extraordinarily successful and have, in tandem with the launching of the BIXI program increased bicycle use on Jarvis Street by three times. They have also improved safety.

Since the installation of cycling lanes, City Staff have noted an increase in cycling use on Jarvis Street with the implementation of the bike lanes in combination with the BIXI program, which has nine stations located near the Jarvis Street bike lanes. In Toronto, approximately 48 percent or 939,000 residents over age 15 are cyclists, and approximately 60 percent of households own a bicycle.1 City Staff monitored Jarvis Street along this section in terms of bicycle counts, motor vehicle traffic

1 City of Toronto Bike Plan above at 2-4.

ILER CAMPBELL LLP - 2 - volumes and travel times. The results of bike lane addition was that the volume of cyclists increased from 290 to 890 on average over eight hours, a volume increase of over three times.2

City of Toronto traffic monitoring showed that commuting times following the implementation of the bike lanes weren’t significantly increased.3 City staff also confirmed that the traffic impacts are minimal.4 Small increases to travel times have been attributed by staff to turning lane issues and not the addition of bicycle lanes or the removal of the reversible centre-lane.5 Toronto City Council reversal

However in July 2011 Toronto City Council voted to “rescind” its original decision and eliminate the bicycle lanes and install a fifth reversible lane to “revert” the street to its previous configuration (the Project).6

The decision to reverse the bike lane infrastructure on Jarvis Street was not subject to a public meeting as it was not on the agenda, no staff presentations were made on the merits of the decision, and there were no public consultations on the Project conducted by the City of Toronto (City).

Subsequent to the decision of Council no environmental assessment was announced by the City under the MCEA. We corresponded with the City of Toronto on April 3, 2012 on behalf of our client and provided our opinion that the City was subject to Schedule B of the MCEA for the Project and that the Project would have significant environmental effects that merited a more complete assessment under Schedule C.

The City responded on April 17, 2012 and indicated that they would not be conducting any environmental assessment for the Project. The ground for refusing to conduct an environmental assessment provided was that the addition of the bike lanes was not subject to an environmental assessment. The City’s decision is unreasonable and incorrect

The original decision to remove the fifth reversible lane and install bike lanes was the direct result of an extensive environmental assessment (EA) process under Schedule C. Through many public consultations, it was determined that bicycle lanes were preferred to improvements to the pedestrian area. The City subsequently determined that the portion of the project that included adding bicycle lanes instead of expanding sidewalks was a Schedule A+ project.7 The decision that the original undertaking was partly determined to be a Schedule A+ project was inconsequential as the assessment was already undertaken. Toronto City Council ultimately amended and adopted the Jarvis Street Environmental Assessment Study.

2Acting General Manager, Transportation Services, Bikeway Report - 2011 Update (June 9, 2011) 3Dunn and Egan, 2011. 4Gary Welsh, P.Eng., General Manager, Transportation Services, Briefing Note: Jarvis Street Bike Lanes, Traffic Impacts (April 20, 2011)http://www.toronto.ca/cycling/reports/pdf/jarvis-briefing-note-april2011.pdf 5Ibid. 6http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2011.PW5.1seeSched A. 7http://www.toronto.ca/involved/projects/jarvis/

ILER CAMPBELL LLP - 3 - The Project in question now is to remove the bike lanes and install a fifth reversible lane. This is an entirely new project. The decommissioning of a bike lane is not included in Schedule A+ and so no bike lane exemption applies, as it did to portions of the original project. Decommissioning the road infrastructure on Jarvis Street, including the re-insertion of the fifth reversible was not contemplated in any way in the original environmental assessment study that was approved by Toronto City Council in 2009.

On April 3, 2012, we provided extensive detailed legal arguments to the City of Toronto on behalf of our client explaining why the Project was not subject to a minimum of Schedule B and merited a Schedule C assessment. The removal of bike lanes and addition of a fifth reversible lane is a clear change of purpose, use and capacity for which an elevated EA process is mandated by the MCEA.

These arguments were rejected by the City of Toronto without acknowledgement of the potential effects of the current project, or identifying which category or categories the City of Toronto relies upon to refuse to conduct an environmental assessment.

