Sarkaria (Ontario’s transportation minister) said Friday that only 1.2 per cent of people use those bike lanes to commute to work, compared with 70 per cent who drive, and the lanes are taking away nearly half of the infrastructure on those roads, making commutes longer for drivers.

Why hasn’t anyone challenged the use of that statistic?

Commuting isn’t the only way to use transportation infrastructure and bike lanes, so it’s incredibly dishonest to say that “only 1.2%” are using those particular bike lanes.

If I use bike lanes for 100% of my errands and 0% for commuting, does that invalidate those lanes?

By the same token, at what point would they consider removing sidewalks if people aren’t using them specifically to walk to work?

    • Showroom7561@lemmy.caOP
      2·
      2 months ago

      In one simple video, along with some basic facts, they proved that:

      • Bike lanes take up way less space than the car lanes; imagine what our cities would look like if you could reclaim 1-3 car lanes and make them public spaces!
      • Bike riders, even in greater numbers, never cause gridlock.
      • The cost of those bike lanes is a fraction of that of the roads.
      • Quite a few of those cyclists panniers and backpacks, which means they were using their bikes for more than fitness.
      • Car infrastructure (those traffic lights) slowed down cars and cyclists. And I’m willing to bet that if there was no car infrastructure, cyclists could get around a city much faster than cars ever could.
      • There is obvious demand for cycling infrastructure. This is a Canadian city, and one that likely isn’t as developed as some European ones, yet the demand is clear.
      • While you can’t see faces, you can see that there’s a diversity of cyclists (ages) and abilities.
      • Hard to validate without a survey, but I’m willing to bet that out of those 567 cyclists, I’m sure a good chunk wouldn’t be able to afford the cost of car ownership. So, cycling is giving them an accessible and affordable way to travel.