Complete Toronto’s Active Transportation Network in 2 Years

Summary

Toronto’s active transportation system is still a patchwork. Bike and scooter lanes exist in some areas, but too often they end abruptly or never connect to one another. This piecemeal approach leaves riders stranded, fuels conflict with drivers, and reduces casual use of the system by increasing perceived safety risk of riders. The city needs to approve a full network map and then deliver it in two years using quick-build methods. That network should put bike lanes on main streets where they are essential, but rely on safer parallel routes where they work just as well — a balanced approach that helps move beyond the old bike-versus-car fight. By doing so, Toronto can replace today’s fragmented lanes with a safe, continuous grid that serves every neighbourhood and ends the cycle of block-by-block battles.

Bold Goal: In 2 years, Toronto will complete a connected active transportation network that links every neighbourhood with safe, continuous routes for cycling, scooters, and other active transportation.

‍

Background and Motivation

Toronto’s active transportation network has grown in recent years, but it is still far from complete. Bike lanes and trails exist in scattered sections, often ending suddenly and leaving riders to merge back into fast-moving traffic. For confident cyclists, these gaps are frustrating; for new or cautious riders, they are enough to deter them entirely. This patchwork approach has kept usage lower than it could be, created daily points of conflict with drivers, and reinforced the perception that cycling infrastructure is more about politics than planning. The lack of a connected system is why, despite demand, many Torontonians still feel they have no safe option beyond the car.

These disconnections play out in real-world examples. In Scarborough, the Danforth bike lanes end abruptly at Victoria Park, cutting off access to large neighbourhoods further east. At the city’s western border in Etobicoke, Mississauga built a trail along Burnhamthorpe, but on the Toronto side along Bloor it simply disappears. In midtown, there is still no safe north–south corridor linking Bloor to Eglinton, leaving riders to choose between weaving on residential side streets or braving wide arterials. Each of these missing pieces illustrates the same systemic problem: Toronto has invested in parts of the network, but without continuity those investments can’t deliver their full value.

The recent controversies around Bloor West in Etobicoke and Avenue Road show why a system-wide approach is essential. On Bloor West, the extension of bike lanes created Toronto’s longest continuous route, but some opponents immediately argued for restoring parking or car lanes. Parking, however, should be the lowest priority when balanced against safe bike lanes and efficient traffic flow; the design must first protect lives and keep the street moving.

‍

On Avenue Road, the debate has raged over whether it should host bike lanes directly. In this case, safer parallel routes already exist just to the west on Beverley, St. George, and Poplar Plains, which can be upgraded with diverters, speed limits, and protected crossings. This demonstrates the broader principle: some arterials are indispensable spines, while others can remain car-priority if strong, continuous alternatives serve active transportation.

‍

Beyond the corridor-level debates, Toronto also struggles with basics like loading and deliveries whenever new lanes are installed. Business owners worry about access for suppliers, and drivers are left confused by curb changes. These concerns are legitimate — but they are solvable with minimal planning. Every new project should deliberately include space for loading and short-term access on side streets, so commerce continues smoothly while streets become safer. Without addressing these details, the city risks repeating the same cycle of opposition.

Another barrier is wayfinding. Today’s bike lanes are poorly signed, and digital maps often do not reflect new or safe routes in real time. For new riders especially, the lack of clear direction makes the system harder to use. A network cannot function if people can’t easily see how to get from A to B. Upgrading both the physical signage on streets and the digital integration with platforms like Google Maps, Apple Maps, and popular cycling apps will be critical to making the network intuitive and accessible for everyone.

Other cities show what happens when you act quickly and decisively. Seville built 80 km of bike lanes in under two years¹ and saw cycling increase more than tenfold while traffic declined². Paris doubled cycling in a single year by adding hundreds of kilometres of connected routes. Calgary installed an entire downtown grid as a pilot and tripled bike trips in less than a year. In each case, what worked was speed, scale, and a complete network — not a slow, piecemeal build. Toronto has the same opportunity, but only if it shifts from debating single corridors to delivering a connected system.

