A down­side looms over bike share suc­cess

Bike Share Toronto ridership is expected to see a 17 per cent increase over last year, Matt Elliott writes, and while that growth is a positive step, a Toronto Parking Authority report on the program puts the focus on ways to extract more money from users.

This article was written by Matt Elliott and was published in the Toronto Star on December 9, 2025.

Bike Share Toronto is rid­ing high. With more than 1,000 sta­tions and 10,000 bikes now in the sys­tem, rider­ship is expec­ted to hit 8.1 mil­lion trips this year. It’ll be another all­time high: a 17 per cent increase over last year and more than three times higher than the pre­pan­demic num­ber of rides in 2019.

And so the Toronto Park­ing Author­ity (TPA), oper­at­ors of the ser­vice, are like proud par­ents at a school Christ­mas con­cert, gush­ing about the per­form­ance of the pro­gram they’ve nur­tured since infancy. In a report set to go before its recently recon­sti­t­uted board this Fri­day, the TPA says Bike Share has “exceeded our per­form­ance expect­a­tions” and is “well posi­tioned to be scaled at an accel­er­ated rate and become an indis­pens­able mode of trans­port­a­tion for the city.”

Des­pite the effus­ive praise, the TPA’s latest report left me wor­ried about Bike Share’s future. Decisions are loom­ing that could stop the rid­ing­high momentum — and maybe even put a pro­ver­bial stick in the spokes of the city’s biggest recent cyc­ling suc­cess story.

Here’s the prob­lem. The TPA report, after jus­ti­fi­ably brag­ging about its recent suc­cess, spends much of the rest of the doc­u­ment lay­ing out ways to extract more money from the Bike Share riders who have con­trib­uted to that suc­cess.

That includes “new rev­enue streams” like “loy­alty pro­grams, digital advert­ising net­works, fea­ture upsells and advanced reser­va­tions.” It reads like a road map that could eas­ily lead to what the tech writer Cory Doc­torow has col­our­fully called “enshit­ti­fic­a­tion” — the pro­cess whereby online plat­forms and ser­vices decline over time as they change from focus­ing on what bene­fits users to what bene­fits their bot­tom line.

You know it when you see it. It usu­ally starts when a ser­vice that pre­vi­ously offered a reas­on­able price and a good user exper­i­ence begins con­stantly try­ing to sell you on their Premium Extra VIP Plus pro­gram while also show­ing unskip­pable ads for weight­loss drugs.

This decline can be an insi­di­ous pro­cess that starts with good inten­tions. For instance, Bike Share has had prob­lems with dock and bike avail­ab­il­ity, espe­cially at peak times of day. From the TPA’s per­spect­ive, allow­ing people to reserve a bike in advance for a small fee might seem like a good way to ease frus­tra­tion. For users, however, a much bet­ter approach would be to add more bikes and docks in areas with high demand.

But that wouldn’t cre­ate a new rev­enue stream, and rev­enue seems to be the TPA’s prime dir­ect­ive. As another example, the report also spends a lot of time talk­ing about the expan­sion of elec­tric bikes across the city. It’s hop­ing to expand the num­ber of elec­tric char­ging docks from about 1,375 today to 3,035 in 2030.

Sounds like good news for those of us who break a sweat try­ing to bike uphill and like the assist offered by e­bikes, but it’s impossible to miss that part of the motiv­a­tion here seems to be to shift more riders to a price­per­minute model.

Under Bike Share’s cur­rent model, mem­bers who pay the basic $105 a year fee can take an unlim­ited num­ber of rides of 30 minutes or less using the pedal­powered bikes for no extra cost. The e­bikes, on the other hand, cost mem­bers 10 cents per minute on top of the annual fee.

The TPA’s report says, rather bluntly, that this means the e­bikes are “more pro­duct­ive” than the pedal bikes, and more e­bikes will help bring the per­ride sub­sidy down from about 39 cents a ride today to close to break­even in 2030.

But the report doesn’t spend much time con­sid­er­ing whether break­even should really be the goal, espe­cially in the near term.

It’s import­ant to remem­ber that the per­ride sub­sidy per Bike Share today is already much lower than the $2.62 per­trip sub­sidy the TTC repor­ted last year. Every Bike Share trip that replaces a transit trip is money saved for city hall.

And while it’s hard to pin down the total value of vari­ous pub­lic sub­sidies spent to bene­fit drivers in the GTA, we know it’s a heck of a lot. As a point of com­par­ison, the $3.6 bil­lion being spent on rehab­il­it­at­ing the Gardiner Express­way — just one of the many high­way projects receiv­ing bil­lions of dol­lars these days — would cover Bike Share’s annual expan­sion budget for about 450 years. Good enough for our great­grand­chil­dren and their great­grand­chil­dren — and prob­ably some cyborg and xeno­morph cyc­lists too.

Given the low costs rel­at­ive to its trans­port­a­tion peers, it’s not clear to me why Bike Share should need to focus on rev­enue gen­er­a­tion and break­even oper­a­tions when other forms of mobil­ity are treated like pub­lic ser­vices worthy of con­tin­ued pub­lic invest­ment.

There’s still time to shift gears. Last month, Mayor Olivia Chow was suc­cess­ful with a sur­prise motion to get Toronto coun­cil to dis­band the TPA board. Gone are the law­yers, eco­nom­ists and account­ants. In their place is an interim board made up entirely of city hall staffers like city man­ager Paul John­son. I hope the new board’s exper­i­ence as pub­lic ser­vants leads them to recon­sider Bike Share’s long­term goals — and to ask whether it really makes sense for it to oper­ate like a tech plat­form chas­ing extra rev­enue.

Bike Share has incred­ible momentum. It’d be a shame if its remark­able ride were spoiled by rolling into a haz­ard ahead, like a pile of, uh, well, you know.

After rocky start, Bike Share pro­gram kicks into high gear

Expan­sion draws new riders as agency seeks to bridge `first and last mile’ gap

Toronto Parking Authority vicepresident of operations Jarrett McDonald suggested the future of the city's Bike Share program could include new bike attachments, better bike maintenance and a redistribution plan.

This article was written by Andy Takagi and was published in the Toronto Star on October 13, 2025.

Above a park­ing lot in an unas­sum­ing down­town office build­ing sits one of Toronto’s few­-and-­far-between transit suc­cess stor­ies.

But it has noth­ing to do with planes, trains or auto­mo­biles. Here, they hawk something dif­fer­ent: bicycles.

As con­ten­tious as cyc­ling has been in the down­town core, with Premier Doug Ford crack­ing down on cycle­ways along major arter­ial streets, Toronto’s bike share pro­gram has been quietly shat­ter­ing rider­ship records.

The pro­gram, which was on death’s door just over a dec­ade ago, has since become one of the fast­est­grow­ing bike share pro­grams in North Amer­ica.

