Evidence-Based…

Evidence-Based Counterarguments to this act:

Bike Lanes Reduce Congestion
Contrary to the premise of this bill, research shows that bike lanes actually help ease traffic congestion, not worsen it. Studies from around the world demonstrate that implementing bike lanes leads to reduced traffic and improved flow for all road users. For example:
• In New York City, after installing bike lanes on a major thoroughfare, travel times for cars decreased by 35%.
• Copenhagen reported that their extensive bike lane network makes it easier for necessary motor vehicles like buses and delivery trucks to move through the city.
Induced Demand
The bill’s focus on expanding road capacity for cars ignores the well-established concept of induced demand. Research shows that building more roads and lanes for cars actually increases congestion in the long run by encouraging more people to drive. Conversely, providing safe cycling infrastructure induces demand for cycling, taking cars off the road.
Safety and Efficiency
Bike lanes significantly improve safety for all road users. They provide a dedicated space for cyclists, reducing accidents and injuries. Additionally, bike lanes are far more efficient at moving people than car lanes due to the smaller space requirements of bicycles.

Economic and Environmental Benefits
Business Boost
Contrary to concerns about negative impacts on businesses, bike lanes have been shown to boost sales in areas where they are installed. They attract higher-spending clientele and can even increase property values.
Environmental Impact
By encouraging cycling over driving, bike lanes help reduce carbon emissions and promote a more sustainable mode of transportation. This aligns with broader environmental goals and helps create more livable urban environments.

Alternative Solutions
Instead of removing bike lanes, the government should consider:
1. Investing in connected, protected bike lane networks to encourage more cycling and reduce car dependence.
2. Improving public transit options to provide alternatives to driving.
3. Implementing smart traffic management systems to optimize existing road capacity.
4. Encouraging flexible work hours and remote work to reduce peak hour congestion.
Conclusion
The proposed legislation is based on flawed assumptions about the relationship between bike lanes and traffic congestion. By removing bike lanes, the government risks worsening congestion, reducing safety, and missing out on the numerous economic and environmental benefits that cycling infrastructure provides. A more effective approach to reducing gridlock would involve embracing multi-modal transportation solutions, including expanded and improved cycling infrastructure.