Our client has attempted to resolve the issue with the City of Toronto to the best of our ability to this stage by requesting that the City conduct a Schedule C assessment that would address our client’s concerns. The City has declined to conduct any environmental assessment or public consultations of any kind and has declined to adequately document its decision regarding the appropriate schedule of the MCEA the Project falls under. Request for a Part II Order

The Project is required to be assessed at a minimum as a Schedule B project relying on category 20 or alternatively category 41 of the MCEA. The City, in an attempt to thwart review, has failed to document its decision or the rationale for it to review the Project as a Schedule A+ project and is treating the Project as if it is one continuous undertaking with the very project it is reversing.

Details explaining why Schedule B applies are provided in the attachment to this letter as well as in our April 3, 2012 submission to the City. If the City proceeds with the removal of the bike lanes and installation of a reversible lane without conducting at least a Schedule B assessment it will no longer be proceeding “in accordance with” its Class Environmental Assessment Approval. Accordingly, an environmental assessment under s.5 would be required due to the operation of section 15.1(1) of the Environmental Assessment Act (EAA). The Ministry of Environment has Jurisdiction to Issue a Part II Order in this case

Although we take the position that section 5 of the EAA applies by operation of law, and a full environmental assessment is required, we ask you to exercise your discretion to order a full EA for the sake of clarity for all parties. You are fully authorized by section 16 of the EAA to elevate a Class EA project to a full EA under the Act. This section reads as follows:

16. (1) The Minister may by order require a proponent to comply with Part II before proceeding with a proposed undertaking to which a class environmental assessment would otherwise apply.

ILER CAMPBELL LLP - 4 - ...(5) Any person may request the Minister to make an order under this section or the Minister may make an order upon his or her own initiative.

Under the Act a Part II Order may be requested by anyone at any time for any undertaking to which a Class EA would otherwise apply, regardless of the Schedule it may fall under. There is no legal restriction on a Part II Order request.

We have complied with the spirit and intent of the MCEA guidance and general MOE guidance for requesting a Part II Order. We first attempted to resolve our concern with the City of Toronto through reasoned arguments. The Project is listed on Schedule B and is subject to the provisions of the MCEA speaking to Part II Orders for Schedule B Projects. In this instance, the letter from the City of Toronto indicating that it will not conduct a Schedule B assessment in accordance with the MCEA is equivalent to a notice of completion for the purpose of the Part II Order process and precludes further discussions with the City regarding the appropriate EA track. Accordingly we are ensuring that the Ministry is in receipt of our request within 30 calendar days after the City of Toronto’s April 17, 2012 letter. Grounds for Part II Order

There are compelling grounds for a Part II Order relying upon subsection 16(4) of the EAA. We refer you to our April 3, 2012 submissions to the City of Toronto which are attached and set out in detail the significant environmental effects anticipated from the Project as well as the appendix to this letter.

The purpose of the EAA is the betterment of the people of the whole or any part of Ontario by providing for the protection, conservation and wise management in Ontario of the environment. In this instance, an EA process was followed in 2009 which had that result and the City is attempting to reverse that result without due process.

The proposed undertaking is highly unusual, as it involves the reversal of a recently approved environmental assessment that involved extensive public consultations after the infrastructure changes were completed. Cycling is promoted both by the City of Toronto Official Plan and the Provincial Policy Statement and is encouraged through the exemption for the installation of bike lanes set out in Schedule A+.

When the fifth reversible lane was slated for removal in 2007, the City of Toronto reasoned that a Schedule C assessment was appropriate. In this instance, the City of Toronto has refused to conduct even a screening assessment for the re-insertion of the lane. Not only is this inconsistent, but it is non-compliant with Schedule B of the MCEA. It flies in the face of the extensive public consultations conducted under the previous EA process. In this case there were no public consultations, studies before the City, staff reports, public meetings or other processes in place to address the safety concerns, traffic impacts, and other potentially significant environmental effects of the Project whatsoever.

