The Star invents a transport war

When did the Toronto Star decide to wage war on cyclists?

First it was the invented issue of whether cyclists should pay to register their bicycles. The implication was that cyclists aren't paying their way, which is ridiculous. I pay federal and provincial sales and income taxes, as well as municipal property taxes. These sums are much larger than car registration fees. But, since I do not own a car, I can't enjoy the free use of the province's motorized-vehicle-only highways. Neither do I get a rebate for all the saved maintenance costs of my biking, rather than driving, on the city's battered streets, nor do I get any credits for reducing air pollution and traffic congestion. It's drivers who are getting the free ride--only by polluting the environment do they get "full" use of the roads and highways built by our collective tax dollars. As a society, we have come to accept subsidizing mass transit for the greater good, but when it comes to the much cheaper option of making Toronto a more bike-friendly city, suddenly it's a case of us-versus-them. Yes, there are bad cyclists out there. But there are far more dangerous car drivers. Cars can kill cyclists. I've yet to hear of an incident where the opposite occurred.

Now the Star's come to the defense of the existing five-line version of Jarvis. Jarvis is a scar running through the heart of downtown, a fake expressway from moneyed Rosedale to the Gardiner. The fifth lane contributes little to the flow of traffic. Measuring the increased emissions from the presumed increase in idling when the lane is gone is to measure only a small portion of the impact of the lane reduction. In the long run, fewer people will chose to drive down Jarvis, more will choose to walk or cycle. And that means fewer emissions overall.

Reducing pollution and congestion is going to take a carrot and stick approach. Driving will be made more inexpensive and inconvenient. That cycling is to be, at the same time, made more convenient and safer is not a slap against drivers. It's a carrot for them, show them that there are other options.