Some Thoughts Regarding the Bike Lane Discussion Prompted by Bill 212

There are valid questions about how professionals reach their conclusions. As professionals, we need to be open to explaining our work. Often, extreme positions on both sides dominate the conversation. I'm taking a moment here to publicly answer a few questions I've received about the purpose and planning of bike lanes with a glimpse into larger transportation networks. These questions have come from people not working in the field of city building over the last few weeks as they try to understand topics we can sometimes take for granted.

Why is adding a lane considered induced demand and not serving latent demand?

The concept of induced demand addresses both the immediate and long-term impacts of additional traffic capacity. Generally, this is summarized by the long-term decisions people make about where they live and how they travel. With larger, faster and higher capacity roads, you encourage more car-oriented development. This effect is however immediate; many cyclists are choice riders. When a route hits their personal threshold in trade-offs (safety, cost, speed, time, weather, etc.), they immediately choose to drive. The reverse is also true: people want to bike but feel uncomfortable and when the connection is provided the tradeoff changes.

Why do cyclists need a bike lane when they share a traffic lane or can use the sidewalk?

This question essentially asks about the value of dedicating space for bike lanes when cyclists are already seen traveling in traffic lanes or on sidewalks. Addressing sidewalks first, they are almost always too small for a cyclist and a pedestrian to pass each other, and the speed difference is significant. Additionally, the sightlines between the sidewalk and drivers turning need to be designed to anticipate the speed—think about this when you as a driver get spooked by a runner or biker that just appears as you start your turn. This is because they were moving faster from an angle you were not expecting. For those waving their hands right now, there is a paragraph on multi-use pathways in my reply to the question below.

On the street, the basic conversation revolves around the Level of Traffic Stress and the distribution of cyclist personalities. Cyclists range from highly confident (~5% of cyclists) to concerned but interested (~60%). On the other side of this equation are the speed, vehicle type, and vehicle volume. The basic algebra is that faster, larger, and more vehicles create greater stress for cyclists and push them away from cycling. Without any protection, you can increase the range of cyclists by reducing vehicle speeds and volumes. For example, painted bike lanes make roads feel slow and inefficient to drivers, making them less desirable from an all-modes network perspective. More on level of traffic stress here: Motor Vehicle Speed & Volume Increase Stress | National Association of City Transportation Officials

Why aren't cycling facilities just on the side streets or a pathway network?

Basically, cyclists have the same desire for directness as drivers, sometimes more so since they travel slower and under their own energy. Each high-volume corridor -the road- is in demand by transit, trucks, cars, pedestrians, and cyclists because it moves drivers most directly to a destination. As a cycling network is fitted onto those corridors, they need access to the routes that are most direct to serve their destinations. There is another technical problem with side streets: they frequently cross the larger streets as a network is laid out. The implication is that generally these crossing points require significant intersection protection, signalization and reduction of traffic speeds to make this a competitive path route for cyclists. There are places where side streets are viable, even preferable, but the directness needs to be there, and the quality of the route requires significant investment to encourage cyclists to use it. The reality is that when side streets are selected, they are rarely a cost or travel time savings; they are a space savings or conflict avoidance.

A network of multi-use paths provides sufficient bones for a transportation network, assuming they are designed and maintained with all users and uses in mind. However, pathways are often not connected to actual destinations, tying to parklands or large arterial rights-of-way where land is available. In a robust transportation network, they make up an important part of how cyclists travel but are hard (and expensive) to retrofit in a way that avoids any shared traffic corridors.

Final Thoughts:

There is a lot that goes into building a network that serves all users without limiting the options available to someone else. These are hard conversations because they reflect analysis about how someone has chosen to live and the impact their choices have on others. The transportation network needs to serve a range of people and personalities as a public asset, which means building with a range of users and needs in mind simultaneously.

If you're looking for other links:

Ontario Urban Planners official statement: https://lnkd.in/gYf3a5fq

Ontario Professional Engineers official statement: https://lnkd.in/gCAjE59X

Actual legislation: Bill 212, Reducing Gridlock, Saving You Time Act, 2024 - Legislative Assembly of Ontario.