Toronto­n­ians, grap­pling with con­ges­tion­rid­den streets and a TTC sys­tem plagued by delays, have increas­ingly turned to the city’s bike share net­work to get around.

In Septem­ber alone, Toronto­n­ians took more than one mil­lion trips via the orange bikes that dot the city­scape. That’s a ride for every third per­son liv­ing in the city of Toronto.

The agency in charge of Toronto’s bike share pro­gram isn’t the TTC or Met­rolinx, the city’s and the province’s sprawl­ing transit agen­cies, which have struggled to bring back pre­pan­demic rider­ship and deliver on new lines, such as the Eglin­ton Crosstown.

Instead, Toronto Bike Share has found a unique home with the Toronto Park­ing Author­ity (TPA), an agency a frac­tion of the size of the TTC and Met­rolinx.

Even though park­ing has been the core of the TPA’s busi­ness for 73 years, “we’re about provid­ing mobil­ity solu­tions for people, help­ing people, in par­tic­u­lar, in that first and last mile,” said Jar­rett McDon­ald, the park­ing author­ity’s vice­pres­id­ent of oper­a­tions.

Bike Share is one of the city’s “real trans­port­a­tion suc­cess stor­ies,” said Michael Long­field, exec­ut­ive dir­ector of Cycle Toronto, the advocacy group that took the Ford gov­ern­ment to court over its bike lane legis­la­tion.

McDon­ald and the TPA aren’t rest­ing on their laurels. In a wider­anging inter­view with the Star, McDon­ald hin­ted that the future of Bike Share could include new bike attach­ments, bet­ter bike main­ten­ance and a redis­tri­bu­tion pro­gram.

That all depends, however, on how the loom­ing threat of the Ford gov­ern­ment’s bike lane policies plays out.

Toronto Bike Share, ori­gin­ally called Bixi Toronto, began in 2011 with 80 sta­tions, 1,000 bicycles and a mea­gre few Toronto bike lanes.

It failed at first, when the private com­pany spear­head­ing the pro­gram declared bank­ruptcy.

A con­fid­en­tial city report obtained by the Star back in 2013 found Bixi was “insolv­ent or immin­ently insolv­ent due to the fact that rev­en­ues gen­er­ated by the sys­tem have not been suf­fi­cient to cover costs.”

Bike Share in Toronto nearly died that year under former mayor Rob Ford, who declared the pro­gram a “fail­ure” and said it “should be dis­solved. It’s not work­ing.”

The pro­gram nearly found a home with the TTC, but instead was saved by sac­ri­fi­cing funds meant for a self­clean­ing pub­lic toi­lets pro­gram.

Money meant for 20 high­tech pub­lic toi­lets — dif­fi­cult to install and sparsely used — was instead used to buy out Bixi in 2013.

In 2014, the Toronto Park­ing Author­ity became the unlikely home for the bike share pro­gram, where it relaunched as Bike Share Toronto with a spon­sor­ship from TD Bank to help cover its oper­a­tional costs. Bike Share switched spon­sors in 2023 to part­ner with Tan­ger­ine bank, turn­ing the famil­iar green bikes a bright orange.

As TTC rider­ship cratered dur­ing the pan­demic and most non­essen­tial work­ers moved their office setups into their homes, Bike Share rider­ship and the num­ber of sta­tions boomed.

From its ini­tial 80 sta­tions in 2011, Bike Share has grown 12­fold, with 992 sta­tions across the city’s 25 wards as of Septem­ber.

The pro­gram has taken advant­age of grow­ing bike lane infra­struc­ture that pro­lif­er­ated throughout the city dur­ing the pan­demic, but Bike Share has also bet on growth in parts of the city that lack safe­guards for cyc­lists.

Even at the outer edges of the city, where cars have tra­di­tion­ally reigned and bik­ing infra­struc­ture is sparse or non­exist­ent, you can find a Bike Share dock.

“You have to put the bikes in places to cre­ate the demand,” McDon­ald said. “If it’s not there, no one’s ever going to use it.”

It’s about indu­cing people to take up bik­ing, he explained, adding, “We will con­tinue to do that because what we’ve found is when we put (docks) in those loc­a­tions, we do start to see increased demand.”

Bike Share has been such a boon that it has even helped off­set a weak year for the park­ing side of the busi­ness, which took a hit thanks to Feb­ru­ary’s his­toric snowstorm. Rider­ship, for the first time ever, crossed one mil­lion riders for three con­sec­ut­ive months, in July, August and Septem­ber of this year.

Just this sum­mer, the Toronto Islands’ Bike Share pro­gram, which launched in May, net­ted the TPA $1.4 mil­lion. Even in the winter, when rider­ship tra­di­tion­ally dips, there have been at least 100,000 riders per month for the past three years.

McDon­ald said a large part of Bike Share’s recent suc­cess has been filling the “first­ and last­mile” gap — essen­tially, mar­ket­ing toward riders who might take a bicycle from the train sta­tion or a park­ing lot.

“A big chunk of the lead­er­ship team here actu­ally doesn’t drive to work. They drive to a park­ing lot, take transit, jump on a bike, or do vari­ous com­bin­a­tions of that,” McDon­ald said.

Long­field agreed, adding, “I think Bike Share really does help show people that a lot of short local trips are really prac­tical by bike.”

E­bikes, which were rolled out in 2020, have also been integ­ral to Bike Share’s rise.

“Two in every three people will pick an e­bike, if it’s avail­able,” McDon­ald said. “And the e­bike has brought in new cus­tom­ers, new com­munity mem­bers who didn’t think that bike share was an option for them.”

There’s one glar­ing bump in the road ahead for bike share: the pro­vin­cial gov­ern­ment’s battle with bike lanes.

Ford has, for more than a year, tar­geted bike lanes run­ning throughout the city, blam­ing them for con­ges­tion. He sought to remove bike lanes on Bloor Street, Uni­versity Avenue and Yonge Street via legis­la­tion, which was chal­lenged in court by cyc­ling advoc­ates. The advoc­ates, includ­ing the group Cycle Toronto, argued the Ford gov­ern­ment’s bill viol­ated their Charter rights to life and secur­ity of per­son.

The pro­vin­cial gov­ern­ment’s attempt to remove bike lanes on the three streets was ruled uncon­sti­tu­tional by Super­ior Court Justice Paul Schabas in July.

The gov­ern­ment said it would appeal but, in the mean­time, the bike lanes can­not be removed.

“Def­in­itely, it goes into the cal­cu­lus (of Bike Share’s future),” McDon­ald said. “We know from the stud­ies we’ve done with our cus­tom­ers that one of the biggest bar­ri­ers to get­ting on a bike is feel­ing safe.

“What we need to do is con­vince them that it is a safe option in the right place at the right time,” he said. “And because you get to choose how you use the bike and where you use the bike, you can make it safe.”

