To whom it may concern: The…

To whom it may concern:

The saying goes that "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions." No doubt, the policy makers behind this bill have the best of intentions. They want to increase the quality of life for daily commuters, to give them valuable time back that they could spend with their families, as well as reduce the stress of a traffic-clogged commute. The sentiment is commendable, but this bill will actually have the opposite effect that it hopes for, if it is allowed to go through.

There is a well-known phenomenon called "induced demand" (see link 1 - Transportation For America: Induced Demand). Building roads with greater capacity does accommodate greater traffic, but it in equal measure attracts traffic. Drivers will change their habits to flock to the freshly-paved route, which invariably returns to the same congestion as before, if not worse.

The best way to alleviate road congestion is to provide viable alternatives to driving. Imagine, for a moment, if the road network was as badly connected as the current bicycle network in Toronto. How many drivers would utilize the roads, if it meant circuitous routes, navigating from side street to side street to get to their destination? Recent justification has been put forth showing low numbers of cyclists vs. the number of drivers as justification to remove bike lanes. However, the opposite is true. Building out a useful interconnected grid of bicycle infrastructure makes a bicycle trip a viable alternative to driving. Less cars on the road means less traffic competing for the space.

For support of this, see link 2 - video: The Best Country In The World For Drivers

Bikes aren't the only answer; they are but one pillar of a multi-tiered strategy needed to reduce traffic congestion. Bike trips are great for short distances, quick errands, or last-mile connectivity. The real multiplicative impact comes from combining bikes with public transit. These can take many forms: buses, trams, metro, trains. A bike trip within a few miles of a bus or tram station opens up a vastly larger area of mobility available to a city dweller.

Not only do bikes and other alternatives to driving offer a solution to congestion, it also makes compelling fiscal sense. Road infrastructure is costly to build and maintain. Resurfacing, adding lanes, and building parking infrastructure costs well into the millions, if not billions. How much revenue do these surfaces generate for the city? What tax revenue does a parking garage generate, compared with an apartment complex with shops at ground level? Roads do bring in traffic from outside the city, yes. However, the consideration of traffic flowing into the city cannot come at the expense of those already living within it.

Roads take up an enormous amount of space - space that could be used for better things in a dense, vibrant downtown area. Road infrastructure is antithetical to business. The best businesses thrive in places where people want to be, and by and large those places are the most walkable, pedestrian-friendly places. We know this intuitively. No one wants to be next to a noisy highway. Objectively, this can be easily demonstrated by property values along major thoroughfares being highly deflated when compared with their counterparts in quiet neighborhoods. Walkable plazas and pedestrianized streets, lined with business with high foot traffic, experience a boom of patronage and consumer spending. People flock to places that are human-scaled, safe, and enjoyable. This generates tax revenue that directly benefits the city.

For support of the economic impact of safe walkable streets, please see link 3 - video: Car-free Streets are Amazing (and we need more of them).

A superior network of safe, efficient bike lanes would spur business growth and development, not hinder it. Accommodating the car has the opposite effect.

Whether you look at it from the vantage point of personal freedom (which mode of transportation one chooses to use), health and exercise, community, last mile delivery, aesthetics, less congestion for drivers, reduction to pollution and noise from automobiles, etc., it makes sense to build MORE bicycle infrastructure, not less.

Please don't move this regressive bill forward, that would roll back meaningful progress on personal transportation, the fight against climate change, and efforts to make a more human-scale, beautiful, and financially flourishing city.

Thank you heartily for your time and consideration in this matter!