ILER CAMPBELL LLP - 5 - There is significant public concern about the project

The Toronto Cyclists Union co-ordinated a petition for the City Council meetings in mid-2011 and had Councillor Mike Layton present it. The petition had 2,001 signatures. At least 210 letters and emails were sent to Councillors and the Mayor requesting that the lanes not be removed prior to the Council meeting. Approximately 1,000 people participated in the “Ride for Jarvis” co-ordinated by the Toronto Cyclists Union to show opposition to the removal of the bike lanes the week after the Council voted to remove the bike lanes in protest against the decision. There were dozens, if not hundreds, of media articles about the debate over the removal of bike lanes on Jarvis Street, the decision of council, the estimated costs of removing the bicycle lanes, and the Toronto Cyclist’s Union’s letter to the City of April 3, 2012.8 The management of bike lanes on Jarvis Street is a matter of heated public debate, interest and concern and produces tens of thousands of valid hits from newspapers, articles, blogs and other material on Google’s search engine.

Safety impacts amount to significant potential environmental effects

The 2009 environmental assessment for the removal of the fifth reversible lane that would be reinstalled by this project identified significant safety concerns about the fifth reversible lane. The proposed reversible centre lane is dangerous to traffic as both cars historically used it in the wrong direction to pass other cars, and pedestrians unfamiliar with it use it as a refuge while crossing mid- block and may look the wrong way. As stated by iTrans (2010), “given the large number of lanes pedestrians must cross, the use of the [proposed] reversible lane as a refuge, and large blocks between signals, the degree of pedestrian exposure to conflict is undesirable”.9 The impetus of the original EA was to create a safer experience for pedestrians. By keeping the status quo – including bike lanes and reducing the number of car lanes (thus reducing traffic speeds) – both pedestrians and cyclists are safer.

For cyclists who choose to continue using Jarvis, the removal of bike lanes will mean that cyclists and cars will share the outside lanes in both directions. Past experience has shown that with five lanes, each lane on Jarvis Street is narrow enough that cars can’t pass bikes without changing lanes, and the iTrans traffic study (2005) stated that Jarvis lane widths with five lanes were considered “substandard” by current design standards.10 With five small lanes, cars will again have to swerve out to other lanes to avoid cyclists, thus potentially negatively affecting commuting times and increasing the likelihood of collisions. As evidence of the dangerous conditions on the road, the Project Documentation for the previous EA indicated that there are “a high percentage of sideswipe

8 Google shows approximately 53,000 results for “Jarvis Bike Lanes” including: “Debate on Jarvis bike lanes set to continue” (13 Jul 2011) National Post news.nationalpost.com/.../debate-on-jarvis-bike-lanes-set-to-continue/; Toronto News: “Council votes to scrap Jarvis bike lanes,” (13 Jul 2011) http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1024305; Toronto News: “Battle over Jarvis bike lane rages on”, (12 Jul 2011) Toronto Star www.thestar.com/.../1023995--battle-over-Jarvis-bike-lane-rages-on; “Council votes to remove Jarvis bike lanes,” (13 Jul 2011) Toronto Sun www.torontosun.com/.../council-votes-to-remove-jarvis-bike-lanes; Jarvis bike lanes to be removed - Toronto (13 Jul 2011) CBC News ww.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2011/.../jarvis-bike- lane.html 9iTrans, 2010. 10iTrans, 2005.

ILER CAMPBELL LLP - 6 - collisions, which may be linked to narrow lanes widths”.11 Many drivers also support the current configuration of the road, demonstrating that the issue is one of safety, not politics.12

Finally the City of Toronto recently released a collision review of Jarvis Street. The data, compiled by City Staff in the Transportation Services department, proves that Jarvis Street is safer for all road users since the installation of the bike lanes. The motor vehicle-bicycle collision rate has decreased by 29 percent, while the number of collisions between pedestrians and motor vehicles decreased by 89 percent .

Since the bike lanes were installed, the total number of all reported collisions per year along Jarvis Street has decreased by 23 percent - this includes drivers, pedestrians and cyclists. This is despite the fact that cycling on Jarvis Street has increased by 300 percent and the number of motor vehicles has remained the same.13

Ministry intervention in the form of a Part II Order is appropriate in this instance to ensure the environmental assessment process is upheld and respected under the MCEA and to ensure that the safety concerns are addressed and the public consulted in an appropriate manner on the proposed Project.