Long­field, who has opposed Ford’s bike lane legis­la­tion in the courts and extens­ively in the media, sees Bike Share’s rise going hand in hand with the expan­sion of the city’s bike lane net­work.

“You can see object­ively, with the num­ber of trips that have been going up with Bike Share, month over month, year after year, that it really does speak to more people cyc­ling as more sta­tions have grown along the cyc­ling net­work plan expan­sion,” Long­field said.

But McDon­ald couched his con­cerns and added he doesn’t think Ford’s efforts to remove a major por­tion of Toronto’s bike lanes would “sig­ni­fic­antly” change the over­all plan for Toronto Bike Share.

For McDon­ald, the future of Bike Share is bright. New and improved docks are being piloted at three sta­tions, with bet­ter indic­at­ors for broken bikes, a tap option for those with a mem­ber­ship card, and easier dock­ing (so users don’t slam bikes in).

The nas­cent transit organ­iz­a­tion is draw­ing from examples across the world.

McDon­ald said Bike Share is look­ing at rep­lic­at­ing the “bike angels” pro­gram of New York’s Cit­iBikes, where users get rewards for redis­trib­ut­ing bicycles from crowded sta­tions, a prob­lem that has plagued Bike Share as the trucks it cur­rently uses, iron­ic­ally, often get caught in traffic.

He also looks for inspir­a­tion to Montreal, where cyc­lists can rent out cargo attach­ments as well.

And Bike Share still has a ways to go to draw in riders. Des­pite hav­ing a smal­ler pop­u­la­tion, Montreal, with its expans­ive bike lane net­work, is doub­ling Toronto’s rider­ship on its bike share sys­tem.

“I think that’s a real­istic hope for 20 years from now, that every­body in the city of Toronto sees Bike Share like they see the TTC or the GO train, as an option to move,” McDon­ald said.

“The best option is to make it seam­less and easy for people, and when you remove those bar­ri­ers, people will try things that they nor­mally wouldn’t do.”

End­less debates over bike lanes keep miss­ing an ines­cap­able real­ity

As cli­mate change only gets worse, we are mired in the same old dis­agree­ments

This article was written by Anna Fitzpatrick and was published in the Toronto Star on May 24, 2025.

Here are a few quick head­lines I read from across the coun­try last week: From Brit­ish Columbia, “Cli­mate change brings heightened risk to preg­nan­cies in Vic­toria.” From New­found­land, “As cli­mate change wor­ries grow, St. John’s plans for future big storms.” And here in Ontario? Doug Ford’s budget will tar­get more Toronto bike lanes.

That last one is an unwel­come piece of news and an unwise policy. Premier Ford released the 2025 Ontario Budget on May 15. Found in the 251 page doc­u­ment is a recom­mit­ment to ”The Redu­cing Grid­lock and Sav­ing You Time Act,” which requires muni­cip­al­it­ies to receive approval from the province before installing new bike lanes that would res­ult in the removal of lanes for traffic. Muni­cip­al­it­ies are required to demon­strate that the pro­posed bike lanes will not have a sig­ni­fic­ant impact on vehicle traffic.

The budget item con­tin­ues that “the gov­ern­ment is work­ing to rein­state vehicle lanes on Bloor Street West, Yonge Street, Uni­versity Avenue, Avenue Road and Queen’s Park Cres­cent” (nev­er­mind that bike lanes them­selves are vehicle lanes). The city estim­ates that the cost for remov­ing exist­ing bike lanes will be around $48 mil­lion — and this was before the pro­posed addi­tion of Avenue Road and Queen’s Park to the list.

Bike lanes alone will barely put a dent in revers­ing cli­mate change (though they do play some role in redu­cing car­bon emis­sions brought on by our car depend­ency). But this is pre­cisely why spend­ing this much time debat­ing them is so mad­den­ing. The cli­mate crisis is here, and it is affect­ing our jobs, our health, and our life­styles. The prob­lems will only get worse, and mit­ig­at­ing the most severe of its impacts will only get more expens­ive. Now is the time to explore sweep­ing, struc­tural changes. That bike lanes — a basic part of infra­struc­ture that allow for the safe and effi­cient move­ment of people who, for whatever reason are unable or unwill­ing to drive — have become part of a broader cul­ture war does not bode well for our abil­ity to cope with the more extreme and inev­it­able facets of cli­mate change. We are star­ing down an approach­ing hur­ricane unsheltered and arguing over what size umbrella to use.

I am aware that by cent­ring envir­on­mental con­cerns when advoc­at­ing for city policy, I may be dis­missed as a bleed­ing­heart hip­pie untethered from real­ity. But I’m also an excru­ci­at­ingly prag­matic per­son motiv­ated by logic, data, and facts. Here is what the facts have taught us.

We know that, no, not every­one is will­ing or able to com­mute by bicycle. We also know that, des­pite this, there are many people who are very much will­ing and able to cycle, but who choose not to because of lack of adequate safe infra­struc­ture ; this is reg­u­larly proven by the fact that increased bike lanes lead to increased rider­ship. Like­wise, we know that 2024 was one of the dead­li­est years in recent his­tory for Toronto cyc­lists. Under­stand­ably, people who don’t feel safe cyc­ling in the city may opt to instead drive or hail a car as their primary mode of trans­port. This leads to more cars on the road, which increases con­ges­tion and has neg­at­ive impacts on com­muters who have no other option but to drive. We also know that the more cars that are on the road, the more car­bon emis­sions and traffic fatal­it­ies increase. And des­pite Ford’s claim that tak­ing away lanes from bikes will reduce grid­lock and save you time, we know that devot­ing more space to cars will only induce demand for single occu­pancy vehicles, cre­at­ing a cycle in which our roads become more con­ges­ted, while sus­tain­able altern­at­ives are put increas­ingly out of reach.

We know all of this, and yet we con­tinue to have the same debates over and over again. And we are run­ning out of time.

Many of the adapt­a­tions we will have to make to mit­ig­ate the effects of cli­mate change will be expens­ive and incon­veni­ent and, for many people, a very hard sell. But we have no other choice. The good news is that leav­ing our cur­rent bike lanes in place is the cheapest, safest, and most sus­tain­able thing we can do. Enter­tain­ing other options at this point is a waste of time.

Cyc­lists ride south­bound on Spad­ina Avenue dur­ing a rally to retain ded­ic­ated lanes for cyc­lists.

Scott Stin­son and Anna Fitzpatrick on how bike lanes fire up debates

A few bike lanes won’t change how deeply ingrained our car habits have become in Toronto

A cyclist rides in a bike lane on University Avenue last December.

This article was written by Scott Stinson and was published in the Toronto Star on May 24, 2025.

The Ontario premier’s budget, announced last week, includes a pledge to rip out even more bike lanes in Toronto, bey­ond those already planned and which are presently mired in a legal dis­pute. Ford has defen­ded the costly removal of exist­ing bike infra­struc­ture by say­ing he doesn’t oppose such lanes in prin­ciple, but he wants them away from roads that cars use. He some­how ima­gines a bike­lane net­work that weaves through Toronto’s side streets, many of which are already nar­row due to on­street park­ing. It’s an idea that makes almost as much sense as build­ing a tun­nel under High­way 401.

