I strongly oppose the…

I strongly oppose the framework for bike lanes proposed in Bill 212. Prioritizing cycling infrastructure is a critical step toward reducing gridlock and improving urban mobility. While cars are often seen as essential, they dominate public space, leading to congestion and pollution. By investing in bike lanes, we can shift more people toward efficient, eco-friendly transit modes, easing road traffic for all.

Bike lanes are not only beneficial for reducing gridlock but also promote healthier, active lifestyles. They make commuting safer and more accessible for cyclists, encouraging more people to consider cycling as a viable alternative to driving. Studies from cities with robust cycling infrastructure, such as Copenhagen and Amsterdam, show that bike lanes improve traffic flow for both cyclists and drivers, reduce carbon emissions, and enhance quality of life.

Adding another lane, building another highway, and creating more car-dependent infrastructure has never been the solution to gridlock. It’s a temporary fix that only encourages more driving and further strains our transportation systems. We can’t put all our eggs in one basket. Instead, we need to embrace a more diverse, multimodal approach to transit.

Investing in alternative transit options, like bike lanes, benefits everyone—not just cyclists. It reduces congestion for drivers by taking cars off the road, lowers pollution for all residents, and promotes healthier communities. Moreover, it provides equitable transportation options for people who cannot afford or choose not to drive, helping to connect them to jobs, education, and services.

By supporting this framework, we aren’t just investing in bikes; we’re investing in cleaner air, less traffic, safer streets, and a more resilient transportation network for all. A future that prioritizes multiple transit modes is a future where our cities are more livable, efficient, and sustainable.