11iTrans, 2010. 12http://bikeunion.to/jarvis-drivers 13 City of Toronto Collision Review, Daniel Egan Manager, Cycling Infrastructure and Programs http://bikeunion.to/sites/tcu/files/Jarvis % 20Collision % 20Review % 2020April2012-1_0.pdf

ILER CAMPBELL LLP - 7 - Content of the Part II Order

Our client feels strongly that the potentially significant environmental effects of the Project merit a full environmental assessment. These impacts include the social, cultural, environmental and economic impacts of the removal of cycling lanes which are detailed in the appendix to this letter and our submissions to the City.

However, we would like to highlight that the principal concerns of the Toronto Cyclists Union are safety impacts and appropriate levels of public consultation. We invite Ministry Staff to meet jointly with the Toronto Cyclists Union and the City of Toronto to identify any potential solution that would address safety issues in a satisfactory manner. Failing this, we ask that the Ministry issue a Part II Order for an environmental assessment scoped appropriately to address these important issues.

Yours truly,

ILER CAMPBELL LLP ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER

Laura Bowman Simon Strauss E-mail: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

/lb cc: Client

Dan Egan Manager, Cycling Programs and Infrastructure Transportation Services Cycling Infrastructure & Programs 23rd floor East, 100 West Toronto Ontario M5H 2N2 [email protected]

Andy Koropeski, Acting General Manager Transportation Services Toronto City Hall 100 Queen Street West, 23rd Floor East, Toronto Ontario M5H 2N2 [email protected]

ILER CAMPBELL LLP - 8 -

John Mende Director, Transportation Infrastructure Management Transportation Infrastructure Management 100 Queen Street West, 22nd Floor East Toronto Ontario M5H 2N2 [email protected]

Councillor Denzil Minnan-Wong Toronto City Hall 100 Queen Street West, Suite C55 Toronto, Ontario M5H 2N2 [email protected]

Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam Toronto City Hall 100 Queen Street West, Suite A5 Toronto, Ontario M5H 2N2 [email protected]

Encl. 3 O:\Client Files\t-u-v\Toronto Cyclist Union\Jarvis Bike Lane

ILER CAMPBELL LLP - 9 -

Appendix 1 - Why the Project is subject to Schedule C

1) The Project is mandatorily subject to Schedule B Changes to a linear paved facility will be Subject to Schedule B where the following categories are triggered:

 #20 - “Reconstruction or widening where the reconstructed road or other linear paved facilities (e.g. HOV lanes will not be for the same purpose, use, capacity or at the same location as the facility being reconstructed (e.g. additional lanes, continuous centre turn lane)” where the cost is less than $2.2M;  #41 - “All other road related works” where the cost is less than $2.2M. a. Reconstruction or widening for a different purpose under $2.2M The MCEA does not define “reconstruction or widening”. However for the differing schedules in the MCEA to be logical, the terms “reconstruction” and “resurfacing” must have differing meanings. In this Project the area of the roadway used for vehicular traffic is being expanded. The term “reconstruction”, in contrast to the term “resurfacing” on its face includes physical and laneway alternations and this example is used right in Schedule B to define category 20. The Project is under $2.2M at an estimated $275K, placing it on Schedule B. A change to a new purpose is considered to be the opposite of “operation and maintenance” and accordingly would apply to the removal of a bike lane and/or the addition of a new road lane. It is plain and obvious that the conversion of bike lanes to a fifth reversible lane and the realignment of the lanes would constitute “reconstruction”. b. All other road related works The Jarvis Street Project would also fall under “all other road related works.” placing it on Schedule B since it is under $2.2M.

2) The Jarvis Street Project not subject to Schedule A or A+ There are no applicable projects listed on Schedule A. The general operation and maintenance of linear paved facilities is listed in the Schedule of the MCEA designate the following categories of activities as subject to Schedule A+:14

 # 3 - The “construction or operation of bicycle paths or bike lanes within existing rights of way”  #5a - “Urban resurfacing, with no change to horizontal alignment”  #12 - “construction of localized operational improvements at specific locations” where the cost is less than $2.2M.