But it’s also, at this point, not at all sur­pris­ing. Ford is so pro­car that if his last name wasn’t already a vehicle brand, you’d almost expect him to change it to one. Bey­ond the bike­lane tear­downs, he will extend the gastax removal into seem­ing per­petu­ity, and will cut the tolls on the pro­vin­cially owned por­tion of High­way 407 east of Toronto.

The elect­oral trick of Ford’s car­first policy is that it’s actu­ally a sub­urbs­first policy. The premier’s vote­win­ning machine does par­tic­u­larly well in the 905, where the car rules.

Liv­ing in a sub­urb just north of Toronto, as I do, it’s easy to see the dis­con­nect between what is gen­er­ally con­sidered sound transit and trans­port­a­tion policy and what actu­ally hap­pens.

There are GO Trains in and out of the city, but they are slow and stop so many times that com­muters instead wrestle daily with the ques­tion of leav­ing early in a car to beat traffic or set­tling in for the long train ride. The city of Markham claims an extens­ive bike­lane net­work, but the vast major­ity of such lanes are just lines painted on exist­ing roads, not sep­ar­ated from vehicle traffic. And every week­day, the main roads in and out of Toronto swell with cars and trucks dur­ing rush hour as drivers opt for the wildly inef­fi­cient stop­andgo of city streets over the even­more­frus­trat­ing slow crawl of the Don Val­ley Park­way.

As much as I can appre­ci­ate the evid­ence for bike lanes or other non­car trans­port­a­tion modes that have been suc­cess­fully imple­men­ted in densely pop­u­lated European cit­ies, I can’t pre­tend that any of my neigh­bours would con­sider a bicycle an actual com­mut­ing option even if an ideal route exis­ted. A 30­kilo­metre bike to work would make for an awfully sweaty day.

Which is, from a transit­policy stand­point, a prob­lem. The sub­urbs of Toronto, and throughout the coun­try, already exist. The dens­ity of old Europe was fore­gone for wide streets and two­car gar­ages. The urban centre has long since sprawled. And as a res­ult, there is a huge con­stitu­ency of voters for whom car travel is simply a way of life.

More than 20 years ago, Markham cre­ated a new neigh­bour­hood, Cor­nell, where homes had lane­ways with back­yard gar­ages, and there was more park and retail space. The idea was a more loc­al­ized com­munity, where res­id­ents could walk and shop and not have to get in the car and drive to the mall or the big­box store. People still drove to the mall. Even­tu­ally, a Wal­mart was built nearby.

It’s not even clear that a con­cer­ted effort to de­pri­or­it­ize the car in the sub­urbs would work, so ingrained are the habits. A Vespa dealer opened on Markham’s old Main Street some years ago, selling the motor­ized scoot­ers com­mon in Europe. It seemed an odd fit: was someone really going to take that thing to Home Depot and park next to the Escal­ades and the Exped­i­tions? It would be like a poodle among ele­phants. The dealer didn’t last long.

There is, as it hap­pens, a real­world solu­tion to con­ges­tion play­ing out now in New York City, where new tolls on vehicles in and out of Man­hat­tan have reduced traffic and sped up pub­lic transit. Would Doug Ford ever con­sider such a plan? Not on your life. And to be fair to him, there’s no evid­ence his rivals would, either. The Lib­er­als backed away from road tolls and even the NDP cam­paigned on remov­ing them from the 407.

The sub­urbs want their roads to be free. Even if that only means more people will use them.

Ford to tar­get more Toronto bike­ways

Budget to include city’s lanes slated for demoli­tion

A cyclist rides in a University Avenue bike lane targeted for demolition by the Ford government. Lanes on Yonge Street and Bloor Street West are also on the list for removal, along with, according to sources, Queen's Park Crescent and Avenue Road.

This article was written by Robert Benzie and was published in the Toronto Star on May 15, 2025.

Premier Doug Ford is gear­ing up to remove even more Toronto bike lanes, the Star has learned.

Sources say Thursday’s pro­vin­cial budget legis­la­tion will include the removal of the bike lanes on Queen’s Park Cres­cent, around the legis­lat­ive pre­cinct, and on Avenue Road south of Dav­en­port Road.

That’s on top of the bike­ways slated for demoli­tion on Uni­versity Avenue, Yonge Street and Bloor Street West.

A tem­por­ary court injunc­tion obtained by cyc­ling advocacy groups — and being con­tested by Ford’s gov­ern­ment — has hal­ted the removal of those three lanes while a judge determ­ines whether the scheme is uncon­sti­tu­tional.

“I’m not against bike lanes. I just want to get these things mov­ing … build all the bike lanes you want just not on main arter­ial roads, put them on the side roads. Let’s … get traffic mov­ing,” the premier said Wed­nes­day.

Senior gov­ern­ment offi­cials, speak­ing con­fid­en­tially in order to dis­cuss internal delib­er­a­tions, said the budget will sig­nal the Pro­gress­ive Con­ser­vat­ives remain com­mit­ted to mov­ing bike lanes off major thor­ough­fares to tackle traffic grid­lock.

Fin­ance Min­is­ter Peter Beth­len­falvy will table the spend­ing plan at 4 p.m. Thursday.

The move comes after Justice Paul Schabas gran­ted an injunc­tion on April 22 tem­por­ar­ily paus­ing the dis­mant­ling of bike lanes pending his decision on a Charter chal­lenge by advoc­ates, includ­ing Cycle Toronto.

Cyc­ling act­iv­ists argue Ford is infringing upon their Charter rights to life and secur­ity of per­son.

Michael Long­field, exec­ut­ive dir­ector of Cycle Toronto, has warned

the changes would do little to reduce traffic but could imperil cyc­lists.

“We think the (legal) case itself is really strong and it’s under­pinned by the idea that the removal of these bike­ways is arbit­rary and doesn’t meet the province’s goal of redu­cing con­ges­tion,” Long­field said last week.

The Star revealed last Novem­ber that the exhaust­ive $6.2 mil­lion Trans­port­a­tion Tomor­row Sur­vey found only 3.1 per cent of Toronto res­id­ents bike to work each morn­ing.

That num­ber jumped to 3.6 per cent of those who repor­ted using their bikes “all day” in a city of three mil­lion people where 164,806 daily cyc­ling trips were made, an uptick from the same sur­vey in 2006 that found 1.1 per cent of Toronto­n­ians repor­ted such trips.

However, city­wide bik­ing data can be con­ten­tious as usage fluc­tu­ates depend­ing on where people live — which the cyc­ling lobby, that wields influ­ence at city hall with bur­eau­crats and elec­ted offi­cials, is quick to point out.

