A recent study conducted by Simon Fraser University (SFU) reveals that while Canada's cycling infrastructure is expanding, the benefits are not equally distributed among all Canadians.
From 2022 to 2024, the country welcomed nearly 3,600 kilometers of new high-quality cycling paths, with the most significant growth occurring in smaller to medium-sized cities. However, the study highlights a concerning trend: neighborhoods with higher populations of children and older adults frequently lack sufficient cycling facilities.
Professor Meghan Winters, a health sciences expert and the lead author of this research published in the Canadian Journal of Public Health, emphasizes, "While the total distance of cycling paths is one way to measure progress, it's crucial to analyze the quality of these infrastructures and identify who truly benefits from them. Cycling can offer a healthy, enjoyable, environmentally-friendly, and cost-effective mode of transportation, provided the environment supports it. Although our findings indicate improvements, not everyone is experiencing these advancements."
Winters was part of the pioneering team that created Canada’s first comprehensive map of cycling infrastructure back in 2022. In their latest study, the researchers utilized open-source data from OpenStreetMap for both 2022 and 2024 to track changes in the nation’s cycling facilities. They assessed these facilities using the Canadian Bikeway Comfort and Safety system, which categorizes cycling routes into three levels: high, medium, or low comfort based on safety and user experience.
Among the key insights from the study:
The overall length of cycling infrastructure increased from 23,502 kilometers to 27,098 kilometers—an impressive addition of 3,596 kilometers, roughly equivalent to the distance between Toronto and Edmonton.
New multi-use paths contributed 2,725 kilometers to this total, marking a 75.8% enhancement over two years. These paths, which are typically located alongside or away from roads, are classified as offering medium comfort for cyclists.
Painted bike lanes along roadways, categorized as low comfort, saw an increase of 492 kilometers, reflecting a 5.8% growth.
High comfort bike-only paths grew by 49 kilometers, representing a striking 46.7% surge.
Areas with larger populations of children and older adults experienced less expansion of cycling infrastructure compared to other regions.
Cities such as Edmonton, Calgary, and Toronto reported the most substantial increases in new cycling pathways.
Traditionally, cities have focused their investments in cycling infrastructure on downtown areas to accommodate commuters or to manage higher vehicle traffic. However, Winters argues for a broader perspective, stating, "Work commutes account for only about a quarter of all trips we make. People cycle for various reasons—be it going to school, shopping, or social outings. It's vital to ensure transportation planning facilitates cycling as an integral part of daily life by providing safe and comfortable bike routes within neighborhoods that connect to essential destinations."
Some municipalities are rapidly adapting by extending cycling infrastructure beyond urban centers into suburban regions. Winters points out Montreal as a notable example of this positive shift. "Montreal already had a robust cycling network, but recently, initiatives like the REV have expanded connectivity into various neighborhoods, creating real access for cyclists," she notes.
Conversely, Vancouver, despite having well-established cycling paths, has seen minimal new investment during the study period.
For further insights, Professor Meghan Winters from SFU’s Faculty of Health Sciences is available for commentary.
This information serves as a reminder that while progress is being made in expanding cycling networks in Canada, there remains a critical need to address the disparities in infrastructure access across different demographics. What are your thoughts on the priorities for cycling infrastructure in your community? Do you believe that more attention should be given to areas with younger and older populations? Please share your views!