14“Linear paved facility” Means facilities which utilize a linear paved surface including road lanes, or High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes.

ILER CAMPBELL LLP - 10 -

 #39 - “Retirement of existing roads and road related facilities”  #40 - “Retirement of existing laneways” c. Construction and operation of bike paths The decommissioning of a bike lane and the addition of one new reversible centre traffic lane is not the “construction or operation of ” a bike lane. It would strain the plain meaning of “construction or operation of ” to import decommissioning of a bike lane and the creation of non-bike lane related infrastructure into this part of Schedule A+. This is supported by the definition of “operation” in the MCEA which is very extensive and reads, in part as follows:

“Means use, maintenance, repair and management of a municipal facility where the purpose, use, capacity and location remain the same...”[emphasis added]

As the purpose, use and capacity all change under the proposed Jarvis Street Project, and the project does not involve the construction or the operation of a bike lane this cannot apply. The result is that the City of Toronto’s claim that the same process applies to the removal as was applied to the installation is incorrect and unreasonable. d. Urban resurfacing with no change to horizontal alignment In its response letter dated April 17, 2012, the City appears to rely to some extent on the exemption in Schedule A+ for “urban resurfacing”. The Jarvis Street Project is not “resurfacing” which should be interpreted in accordance with the ordinary meaning of that term, which, in the context of a road is to put a new coat of asphalt or repair existing surfaces. In this case, there is no proposal to do any “resurfacing”. Rather the project involves removal of existing laneways and realignment of laneways after which the purpose, size, capacity, number and use of the lanes will be significantly altered. Moreover widening and realignment should be required, as detailed on page 5 of this submission, the previous five lane configuration was unsafe.

A good example of why this is not “resurfacing” is found in the references to HOV lanes found in the MCEA. The MCEA provides that the re-designation of a general purpose lane to an HOV lane which similarly involves minor physical alterations but significant alterations in purpose and use should be assessed as a Schedule B or C project.

The position of the City that they are just re-painting lines rather than changing the road infrastructure in question is absurd. On its face, this is not “resurfacing” of existing infrastructure but the creation of different infrastructure and the decision of the City to categorize it as such is incorrect and unreasonable. e. Localized operational improvement “localized operational improvements” are defined in the MCEA as “structural changes to an existing roadway at specific locations, and may include turning lanes at an intersection, storage lanes, U-turn lanes, bus bays, median changes, changing the curb radii, etc.” These improvements are listed on Schedule A+.

The alteration of the length of a roadway to remove bike lanes and the addition of a new lane is too extensive to be encompassed by this definition because it is not at a “specific location” similar to a

ILER CAMPBELL LLP - 11 - bus bay, curb, turning lane or similar alteration. Any ambiguity is resolved by the definition of “operation”, in the MCEA which does not include changes in purpose. f. Retirement of existing laneways Retirement of existing laneways could potentially be applied to a bike lane decommissioning. “Retirement” is defined as follows:

Means the taking out of operation, abandonment, removal, demolition or disposal of a road, sewage, stormwater management or water facility for which approval under the EA Act would have been necessary for its establishment and includes sale, lease, or other transfer of the facility for purposes of taking out of operation, abandonment, removal, demolition or disposal. [emphasis added]

Not only are bike lanes not mentioned (“road” on its own is not defined), but the definition of “retirement” is limited to the decommissioning of a facility that would not be on Schedule A or A+ since these are not subject to EA. When the Jarvis Bike Lane was added, no EA was necessary as it was on Schedule A+. Accordingly this part of the schedule does not apply to the undertaking of decommissioning bike lanes, nor on its face to the addition of a fifth lane. None of the other terms are defined in the MCEA.