Mayor Olivia Chow has expressed hope for a “win­win solu­tion” that could pre­serve some bike­ways while rein­stat­ing lanes for car traffic to appease Ford.

“There are areas that we may be able to do so, so the con­ver­sa­tion is ongo­ing,” Chow, long one of the city’s most prom­in­ent cyc­lists, said last week while dis­cuss Toronto’s con­ges­tion man­age­ment plan.

But she declined to say what sec­tions are being dis­cussed with Queen’s Park, stress­ing she is “firm” on keep­ing the long­estab­lished bike lanes on Bloor Street West in the Annex.

Chow has noted local busi­nesses and res­id­ents sup­port those lanes — installed under mayor John Tory in 2016 — “so there’s no reason to rip up the road and cause more con­ges­tion and waste a lot more money.”

That said, she’s admit­ted there are newer bike­ways “that we might be able to improve on.”

Last Novem­ber, Ford’s Tor­ies passed legis­la­tion curb­ing the install­a­tion of bike lanes and empower­ing Queen’s Park to remove exist­ing ones on Bloor, Yonge and Uni­versity.

But because Uni­versity ends at Col­lege Street, the bill did not spe­cific­ally include Queen’s Park Cres­cent, which begins there and con­tin­ues to Bloor where it becomes Avenue Road.

That’s what Thursday’s budget law will cla­rify, sources said.

Bike lanes on Col­lege are not included in the bill and insiders say there are no plans to remove them.

To pro­tect its legal flank, the gov­ern­ment has indem­ni­fied itself against any law­suits if someone is killed or injured where a lane has been removed.

The province was slated to begin rip­ping out the most con­ten­tious sec­tion of the Bloor lanes — west of Runnymede Road — in March but the work had not begun before Schabas’s injunc­tion.

City hall has estim­ated it would cost $48 mil­lion to dis­mantle 22 kilo­metres of bike lanes that cost $27 mil­lion to install, a claim Ford has dis­missed as inflated “hog­wash.”

Two weeks ago, the premier thundered against “unelec­ted” judges fol­low­ing the Schabas injunc­tion.

That out­burst earned Ford an unpre­ced­en­ted rebuke from Chief Justice of Ontario Michael Tul­loch, Chief Justice of the Super­ior Court of Justice Geof­frey Mor­awetz, and Chief Justice of the Ontario Court of Justice Sharon Nick­las.

Cit­ing the import­ance of judi­cial inde­pend­ence, the three chief justices said judges “must be, and must be seen to be, free to decide each case on its own mer­its, without inter­fer­ence or influ­ence of any kind from any source, includ­ing politi­cians.”

Prior to being appoin­ted a judge by former fed­eral justice min­is­ter David Lametti in 2019, Schabas was a part­ner at Blakes and one of the Star’s law­yers for many years.

Mayor Olivia Chow said she is “firm” on keep­ing the longes­tab­lished bike lanes on Bloor Street West in the Annex, which she says have the sup­port of local busi­nesses and res­id­ents

E­bike ride to school could cost you

Toronto StarMARCO CHOWN OVED

Liam Roach was pedalling his one year ­old daughter home from daycare on his bright orange cargo ebike when he heard the “whoop whoop” of a police car behind him.

He assumed the officer was trying to pull over a car and moved aside to let him pass. When the military police officer got out and walked up to his bike, he says, he was confused. The cop informed him that Ontario law prohibits having a child on an e­bike — something that sounded unbelievable to Roach, considering he had just purchased the purpose­ built
child­ carrying e­bike at a local shop and he was using a certified child seat.

“I was pretty upset about the whole thing,” Roach said of the incident last September on the Canadian Forces Base in Kingston.

While he was let off with a warning, Roach had to pull his e­bike’s battery out, rendering it a regular bike, in order to ride home legally.

“I don’t disagree that there should be some regulations on e­bikes and children, especially maximum speeds and stuff like that. “But to have a blanket ban where any bicycle with a motor on it isn’t allowed to carry
children seems a little ridiculous to me, especially when the rest of North America and most of the world is in line with this as a suitable method of transportation.”

Last November, Premier Doug Ford’s Progressive Conservatives overturned a law regulating electric bikes and replaced it with one that bans anyone under 16 from riding an e­bike — even as a passenger.

The ban has actually been in effect since 2006, according to the Ministry of
Transportation, when e­bikes were regulated in the same way as scooters. In 2021, the Ford government brought in legislation that created a new category for e­bikes that would allow underage passengers. But the regulations were never proclaimed into law, and the Safer Roads and Communities
Act, which received royal assent in November, overrules the previous law and maintains the ban.


And so while bike shops are selling them, parents are buying them, and a growing number of child­carrying e­bikes are rolling on the streets — doing so it illegal.

The province’s webpage on e­bike regulations doesn’t mention the ban on children.


While February flurries mean bike traffic is currently at a seasonal low, come spring when a growing number of parents pull out their e­bikes and start ferrying their kids between school, daycare and activities, they’ll be risking a ticket and a fine of as much as $1,000.

Toronto police could not say if any tickets have been issued. Spokesperson Laura Brabant said she is not aware of any plans for an enforcement campaign.

While other cities and provinces have rebate programs to encourage families to buy e­bikes, Ontario stands out as the only jurisdiction in the world that bans children on e­bikes, says Jamie Stuckless, the former executive director of the cycling advocacy non­profit Share the Road Coalition,
who has been following the regulation of e­bikes in Ontario for more than a decade.


“We’ve been trying to change the e­bike laws in Ontario forever,” she said.
The way the law defines e­bikes is very broad and includes larger electric and gasoline­ powered scooters that don’t need to be pedalled, said Stuckless.

“A decade or so ago, when these rules were made, e­bikes were not as prominent or as well understood, so perhaps it was just an abundance of caution,” she said. “But now we see there are a lot of purpose ­built e­bikes for safely carrying families.”

“It’s time to update the law,” she said, adding that in the time she’s been advocating for e­bikes, she’s become a mother and bought an e­bike for her young family. “I don’t want people to be getting in trouble for this because tons of parents are riding and bike shops are selling these bikes with
child seats and not letting you know that it’s illegal (to ride with children).”

The offices of Ford and Transportation Minister Prabmeet Sarkaria did not respond to questions about the ban.

Large “cargo” e­bikes are widely available online and in bike shops across the province and can be outfitted with child seats, safety bars and even a canvas rain cover. While some e­bikes operate without pedalling, most have “pedal­assisted” propulsion that uses an electric motor to make it easier to pedal. Popular e­bike brands such as Rad Power Bikes prominently display photos of parents and kids in their promotional material.

Child­carrying e­bikes are the biggest growth segment in the business, says Kevin
McLaughlin, who has been selling all kinds of e­bikes out of Zygg, his Roncesvalles­area shop, since 2020.
“This is what people are excited about. People want to be able to take their kids to school and then keep on going to work and pick up groceries on the way home,” he said.


