Please look at any case…

Please look at any case study worldwide on the benefits of installing bike infrastructure and you will see that this is a fundamentally wrong headed decision. Bike lanes, in addition to protecting cyclists, also reduce pedestrian deaths and injury. Widening roads or adding more roads in will not decrease commute times, it will just cause more deaths. I have personally enjoyed walking down Bloor and Yonge much more as a result of this protection for me and my son, and as a part time cyclist the Eglinton bike lane has been transformative. I guess the 30%+ of transit users and walkers can just suffer to benefit the insanely large 61% who choose or need to use a car. To suggest side streets as an option is a facile statement to throw into the ether with no nuanced explanation. If e.g. I was to do that with Eglinton or Bloor I would take such a tortuous and indirect route that I would just block up your precious main routes anyway as I would risk the danger. This does not and will not apply to families and inexperienced cyclists who are now permanently condemned to second class stature... You are worth less than pedestrians, who are worth less than cars. As somebody who lived in London, UK for 20 years these are exactly some of the bankrupt arguments that car drivers made. Though incomplete and bitty, the bike infrastructure in London has helped to increase the safety and cleanliness of the centre of town, and it has increased the throughput of people on its narrow streets... 1 cyclist takes up a lot less space than 1 driver in a pick up, so every cyclist we support means and easier passage to work, a cleaner city and less maintenance of our roads.