Reducing gridlock is a good…

Reducing gridlock is a good goal. More lanes for cars to drive along would help in the short term. However, more lanes is not a long term solution. Take the Katy Freeway Expansion in Houston, Texas (2008–2011):

Background: The Katy Freeway was expanded to as many as 26 lanes in some sections, making it one of the widest freeways in the world.

Outcome: Despite the expansion, travel times during peak hours increased by 30% in the morning and 55% in the evening within just a few years.

Explanation: The phenomenon of induced demand occurred—additional road capacity encouraged more people to drive, leading to even more congestion.

Conversely, there are many examples (such as Paris, London, and Copenhagen) where incentivizing non-car transportation has lead to sustained reductions in traffic congestion. Safe bike lanes is a key part of that journey. Yes, there can be short term pain as our society transition to using cars less. We're used to driving everywhere in North America. But we need to encourage folks to use public transportation, bike lanes, or simply walk that 30 minute commute instead of making it easier for everyone to commute 1 person per car to work. It'll only get worse as our cities grow!

Let the people of each city decide through elected representatives if they should invest in, or divest from bike lanes. Provincial politics should not get involved.

- A concerned citizen about government overreach