But McLaughlin said he had no idea a ban on child passengers was in effect.
“It’s very concerning, because people had been told that it was OK and there’s been no communication from the government.”

Instead of banning kids, the province would do well to start enforcing rules that actually relate to safety, like battery size, maximum speed and certification standards, he said.

During the legislative committee debate on the law, Progressive Conservative member Ric Bresee gave a hint that the government would use the new legislation to properly regulate the chaotic and rapidly growing micromobility market.

“There are a huge number of different styles and structures of these bikes,” he said, according to a transcript of the meeting. “We need to make sure that we get that right, as to which ones require licensing, which ones don’t etc., the age restrictions — all of that. That move to get those regulations requires that we, I’ll say, clear the path for those definitions, and that is exactly what this
legislation is doing.”

Michael Longfield, the executive director of the bicycle advocacy group CycleTO, flagged the child passenger ban in a letter to the government while the e­bike bill was winding its way through the legislative process.

“I think this perpetuates a myth that kids riding on e­bikes are in some way dangerous, which is quite misleading given that traffic collisions in cars tend to be a much higher percentage of young people’s injuries and deaths,” he said.

There are years of data from other countries where e­bikes are popular and none of it points to any safety concerns for children, as long as the bikes are properly designed and certified, Toronto emergency room doctor Edward Xie said.

“I see tons of children on e­bikes, but I have not seen any e­bike injuries,” he added. To the contrary, because of the health benefits associated with an active lifestyle, “we should encourage families to use these bikes,” said Xie. “The evidence is very clear on this that the health benefits of riding a bike are immense, primarily due to prevention of chronic disease such as
diabetes and heart disease.”

Opposition Transportation critic Jennifer French said the ban tells you everything you need to know about the Ford government’s attitude toward cyclists.

“This is not a government that is interested in hearing from cyclists. I think that they seem to consider them a fringe group,” said French, who linked the e­bike rules to the province’s plan to rip out bike lanes.

French said parents who came to committee to express their concerns were brushed aside by the Progressive Conservatives.

“It doesn’t make any sense that they would go forward with something that creates such havoc when I think the spirit of any e­bike legislation is meant to make things easier,” she said.


Kevin Shields and his wife, Ewa, sold their car when they moved to Toronto, and say biking, walking and transit are far better ways of getting around. They take their two kids, ages four and 10, on an e­bike to and from school everyday.

“It is our car. We use it 24/7/365 for everything we do,” he said. “The kids love it. They play `I spy.’ They sing. It could be raining or snowing and they’re under the cover, totally oblivious.”

E­bikes are a great solution for families feeling the squeeze of inflation, says CycleTO’s Longfield, with sales as strong as they are, going forward there are going to be more e­bikes with kids around — even if they’re not legal for use.

“They’re sold at Canadian Tire,” he said. “I don’t know if people know they are buying a vehicle they’re not legally allowed to use.

“Could you imagine buying a car and later finding out you can’t drive it?”

Canada’s push for e-bikes gains speed

This article was written by Hannah MacReady and was published in the Globe & Mail on February 4, 2025.

E-bikes are making emissions-free transportation more accessible for more Canadians. In Saanich, B.C., an income-based loan program is helping ensure more people can get them in the first place.

Public programs are helping residents switch from cars – but success hinges on more than just financial aid

It was just after her 40th birthday when Nelson, B.C., resident Carrie Clark realized her continuing knee and wrist pain was making traditional biking impossible. Buying an electric bike (e-bike) was out of the question financially. That is, until the city launched its e-bike incentive program.

The program, offering up to $8,000 in low-interest financing for e-bikes and commuter gear, is one of many popping up across the country. Similar programs have been launched in Banff, Alta., Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, offering rebates to reduce car dependency, cut planet-warming emissions and make cycling more accessible to more people.

For Ms. Clark and her husband, the incentive was life-changing. They used the program to purchase two e-bikes – which typically run around $2,000 each – a switch that soon led them to sell one of their cars. “It’s faster than driving because you don’t have to deal with parking. You can stop anywhere,” Ms. Clark said. Without the program, she admitted, the transition wouldn’t have been possible. “We wouldn’t have been able to afford it. Especially not two bikes at once.”

As these programs grow, questions remain about who they truly serve. Nelson’s loan initiative, funded through Nelson Hydro, the city-owned utility, is available only to homeowners. Loans are tied to hydro bills, allowing the city to recover unpaid amounts through property taxes, city manager Kevin Cormack explained. While this approach ensures the program’s financial stability, it excludes renters, who account for approximately 37 per cent of Nelson households, according to the latest census data.

Critics argue that gaps like these reflect broader issues in cycling policy, which often favour white, able-bodied and higher-income residents. Without addressing barriers, including affordability, accessible infrastructure and the needs of lower-income groups, such programs risk excluding those who could benefit most.

Another e-bike incentive program in Saanich, B.C., sought to address these challenges with a more targeted approach. Funded through the Climate Action and Awareness Fund – a federal fund aimed at reducing Canada’s greenhouse gases – the program offered income-based rebates between 2021 and 2022. Unlike Nelson’s homeowner-focused loans, Saanich’s program was available to all residents, with rebates starting at $350 for higher-income households and going up to $1,600 for the lowest-income households.

Dr. Alex Bigazzi, an associate professor of transportation engineering at the University of British Columbia, studied the program and found that the incentives were particularly effective for lower-income households. “Lower-income households are more price sensitive,” he explained. “When you make these incentives available, it’s more likely to shift behaviour.”

According to Dr. Bigazzi, lowerincome participants also moved more trips from cars to e-bikes than higher-income participants. “These were people who wanted to drive less but faced financial barriers to purchasing an e-bike,” he said. “Once that barrier was removed, they began using e-bikes … in a way they hadn’t been able to before.”

While e-bikes are less expensive than cars over time, their upfront cost can still be a barrier for households on tighter budgets. “These weren’t households going car-free – they were shifting some of their trips to e-bikes, creating a mix,” Dr. Bigazzi explained.

Dr. Bigazzi’s study of Saanich’s e-bike program highlighted environmental benefits, too. Participants reduced greenhouse-gas emissions by an average of 16 kilograms of CO2 per week, at a cost of $190 to $720 per tonne of CO2 reduced. But, Dr. Bigazzi said, “the biggest benefits aren’t just in cutting emissions – they’re in better health, increased physical activity and reduced local air pollution,” all of which can have economic ripple effects over time.

In Nelson, where most bikes were bought locally, the program has provided a noticeable boost to small businesses. “It’s been a really positive economic development for our bike shops,” Mr. Cormack said. To date, 186 residents have used the program, borrowing more than $900,000 to purchase e-bikes.

