Winning struggle for bike lanes on Jarvis

I understand that cyclists need to be able to ride without a Bike Lane, that makes sense to me. But at the same time we need to find ways to improve Toronto's cycling infrastructure if we want to get more people cycling instead of driving, the examples in New York ,Chicago, Portland, Montreal and Copenhagen are there for us to follow.

That said, if you believe that the 5th driving lane on Jarvis adds character, then maybe I'm wasting my time. If you're a fan of roadways, perhaps the city planners could run a few multi-lane roads in front of your house, or the ones you are trying to sell?

So this is why I am against more bike lanes. Originally I was for them, but they have seemed to engender a sense of reckless entitlement among cyclists. Although I am a environmentalist, I am also a capitalist. My taxes on gasoline pay for those roads, if you ride a bike, you don't pay for the taxes to build the roads, so in a very real sense, I own those roads, not you.

Hmm, a capitalist AND an environmentalist all rolled into one. Whooda thunk that melding the perspectives of J.P. Morgan and David Suzuki would sprout a contention by Mickey Mouse?

Let's start with a fundamental maxim of the dismal science: goods, to the extent they're free or subsidized, generate demand. Give it away and folks are gonna line up -- even though they may neither crave nor benefit by it. Always lotsa queues around cheap fast food, cheap mortgages and, the perennial favourite, free highways and parking. (Lotsa effects thereby: fat asses and diabetes, financial implosion and gridlock and smog.)

But, of course, there's no free anything; it's really your gasoline taxes that pay for the works, right? Better grab the abacus and enrol in remedial math because your figures don't add up. The fact is that gas and associated taxes levied upon motorists don't even come close to funding the building and maintenance of our sprawling road network. This has been documented ad infinitum: roads, and by extension automobility, is subsidized by general tax revenue.

For f_ck sakes even the most cursory investigation of the issue yields that truth. A simple Google search of "subsidy" yielded this from Wikipedia: "..In most countries, consumption of education, health care, and infrastructure (such as roads) are heavily subsidized, and in many cases provided free of charge..."

There are already too many books, studies and, more informally, blogs and internet articles on the topic. Start reading because rooting your contention in ignorance doesn't make for a convincing argument. Make an effort.

Who then gains by the extensive allocation of public monies for a massive automobile infrastructure? The answer is simple: those who use it most -- motorists of course. The cyclist or pedestrian pedalling and walking to work subsidizes the commuter driving in from Aurora, Oshawa or Brampton.

So, "in a very real sense", as a cyclist, I over pay for and own something I little, and often by law cannot, avail myself of. In a very real sense the likes of me (who don't own a car) can be said to be bearing a greater cost for the likes of you stuck in traffic on the DVP. Sucks, don't it? Now how do you think I, as a taxpayer, feel about someone such as yourself basically saying that you pay for and therefore own the roads?

From Economics 101 to Introductory Psych. Besides fostering a circular clusterf_ck of more demand for more roads leading to more congestion and more demand, what happens when a massive automobile infrastructure is made available for free or at a heavily discounted (subsidized) rate? For one it encourages a "sense of reckless entitlement" -- not among cyclists -- but among motorists in the belief that the unimpeded operation of their vehicles, that is, the practice of driving and parking amok, is akin to a Gawd given right and that roads are the exclusive preserve of cars. It ain't and they aren't.

Since you're a capitalist you're partial to a private market driven approach for determining a rational cost and pricing scheme concerning roads and their users. And since you're an environmentalist you no doubt believe that the scheme should account for externalities presently passed off to the rest, real costs such as pollution, congestion, and a degraded urban landscape. I applaud and wholeheartedly support you in implementing such a design. It is only then that you'll discover who really is getting a free ride. And I got news for you, it ain't cyclists.

Wow! There so much to feast on here it's hard to know where to start, hmm....let's see....

appetizer
"Toronto cyclists, for the most part are a menace, and the bike lanes only encourage their hooliganist attitudes"

The majority of cyclists I encounter are law abiding, non-speeding and careful. Remember that the consequences of a collision are exponentially more detrimental for a cyclist than a driver. Cycling infrastructure, such as bike lanes, dedicates space for cyclists so they do not need to share the road with cars. The exception, is of course that intersections are places where vehicles cross and converge with each other, so being less visible and less protected, a cyclist naturally takes to passing on the left of a right turning car - sorry if it causes you so much hardship, but it is a safe and endorsed way to deal with the situation. I'm also surprised that you use the term "menace" to describe cyclists, when automobiles are the ones killing thousands of people due to accidents and air pollution.

entree
"Canada has the world's 2nd largest land mass & the largest person per land ratio"

So what? Nobody is asking you to bike to Halifax, but I know people who drive less that 2km to work. We are slaves to the perceived conveniences that cars provide. I'm assuming that if you bike on weekends you would also be able to run errands and make short trips during the week - do you?

dessert
"My taxes on gasoline pay for those roads, if you ride a bike, you don't pay for the taxes to build the roads, so in a very real sense, I own those roads, not you."

Yikes - where to apply the ignorant asshole label?
Every single tax payer pays for our roads and highways, not just drivers. Cyclists are excluded by law, from using highways, and most avoid using roadways that exceed 50 kmh. So in short, it is cyclists that can NOT use the roads that they pay for. Furthermore, did you know that a bicycle has the legal right to occupy an entire road lane? It is partly out of consideration for fellow road users that most travel by the road side.

Take away all the bike lanes? - that's fine with me, as long as the speed limit is reduced to 30 kmh and cycling is embraced and respected instead of being ostracized by people like you.

doggy bag
'I am a environmentalist"

It is SO politically correct and savvy to adopt the environmentalist stance, but you sort of have to know what you’re talking about. If you are still in school maybe you should consider taking a minor in environmental studies.