I am writing to express my…

I am writing to express my opposition to Bill 212 - the Reducing Gridlock, Saving You Time Act, 2024 – Building Highways Faster Act, 2024. This legislation appears to misinterpret the root causes of traffic congestion and undermines the progress made towards sustainable and efficient transportation solutions. Here are several key points I would like to highlight:

1. Bike Lanes Do Not Cause Gridlock:
Research consistently shows that bike lanes do not contribute to increased traffic congestion. In fact, they can help alleviate it. The principle of induced demand indicates that expanding road capacity for cars often leads to more driving, not less. When new lanes are added, they attract more drivers who were previously discouraged by congestion, ultimately leading to a return to previous traffic levels or even worse conditions. Conversely, dedicated bike lanes encourage cycling and can reduce the number of cars on the road by providing a safer alternative for transportation.

2. Counterproductive Impact on Traffic Flow:
Removing bike lanes from main streets would have a counterproductive effect on traffic flow. This action would force cyclists to take more circuitous, impractical routes, potentially discouraging cycling altogether and pushing people back into cars. The question arises: Does the government truly want more people in cars on city streets? If cyclists revert to driving due to a lack of safe, direct routes, they will contribute more to traffic congestion than they would as cyclists. A single car occupies significantly more road space than a bicycle and moves fewer people per unit of road space.

3. Safety and Economic Benefits of Bike Lanes:
Bike lanes significantly enhance safety for cyclists, pedestrians, and drivers alike. Research indicates that dedicated bike lanes reduce the likelihood of accidents involving all road users by creating a clear separation between motor vehicles and cyclists. This separation not only protects cyclists but also contributes to a calmer driving environment, leading to safer roads for everyone. Studies have shown that cities with more bike infrastructure experience lower rates of traffic-related injuries and fatalities. Furthermore, bike lanes can boost local economic activity; businesses near bike lanes often report increased customer traffic as cyclists tend to shop more frequently and spend similar amounts as car drivers.

4. Cost Implications of Removing Bike Lanes:
The removal of bike lanes would not only be costly in terms of construction but could also exacerbate gridlock during the removal process. The disruption caused by such construction would likely lead to increased congestion in the short term while failing to provide any long-term solutions.

5. Equity and Accessibility:
Bike lanes provide an affordable transportation option for those who cannot afford or choose not to own a car. Removing this infrastructure disproportionately affects lower-income individuals and limits transportation choices for all residents.

6. Inconsistency with Government Policy:
This bill contradicts the government’s own Bill 185, which aims to remove minimum parking requirements in Protected Major Transit Station Areas and Major Transit Station Areas. This policy encourages residents to utilize alternatives such as biking and public transit instead of relying solely on cars. Supporting Bill 212 undermines these efforts by promoting car dependency rather than fostering a diverse and efficient transportation ecosystem.

In conclusion, I urge you to reconsider the implications of Bill 212. Rather than focusing on expanding highways and removing bike lanes, we should invest in infrastructure that promotes safe, efficient transportation options that benefit our communities. Thank you for considering these points as you deliberate on this important issue.