3) A full assessment should be required in this instance The purpose of environmental assessment in Ontario is found in s.2 of the Environmental Assessment Act: “The purpose of this Act is the betterment of the people of the whole or any part of Ontario by providing for the protection, conservation and wise management in Ontario of the environment.”15 The environment is defined to include “the social, economic and cultural conditions that influence the life of humans or a community.”16 We also submit that any potential adverse effects on the environment must be assessed in keeping with the purpose of the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act and the above policies.

a. Social Impact City Staff have noted an increase in cycling use on Jarvis Street with the implementation of the bike lanes in combination with BIXI program, which has nine stations located near the Jarvis Street bike lanes. In Toronto, approximately 48 percent or 939,000 residents over age 15 are cyclists, and approximately 60 percent of households own a bicycle.17City Staff monitored Jarvis Street along this section in terms of bicycle counts, motor vehicle traffic volumes and travel times. The results of bike lane addition was that the volume of cyclists increased from 290 to 890 on average over eight hours, a volume increase of over three times.18

Decommissioning the bicycle lanes will discourage cycling on Jarvis Street due to both real and perceived safety concerns and will likely result in several adverse environmental effects. This would include reduced bicycle ridership overall, lessened safety of pedestrians, cyclists and motorists who continue to use Jarvis Street, a less effective BIXI program, and impacts to bicycle and other traffic from rerouting of cyclists.

15Environmental Assessment Act, R.S.O., 1990, c.E-18, s.2. 16Environmental Assessment Act, above, s.1(1)(c). 17 City of Toronto Bike Plan above at 2-4. 18Acting General Manager, Transportation Services, Bikeway Report - 2011 Update (June 9, 2011)

ILER CAMPBELL LLP - 12 - The Project will have adverse social impacts by:

 Reducing access to affordable transportation and recreation. Cycling is a critical mode of transportation and form of recreation for City of Toronto residents.

 Public health impacts of discouraging cycling include reduced fitness and mental health including higher risk of coronary heart disease and higher-cost medical care, and higher rates of workplace absenteeism. About two-thirds of Canadians are physically inactive, resulting in about $2.1 billion of direct health care costs in Canada.19

 Adversely impacting the safety of cyclists on Jarvis Street by implementation of infrastructure that is likely to result in higher collision rates. An estimated 1,000 cyclists on Jarvis Street depend on the existing lanes for safety.

 Increasing the stigma of cycling on Jarvis street. Cyclists in Toronto are aware of Mayor ’s recent comments blaming the Jarvis Street bike lanes for alleged increased congestion.20 This stigma will be increased by the carrying out of the Project.

 The increased car traffic would produce greater nuisance effects (greater noise, potentially worse air quality).

 The removal of bike lanes will increase the likelihood of car/bike collisions along Jarvis Street, and may cause car/car collisions as cars swerve out to avoid cyclists.

In addition to the above, the proposed reversible center lane is dangerous to traffic as both cars use it in the wrong direction to pass other cars, and pedestrians unfamiliar with it use it as a refuge while crossing mid-block and may look the wrong way. As stated by iTrans (2010), “given the large number of lanes pedestrians must cross, the use of the [proposed] reversible lane as a refuge, and large blocks between signals, the degree of pedestrian exposure to conflict is undesirable”.21 The impetus of the original EA was to create a safer experience for pedestrians. By keeping the status quo – including bike lanes and reducing the number of car lanes (thus reducing traffic speeds) – both pedestrians and cyclists are safer.

For cyclists who choose to continue using Jarvis, the removal of bike lanes will mean that cyclists and cars will share the outside lanes in both directions. Past experience has shown that with five lanes, each lane on Jarvis Street is narrow enough that cars can’t pass bikes without changing lanes, and the iTrans traffic study (2005) stated that Jarvis lane widths with five lanes are considered “substandard” by current design standards.22 With five small lanes, cars will have to swerve out to other lanes to avoid cyclists, thus potentially negatively affecting commuting times and increasing the likelihood of collisions. As evidence of the dangerous conditions on the road, the Project

19City of Toronto Bike Plan, above. 20Mayor Rob Ford’s form letter response to cycling advocates states: “Ninety-four percent of commuters now face longer commutes on Jarvis Street. Over 15,000 commuters each day are suffering from longer travel times, for the sake of 600 additional cyclists.” 21iTrans, 2010. 22iTrans, 2005.

