The proposed bill is not…

The proposed bill is not only a step backward but reflects a deep misunderstanding of effective urban traffic management. By restricting municipal decision-making authority over bike lanes, the bill undermines local governance and dismisses the clear evidence that bike lanes significantly reduce gridlock in cities. Research shows that well-planned bike lanes encourage cycling, thus removing cars from the road and alleviating traffic congestion. In fact, cities like Copenhagen and Amsterdam have demonstrated that bike lanes can seamlessly integrate into city infrastructure, reducing travel times and easing pressure on urban roads.

Moreover, this bill disregards the concept of induced demand—a well-documented phenomenon in transportation planning. Induced demand occurs when new roads and highways attract more car users over time, eventually bringing traffic congestion back to its previous levels or even worsening it. Expanding highways, as this bill prioritizes, has been shown repeatedly to offer only short-term relief from congestion, as drivers adjust their behavior, and the added capacity fills up with new traffic.

In essence, the bill's reliance on traditional highway expansion fails to consider sustainable, long-term solutions. Municipalities are best positioned to understand and address their unique traffic challenges. They should retain the autonomy to implement measures like bike lanes that have been proven to decrease gridlock and create more livable cities.