Still, owning an e-bike is only part of the solution. Without safe and accessible infrastructure, many riders face barriers to using them regularly. Kay Teschke, professor emeritus at the UBC School of Population and Public Health, emphasized that the type of infrastructure matters as much as the bikes themselves. “Physically separated bike lanes attract almost everyone – they’re safer and more inclusive,” she explained. She also noted that painted bike lanes that share the road with cars often discourage risk-averse groups, such as women, parents and people using mobility devices.

For Ms. Clark, Nelson’s infrastructure is functional but far from ideal. “I have my routes, but I definitely avoid certain places,” she said. “I go out of my way to stay off busy streets.” Still, she’s seeing more e-bikes on the road than ever before. “Pretty much now, unless you see people out hard-core mountain biking, [they’re riding] an e-bike.”

Infrastructure challenges aren’t unique to Nelson. Across Canada, cycling infrastructure often falls short for those who need it most. A recent McGill University study found that while larger cities provide better access for “equity-deserving” groups such as low-income residents and seniors, significant gaps remain. According to the study, nearly onethird of children and older adults in Canada live in areas with minimal cycling infrastructure, with mid-sized and smaller cities performing worse.

For cities considering cycling incentive programs, a wellrounded approach is key. Both Dr. Bigazzi and Dr. Teschke emphasized that financial incentives should go hand-in-hand with safe, accessible infrastructure and efforts to make biking affordable and inclusive. “You can’t just give everyone a bike and hope for change,” Dr. Bigazzi says. “You do need safe and comfortable places to ride.”

Premier set to remove some city bike lanes

Province using its power to reinstate vehicle lanes on three main downtown arteries

This article was written by Robert Benzie and was published in the Toronto Star on January 28, 2025.

Provincial taxpayers would foot the bill for taking out the bike lanes on Bloor Street West, Yonge Street and University Avenue. The government has retained an engineering company to complete the design work.

Premier Doug Ford is pedalling furiously toward removing bike lanes from “three of Toronto’s most congested streets.”

With an election campaign set to officially kick off Wednesday, Ford’s Progressive Conservative government “has retained an engineering company to complete design work, as it prepares to reinstate vehicle lanes on Bloor Street West, Yonge Street and University Avenue,” the province said.

“Our government has heard loud and clear from residents and businesses about the problems with gridlock. The failed approach of installing bike lanes without a second thought for drivers or local businesses is not working,” said Transportation Minister Prabmeet Sarkaria.

“By freeing up some of Toronto’s most important roads, we’re bringing common sense back to municipal planning,”

Sarkaria said in one of his final acts before the government enters “caretaker mode” through the Feb. 27 election.

It is unclear when the bike lanes would actually be taken out.

Under Sarkaria’s Bill 212, the Reducing Gridlock, Saving You Time Act, which received royal assent last month, Queen’s Park now has the power to remove existing bike lanes and veto new ones the province feels would contribute to traffic jams.

The City of Toronto, which opposed the law, has estimated it would cost $48 million to dismantle $27 million in bike lane infrastructure, a claim Ford has dismissed as “hogwash.”

Provincial taxpayers will foot the tab for taking out the lanes.

“One per cent of the population cannot take up 50 per cent of the roads, “Ford said in December when the bill passed, understating the number of Torontonians who cycle and overstating the amount of space bike lanes take up in the city.

The $6.2million Transportation Tomorrow Survey found 3.1 per cent of Toronto residents commute to work by bicycle each morning, triple the number the premier often cites.

That jumps to 3.6 per cent of those who reported using their bikes “all day” in a city of three million people where 164,806 daily cycling trips were made.

However, that’s far lower than some cycling advocates have argued in opposing the removal of bike lanes.

In comparison, 46 per cent of Torontonians drove their own cars or trucks in the morning with another 11 per cent being passengers in private vehicles and 25 per cent took public transit while 13 per cent walked.

The numbers change slightly when people were surveyed about “all day” modes of transportation: 50 per cent drove, 12 per cent were passengers, 22 per cent took transit, and 10 per cent walked.

Prominent e-bike brands struggle as cheaper options dominate industry

This article was written by Pippa Norman and was published in the Globe & Mail on December 23, 2024.

Michael Pasquali, founder of the Canadian Electric Bike Association, says people will continue to buy e-bikes even if the industry never again reaches the heights it did during the pandemic.

Changes that followed sector’s unprecedented pandemic boom have been devastating for independent brands, experts say

My product, all of a sudden, over the weekend, looks like it’s last year’s model. SAM ATAKHANOV FOUNDER OF MULTIPLE E-BIKE STARTUPS

Shockwaves are reverberating through the e-bike industry in Canada and the United States after a year that saw several prominent brands declare bankruptcy or stop selling in the North American market, citing an inability to compete in an increasingly consolidated environment.

Experts say changes that followed the industry’s unprecedented pandemic boom – from a rise in factory direct sales to rapidly evolving technology – have been devastating for independent brands.

Vancouver-based DOST Bikes, California-based Juiced Bikes and iGO Electric of Montreal all declared bankruptcy or went into receivership within roughly the past year. Even global brands such as Japanese motor sports giant Yamaha Motor Co. Ltd. and Swiss company Stromer recently announced they were pulling their e-bikes out of North America, citing a softened market.

The speed and comfort of ebikes set them apart from traditional bicycles, opening up the age-old mode of transport to a wider range of users. From delivery people to commuters, the resounding sentiment from most ebike fans is it’s fun to go fast and the power assist makes long trips so much easier. In Canada, the federal standard for an e-bike’s maximum speed is 32 km/h, and range varies from about 50 to 100 kilometres.

The pandemic saw e-bike sales soar, as consumers with extra time and pent-up energy splurged on devices to stay active outdoors. In 2022, the Canadian market was worth about $240million, with about 70,000 ebikes sold that year, according to Rize Bikes. By 2025, Rize estimates the market will reach $345million, with more than 100,000 bikes sold annually. Prices range from $14,000 for a Stromer bike to $3,100 for an ENVO and just $600 on Amazon.com Inc. for a bike from an overseas manufacturer.

But makers and retailers say the domestic industry is flatlining. While it’s nowhere near taking its last breath, the changing landscape is forcing local brands to carve out a niche for themselves just to survive, in a market that has become dominated by cheap, direct-to-consumer sales.

Sam Atakhanov, the founder of multiple e-bike startups, launched DOST Bikes in 2019 – just before the industry took off.

“Things were going normal. Then there was that chain of events that happened over the last few years that really crippled our industry,” he said.

For Mr. Atakhanov, it all began with Apple’s release of the iOS 14 operating system in September, 2020. The update affected advertisers’ ability to reach their target audiences, which meant Mr. Atakhanov’s ads on Google weren’t working as well as they used to.

Then, pandemic supply chain disruptions threw a wrench into his company’s cash flow, bumping manufacturing lead times from three months to a year, he said.

“We’re sitting here with no stock for nearly a year before the money comes in, so we’re living off of lines of credit, our own cash, investment capital. We’re digging ourselves a hole,” he said.

