The following appeared in a letter to the editor of a local newspaper."Commuters complain that increased rush-hour traffic on Blue Highway between the suburbs and the city center has doubled their commuting time. The favored proposal of the motorists' lob

The argument that the addition of a bicycle lane to the Blue Highway will reduce its rush-hour traffic between suburbs and city center. The author makes a vlid argument, one which could be correct if its premises were true. However, his conclusion relies on assumptions for which there is no supporting evidence and uses terms that lack definition.

First, the author assumes that with the addition of a bicycle lane to the Blue Highway, a significant number of area residents will start using bicycles to commute during rush-hour as many of the area residents are keen bicycllists. However, the author has not provided any evidence to back-up his claim that a majority of area residents are actually bicycle enthusiats and even if they are, they will be willing to use bicycle as a means of transport during the rush-hour. Suppose, the keen bicyclists may only be using bicycles on weekends or holidays, for long hikes and races, or for late evening leisurly strolls. In actuality they may be preferring other means of transport like cars during rush-hour traffic rather than bicycles. In such a case the addition of bicycle lane will not reduce the rush-hour traffic by any significant amount on the Blue Highway. If the author had quoted a reliable survey which could prove that a significant number of area residents are ready to commute by bicycles during rush-hour in case a bicycle lane is added, it would strengthen his argument.

Additionally, the author assumes that the effect of widening on Blue Highway will be same as that of the addition of a lane on nearby Green Highway last year, which actually increased the traffic jams on the latter. However the author does not provide any evidence to support his assumption. For example, the traffic on Blue and Green Highway may be very different depending upon the traffic type and density. There may some other reason responsible for increase of jams on Green Highway after it was widened. For example some alternative routes may have been shut down for repair or other reasons ahich could have diverted more traffic on Green Highway than it was designed to support, even with widening. If the author had examined the reasons for increase in traffic jams on Green Highway after widening, and drawn some parallels with the existing conditions on the Blue Highway, it would have strengthened his argument.

In conclusion, the author may not be necessarily wrong in assuming that an addition of a bicycle lane to the Blue Highway will bring a decline in its rush-hour traffic. After-all, an addition of a bicycle-lane will certainly not increase the traffic. But to support the current cocnclusion that a bicycle lane will effectively reduce the rush-hour traffic on the Blue Highway, the author needs to define the scope of the problem more clearly and to present more conclusive evidence to stengthen his case.