Today, the government of Ontario announced legislation that, if passed, would require municipalities to receive approval from the province before installing any bike lane that would result in the removal of lanes for traffic. And in order to receive such an approval, municipalities would need to demonstrate that the proposed bike lane(s) won't have a negative impact on vehicle traffic. To be clear, municipalities should still be free to remove lanes for other purposes -- such as on-street parking -- but not for bike lanes.

There's a lot that can and will be said about this announcement. I'm also aware that I have my biases. I'm an urbanist. I live in a walkable neighborhood. And I enjoy biking, a lot -- both to get around and for fun. So I think it's clear that this announcement was designed to appeal to a specific audience: those that drive in from the suburbs and who are deeply frustrated. This is somebody doing something. Never mind that the new Eglinton LRT line isn't open yet and nobody knows when it will actually open, look over here at these annoying cyclists.

The problem with this line of thinking is that it's not going to fix our traffic. The way you make things better in a big global city with lots of demand for road space is to reduce car dependency. This is not a popular thing to say, but it's the reality. And broadly speaking, this is done in two ways. One, you provide great alternatives. And two, you price roads accordingly, through things like congestion charges. Incidentally, this also creates a virtuous cycle, because the latter raises money for the former.

In many ways, we've been getting better at number one. In 2015, Bike Share Toronto recorded 665,000 trips. Since then, ridership has increased every year. In 2023, the network recorded 5.7 million trips. And this year, the number is expected to exceed 6 million. This is not nothing. This is a lot of people riding around on bikes, some of whom may have instead opted to drive or take an Uber. And I think there's no question that this continual increase in ridership is at least partially supported by the fact that we've been creating more bike lanes.

That said, I think it's clear that to continue to move forward as a city we're going to need to start collecting far better urban data. We need to know things like how many cars and bikes are on every street and how fast they're moving. (AI can do this, right? ) This way we can continually optimize for moving the most number of people as efficiently possible. And if it turns out that I'm wrong, and clamping down on bike lanes and having more people drive is the most efficient, I'll of course accept that. Just show me the data.

One of the common criticisms of bike lanes is that most people don't want to cycle in the winter. I mean, just look at Montreal's winter cycling retention ratio.

But that doesn't mean that you shouldn't invest in cycling infrastructure. Chicago, for instance, has been building out cycling infrastructure over the last few years (2020-2023) at an average rate of approximately 30 miles per year. This is double its rate from 2011-2019. And the results show.

According to recent data from Replica and the Chicago Department of Transportation (CDOT), Chicago saw the highest growth in cycling among the 10 largest cities in the US between fall 2019 and spring 2023.

Biking overall was up 119%. Crosstown trips were up 180% (bike trips that spanned across four or more neighborhoods). Trips related to shopping were up 117%. And notably, zero-car households were up 207%.

Remember, this is a city that basically has the same weather as Toronto. It gets cold in the winter. And sometimes it snows. But clearly if you build good cycling infrastructure, people will use it.

This satirical piece in the Beaverton about "biking everywhere" is hilarious because it touches on so many cycling stereotypes:

“It’s a great way to get around while also staying in shape,” said McFarlen as he biked through a red light. “From tattoo shops to my job at VICE to even the best Banh Mi in the city – I just hop on my bike and I’m there. Why does anyone drive ever? Gross!”

But the other thing it does is speak to the trade-off between location and transportation costs. Brian McFarlen, the fictional protagonist from the article, is able to bike everywhere (low cost) because he allegedly lives in a central neighborhood (high cost):

McFarlen, whose parents paid for him to go to film school and has no mortgage, kids, or debt, condemns people who drive in the city. “I hate cars – we should just get rid of all roads and replace them with bike lanes. Isn’t everyone able to live downtown and spend hours of their day biking around the city hitting up all the best micro breweries?”

I think it's natural for us humans to form tribes with others that are similar to ourselves. We have two wheels and you all have four wheels. We live in the city and you all don't. All of these things make us different.

But there's certainly something to be said for having a bit of empathy for those outside of our particular tribes.