ILER CAMPBELL LLP - 13 - Documentation for the previous EA indicated that there are “a high percentage of sideswipe collisions, which may be linked to narrow lanes widths”.23

b. Transportation Efficiency and Economic Impact

The Project will reduce transportation efficiency in the City of Toronto by:

 Lengthening transportation times within the city. Cycling is often the fastest mode of transportation from door to door for distances up to 10 km in urban cores.24

 Negatively effecting commuting times. The substandard size of the proposed five-lane road would force cars to swerve to avoid cyclists as described above.

 Increasing overall transportation costs. The addition of a through traffic lane on an existing road costs more than adding or maintaining bike lanes. While keeping the bike lanes (the presumed “Do Nothing” alternative) would not cost additional money, there is a cost to removing the lanes (~$270,000). Additionally, road maintenance would be increased, since bikes cause less wear and tear to paved roads when compared to cars.

 Reducing the efficiency of individual trips by encouraging short-distance motor-vehicle traffic. Short distance motor-vehicle trips are the least fuel-efficient and generate the most pollution per kilometre. These trips have the greatest potential for being replaced by cycling and walking.

An iTrans Traffic Feasibility Study (2005) “concluded that, from a traffic perspective, it is feasible to remove the centre reversible lane” [emphasis added], which led to the streetscape designs proposed in the original EA.25 While car traffic service levels may be slightly improved along Jarvis Street if the bike lanes are removed, there will undoubtedly be a decrease in the number of cyclists using the street due to safety concerns. iTrans (2010) found that Jarvis Street and surrounding streets had acceptable levels of traffic service before the bike lanes were implemented, and that surrounding streets could accommodate modifications to Jarvis if it were decreased to four lanes. City of Toronto traffic monitoring showed that commuting times following the implementation of the bike lanes weren’t significantly increased.26 City staff also confirmed that the traffic impacts are minimal.27Small increases to travel times have been attributed by staff to turning lane issues and not the addition of bicycle lanes or the removal of the reversible centre-lane.28

23iTrans, 2010. 24City of Toronto Bike Plan, above. 25iTrans, 2010. 26Dunn and Egan, 2011. 27Gary Welsh, P.Eng., General Manager, Transportation Services, Briefing Note: Jarvis Street Bike Lanes, Traffic Impacts (April 20, 2011)http://www.toronto.ca/cycling/reports/pdf/jarvis-briefing-note-april2011.pdf 28Ibid.

ILER CAMPBELL LLP - 14 - c. Bio-physical Environmental Impact

The Project will have direct bio-physical environmental impacts as follows:

 Taking Jarvis Street by bicycle is the most energy efficient mode of transportation, and generates no pollution, except in its manufacture.

 Trips taken on the Jarvis bicycle lanes mitigated ozone depletion, the greenhouse effect, ground-level air pollution, photochemical smog, acid rain and noise pollution. The removal of the lanes will reduce trips, having the opposite effect.

 There is a potential worsening of air quality along Jarvis Street, as the street will accommodate more cars (five lanes of traffic versus four) and there will be fewer cyclists. This will be offset somewhat by shorter (~2-6 minute) commuting times for cars, based on traffic studies following the implementation of the bike lanes (Dunn and Egan, 2011), as well as improved signalization.

d. Cultural Heritage In the original EA (iTrans, 2010), Jarvis Street is described as being a “significant historical and cultural thoroughfare”, and is classified as a “Special Street” in the City of Toronto’s Streetscape Manual (1997) and a “Cultural Corridor” in Canada’s Urban Waterfront – Waterfront Culture and Heritage Infrastructure Plan (ERA Architects Inc. and Jeff Evenson, 2001). The street, opened in 1845, was the first street to be paved in Toronto and was referred to as Toronto’s Champs-Élysées.29

Given the cultural and heritage importance of the street, the original EA proposed “user experience (pedestrians, cyclists, transit riders and motorists) should be in keeping with other ceremonial routes such as University Avenue, and .”30 Removing the bike lanes on Jarvis Street would create a less accessible and safe street for pedestrians and cyclists, and is not in keeping with the street’s storied history.

29 iTrans, 2010. The Champs-Elysees, as it turns out, has a planned bike lane (http://www.metrofrance.com/info- locale/le-velo-colonisera-les-champs-elysees/pjfh!2jXzJJg6u3SQqdo0MClVg/). 30 iTrans, 2010.