Ontario’s Bike Lane Hogwash: Lessons on What Cities Give Up By Giving In To Car Culture

Across cities like Toronto throughout North America and other areas, the debate over cycling infrastructure has become increasingly polarized. Scratch that, it is an absolute culture war. While some mayors and policymakers—such as Ontario Premier Doug Ford—remain resistant to bike lanes because his voters are in the suburbs, the evidence is overwhelming that safe cycling infrastructure offers a wide array of benefits for cyclists, for cities, and for, well, everyone. If cities take a step back from expanding or actively remove these bike lanes, they risk losing critical advantages that improve urban life for everyone, whether they cycle or not.

Here are eight key things cities will lose (and how they will get worse) if they ignore or dismantle bike lanes.

1. Increased Traffic Congestion and Worse Mobility for All

When cities remove bike lanes, they may think they are easing traffic for cars, but the opposite is often true. Without safe and accessible cycling options, more people will continue to drive for short trips, which only adds to congestion. Research from cities with established cycling infrastructure—like Copenhagen and Amsterdam—shows that increasing cycling actually reduces car traffic, easing congestion for everyone. By getting rid of bike lanes, cities will lose the opportunity to alleviate gridlock, meaning slower commutes and increased travel times for drivers.

A great source of information on this is the Dutch Cycling Embassy.

2. Declining Local Business Revenue

Bike lanes are a major driver of local business growth. Studies have shown that cyclists tend to stop more frequently at shops and cafes than car drivers, leading to higher sales and greater foot traffic for businesses. On the other hand, removing bike lanes or failing to provide adequate cycling infrastructure means fewer cyclists, and thus less business for local merchants. Cities will lose the vibrancy and economic benefits that come from cycling-friendly streets. Retailers in bike-friendly cities consistently report increased sales and foot traffic, which would shrink if bike lanes were eliminated.

In Toronto, one of the loudest voices against the removal of separated bike lanes was the local business association. Says a lot.

3. Higher Healthcare Costs Due to Poorer Public Health

By eliminating bike lanes, cities also lose out on the public health benefits of increased physical activity. More people will drive, and we all know about the negative health impacts of car culture. It is not good. Cycling is a great way to combat the growing obesity crisis and reduce the rates of chronic diseases like heart disease, diabetes, and hypertension. Without safe places to cycle, fewer people will bike, and public health will decline. This means higher rates of illness, which in turn will lead to increased healthcare costs for cities and governments. Healthier citizens mean fewer doctor visits, lower medical costs, and a reduced burden on the healthcare system—things that are lost when cycling infrastructure is not prioritized.

4. A Less Energized, Productive, and Competitive Workforce

When more people cycle to work, they arrive healthier, more energized, and more productive. Cycling has been shown to improve mental clarity and reduce stress. However, without safe cycling lanes, fewer people will take up biking, leading to a less active population that is more likely to feel sluggish and stressed out. The result? A less competitive and less innovative workforce. Cities that invest in cycling infrastructure are more likely to foster higher levels of productivity and creativity, benefiting the economy. If cycling is relegated to dangerous, unprotected roads, workers may turn to less healthy commuting options, which reduces the overall productivity of the workforce.

5. Deteriorating Mental Health and Increased Stress

Cycling is not just good for physical health; it’s also a powerful tool for mental well-being. Regular cycling has been linked to lower levels of anxiety, depression, and stress. Cities that dismantle or fail to build bike lanes will lose this mental health benefit for their residents. Without cycling options, people will have fewer ways to de-stress, get outdoors, and enjoy some fresh air away from traffic. In turn, this will contribute to higher levels of urban stress and mental health issues, which could have a ripple effect on everything from workplace productivity to community well-being.

Toronto bike lane protest over Bill 212

6. Fewer Opportunities for a Diverse Population to Get Active

Safe cycling lanes make cycling accessible to a broader demographic, including children, seniors, and people with disabilities. These groups often avoid cycling on busy roads because of safety concerns. By removing bike lanes or failing to create accessible cycling infrastructure, cities will limit access to healthy and sustainable transportation options for vulnerable populations. For seniors, in particular, cycling is an excellent way to stay active and independent. Without safe bike lanes, these groups lose out on an important mode of transportation, and the entire city becomes less inclusive.

7. Rising Traffic Crashes and Danger to Pedestrians

One of the strongest arguments for protected bike lanes is their ability to improve safety—not just for cyclists, but for pedestrians as well. Separated bike lanes provide a physical buffer between cyclists and pedestrians, reducing the likelihood of collisions. If bike lanes are removed, cyclists are forced to share already narrow and dangerous lanes with motor vehicles, which increases the risk of being hit by drivers of said vehicles. This higher risk to both cyclists and pedestrians contributes to an overall unsafe urban environment.

In Toronto, we find a fantastic illustration. Six cyclists have been killer by drivers this year alone, all on streets without safe bike lanes, except in one instance, when a safe bike lane was blocked by a construction dumpster. This is literally a life and death situation.

8. Environmental Setbacks and Higher Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Cities that reduce cycling infrastructure lose out on the environmental benefits that come with increased cycling. Even if only a small percentage of people cycle a few times a week instead of driving, the collective reduction in greenhouse gas emissions can have a significant impact on air quality. By dismantling bike lanes, cities are discouraging cycling as an alternative to driving, leading to higher levels of pollution, more carbon emissions, and a larger environmental footprint. Sustainable transportation options like cycling are essential for cities striving to meet their climate goals. Removing bike lanes makes those goals harder to achieve.

There is a reason European cities are installing these incredible networks of safe cycling lanes so quickly and so thoroughly. It is part of their collective response to the climate crisis. They have to do it.

Conclusion: The Costs of Reversing Progress

By stepping back from building or maintaining bike lanes, cities like Toronto risk losing a wealth of social, economic, and environmental benefits. Cycling infrastructure is not just for cyclists—it benefits everyone. From improving public health and boosting local economies to reducing traffic congestion and enhancing safety, the positive impacts are undeniable. If cities like Toronto ignore or dismantle their bike lanes, they will face a future of increased traffic, higher healthcare costs, more stress, and a diminished quality of life for their residents. Instead of pulling back, it’s time for mayors and policymakers to embrace the potential of safe cycling infrastructure to create more livable, sustainable, and vibrant cities.