only three meter-wide lanes. The curb lanes are too narrow for a traditionally sized car to safely pass a cyclist within either of the curb lanes. No matter how many alternative routes you believe others should follow, removing the existing bike lanes on Jarvis will make that street less safe for all users of that particular street. A complete waste and a budgeting political power play. Cause and effect. The city will not gain a car lane by removing the bike lanes on both sides of Jarvis. They will gain two obstructed car lanes, because bicyclists will inevitably utilize a full lane on each side, now that they have been conditioned to use Jarvis as a thoroughfare. The removal of the lanes will invariably slow down car traffic at all times, and wreak havoc at rush hour, causing added frustration and conflict. You can't give bicyclists something that works for both drivers and cyclists, something inarguably sustainable, then take it away against the people's good will. And once a bicyclist is hit by a car on the bike laneless Jarvis, there will be a revolt, and it will be ugly. This issue is symbolic of so much more, and the city is watching. Michael, I raised many of your excellent arguments in a meeting with the head of Transportation Services at the time last fall, and suggested that if they pulled the bike lane, today's warrants would demand that sharrows be installed in the curb lanes on Jarvis if this