First, removing existing…

First, removing existing bike lanes constitutes both a massive waste of money and a blatant misuse of government power. I am one of a multitude who would much rather see tax revenue devoted to critical areas, such as health care.

Second, bike lanes reduce the scourge of bike accidents. The less accidents there are, the more willing people will be to use bikes.

(Admittedly, cyclists can be irritating and hypocritical when they glide past stop signs and ride on sidewalks. But this is a false argument used far too often to counter proponents of cycling. These breaches of etiquette and the law by cyclists are no more prevalent than are drivers who block intersections, engage in “rolling stops’ or make unsafe lane changes.)

Third, studies have shown time and again that jurisdictions which encourage bike use become steadily less congested. Advocating for cycling is a natural companion of promoting the use of public transportation. Both result in there being less automobile drivers out there to become frustrated and potentially reckless. I might also mention that it is financial folly to spend vast amounts of money on constructing subway and LRT lines, only to fall short when it comes to motivating people to use them.

In University-Rosedale riding, 8.3% of people bike regularly, thanks in part to our evolving bike infrastructure. What is really needed are effective public education campaigns that contrast the use of public transportation, biking and walking, to the teeth-gritting experience of inching along in congested traffic inside vacuum-sealed, polluting metal boxes (if you’ll excuse the hyperbole). A spectrum of decisions involving transportation could be made and aligned by a government that chose to apply rational thought, study and foresight.