While supply chains improved by 2022, Mr. Atakhanov said rising interest rates and a receding customer base were some of the final blows dealt to his business. Retailers had rushed to double their stock during the pandemic, but the high demand disappeared almost as quickly as it came.

“Then it’s a vicious cycle, race to the bottom, everybody’s trying to offload,” Mr. Atakhanov said.

The last straw for DOST Bikes was when e-bike factories overseas began bypassing local companies, like DOST, to sell directly to North American consumers, Mr. Atakhanov said.

“When that happened, our value proposition for all that great design, branding, marketing, all that just went right out the window because a factory can sell for half the price.”

DOST Bikes filed for insolvency in December, 2023. “It was death by a thousand cuts,” Mr. Atakhanov said.

And it wasn’t unique to DOST, said Haseeb Javed, a member of the product and engineering team at electric mobility company ENVO Drive Systems in Vancouver. He conducts industry research to determine what causes companies to fail and said most of them have a story similar to DOST’s.

Based upon his research, Mr. Javed said ENVO has been very careful to diversify where its products are sold so it’s not reliant on a single revenue stream. For example, the company sells through Costco Wholesale Corp., storefronts and direct to consumers online. ENVO also sells more than just e-bikes, with e-scooters, water bikes with pontoons and snow bikes with skis also in its repertoire. Mr. Javed said this helps with the company’s brand awareness.

“Some business models are better for this market. But ultimately, I believe that anyone who survived, either you need to be a Chinese factory who is selling at very low margins or you need to have differentiation,” he said.

Kevin McLaughlin, the chief executive officer of Zygg E-Bikes, which operates in Toronto and Vancouver, said 2024 has been a challenging year for his subscription-based company. At Zygg, customers can rent or buy new and used e-bikes, a model that sets the company apart from stores that only sell new bikes. He said Zygg is a popular choice with food delivery workers.

At the peak of the pandemic, Zygg did about $2.5-million a year in sales. This year, revenues will come in under $2-million.

Amid the technological evolution of e-bikes, Mr. McLaughlin said he’s scrambling to modernize his fleet. And bikes that he bought at $2,000 and once sold for $3,000 now have a markup of just $400. “There’s enormous downward pressure,” he said.

Mr. Atakhanov said his company has also had to compete with bigger brands that can afford to innovate – and market those innovations – at a much faster pace. For example, tech company DJI created an e-bike drive system that can connect to a user’s smartphone, allowing them to control things such as their bike’s lock status or power assist through an app.

“My product, all of a sudden, over the weekend, looks like it’s last year’s model,” he said.

While smaller companies may be struggling to keep up, the prevailing sentiment among industry players is that demand for such micromobility devices isn’t going away. Michael Pasquali, the founder of the Canadian Electric Bike Association, said people are going to continue to buy e-bikes even if the industry never again reaches the heights it did during the pandemic.

Bike lane bill faces Charter challenge

Cycling group says provincial bill `puts lives at risk’

This article was written by Mahdis Habibinia and was published in the Toronto Star on December 12, 2024.

Cycle Toronto called the amendment to Bill 212 that protects the provincial government from lawsuits if cyclists are injured or killed on streets where bike lanes are removed is a tacit admission of “the safety risk the government is creating.”

A cycling advocacy group has launched a Charter challenge against the Ford government’s recent legislation that takes aim at Toronto’s bike lanes.

In a lawsuit filed in Superior Court, Cycle Toronto, along with bike lane users Eva StangerRoss and Narada Kiondo, argues that a section in the provincial government’s Bill 212 “puts lives at risk.”

The group’s lawsuit seeks an immediate injunction to prevent the removal of bike lanes on Bloor Street, University Avenue and Yonge Street. It also asks the court to strike down the section of Bill 212 that allows for removal of the bike lanes — which the provincial government says is a step needed to improve traffic flow in the gridlocked city — if it finds it violates the Charterprotected rights to life and security of person.

Michael Longfield, executive director of Cycle Toronto, was unavailable for an interview Wednesday because he is in hospital after “getting doored” in a painted bike lane on St. George Street earlier this week. Longfield sustained a serious break in his right leg that required immediate surgery, “an all too common reminder for the need for protected cycling infrastructure like on Bloor, Yonge and University,” he said in a text.

In a press release, Longfield’s group argued there is evidence separated bike lanes have little effect on congestion, but do prevent death and injury. “Without evidence, the Government of Ontario claims removal of the bike lanes addresses traffic concerns and that they could be replaced by bike lanes on secondary routes. Those routes do not exist,” according to the release.

Bronwyn Roe, a lawyer at Ecojustice, who along with Paliare Roland LLP, is representing Longfield’s group, said that Bill 212, the Reducing Gridlock, Saving You Time Act, is “an arbitrary and dangerous piece of legislation” and the province “cannot be allowed to put the lives of Toronto cyclists and Ontarians at risk.”

Roe noted bike lanes are an “essential safety mechanism” in a city with people increasingly looking at alternative transportation methods. Removing them “locks in irresponsible cardependence and is not in the best interest of communities,” she added.

Transportation Minister Prabmeet Sarkaria’s legislation was also amended recently to protect his government from lawsuits if cyclists are injured or killed on streets where the bike lanes are removed.

Cycle Toronto called this amendment “a tacit acknowledgment of the safety risk the government is creating.”

Dakota Brasier, a spokesperson for Sarkaria’s office, did not comment on the lawsuit directly, instead pointing to a recent report about how gridlock costs Ontario’s economy $56 billion and 88,000 jobs annually.

“Gridlock is at an alltime high and we need to deliver on our plan to keep people moving by bringing sanity back to bike lanes and building new roads, highways and transit,” Brasier said.

Some legal experts say the Charter challenge may be the only viable legal strategy to reverse course before the bike lanes are removed in the coming weeks.

The Cycle Toronto lawsuit “is a very strong Charter challenge because the evidence shows bike lanes save lives and … the (province) is proceeding with disregard for the available evidence,” said Bruce Ryder, an associate professor at Osgoode Hall Law School who’s not involved in the lawsuit.

Ryder added that the group only has to show “on the balance of probabilities” it’s more likely than not that’s the case.

Though a Charter challenge of Premier Doug Ford’s decision to cut city council almost in half failed at the Supreme Court of Canada in 2021, according to Ryder that case was different because “there’s no right to have a particular political structure.”

David Schneiderman, professor of law and political science at the University of Toronto who’s also not involved in the lawsuit, said Charter challenges are “iffy propositions at the best of times.” But, he added, “I think there’s a plausible argument to be made” if the strength of the evidence holds up in court.

“Also plausible is the argument that (this section in Bill 212) violates the principles of fundamental justice because it’s considered to be arbitrary,” said Schneiderman, but the legal team will have to show there’s “no rational connection” between removing bike lanes and decreasing congestion.