‍

Real World Solutions

Paris, France – Big City Transformation. Paris rapidly expanded its cycling network under Mayor Anne Hidalgo, adding hundreds of kilometres of protected lanes in just a few years. During the pandemic, the city converted car lanes into “coronapistes” — quick-build bike routes that connected existing gaps. The result was dramatic: between 2022 and 2023, cycling in Paris doubled, and bikes now outnumber cars in the city centre³. Paris shows how a large, congested city can shift travel patterns by acting boldly and at scale.

Seville, Spain – Speed and Completeness. In the late 2000s, Seville built 80 km of bike lanes in under two years, deliberately choosing to complete the whole network at once. The approach turned cycling from a niche activity into a mainstream mode of transport. Ridership grew more than tenfold in just a few years, proving that people will switch modes when a full, safe system appears quickly. Seville demonstrates that completeness and speed matter more than perfection at the start.

Calgary – A North American Pilot. In 2015, Calgary launched a connected downtown bike grid as a pilot, installing several kilometres of protected lanes all at once. Within a year, daily bike trips tripled, sidewalk cycling nearly disappeared, and two-thirds of residents supported making the lanes permanent⁴. Calgary’s success shows that even in a car-oriented North American city, a fast and connected rollout can overcome skepticism and win long-term support.

‍
Washington, D.C. – Scooters in the Mix. Washington embraced e-scooters as part of its micromobility strategy, allowing them in bike lanes and pairing the rollout with designated parking areas. The result was a rapid uptake: tens of thousands of trips each day, mostly short rides that would otherwise have been by car or on sidewalks. By treating scooters as part of the active transportation family rather than banning them, D.C. broadened use of its network and built a wider base of support for protected lanes.

‍

What Must Be Done

Complete the network quickly with temporary infrastructure.
Toronto must commit to finishing a safe, citywide active transportation network in two years. That means approving a complete and binding map, closing every gap, and using quick-build methods to deliver protection now rather than waiting for reconstruction. The goal is a continuous grid, not half-finished routes. Temporary tools like paint, bollards, modular curbs, and signal tweaks can create safe routes immediately, with permanent curbs and raised designs phased in once the full network is complete.

• Approve a binding Active Transportation Network Map at the start of the program.
• Define a minimum grid with continuous east–west and north–south spines across all districts.
• Guarantee that no new project opens unless it connects directly into the network.
• Launch a Gap Closure Program to eliminate missing links and short gaps across the city.
• Deliver at least 50 km of routes per quarter using quick-build materials and standardized designs.
• Upgrade high-use corridors to permanent infrastructure after the grid is complete.

‍

Balance bikes and cars.
Not every arterial should carry a bike lane. Streets that function as important traffic routes for cars should remain car-priority unless no reasonable parallel route exists. Even with bike lanes in place, riding beside heavy car volumes is intimidating and rarely enjoyable, which makes safer, continuous side-street corridors the better option wherever they can provide the same access. Bike lanes should only be placed on arterials when there is no practical alternative, or when a route would otherwise remain disconnected. In all cases, on-street parking should be the first use of space to give way — safety and traffic flow come before storing cars on the curb.

• Build bike lanes on arterials only when no parallel route can reasonably provide the same connectivity.
• Prioritize continuous side-street corridors, which are calmer, safer, and more appealing for everyday riders.
• Establish clear criteria for deciding whether a corridor is bike-priority, car-priority, or best served by parallel routes.
• Make on-street parking the first trade-off when reallocating space, keeping safety and traffic flow as higher priorities.

‍

Support users and communities.
A network only works if people can use it confidently and businesses feel supported. Today, wayfinding is inconsistent, digital maps often don’t show safe routes, and merchants worry about deliveries and access. To succeed, Toronto must integrate wayfinding upgrades, digital mapping, and business supports from the start. Clear direction, reliable loading space, and consistent maintenance will make the system functional, intuitive, and widely accepted.

• Create a unified wayfinding system with consistent signage and markings across the network.
• Integrate new routes immediately into Google Maps, Apple Maps, and cycling apps.
• Guarantee convenient loading and short-term access zones for every commercial block.
• Launch “Bike to Shop” and other promotions with BIAs when routes open.
• Provide targeted driver and rider education alongside each rollout.
• Maintain all lanes year-round with plowing, sweeping, and repainting on clear schedules.

‍

Create a delivery office with authority.
Building an entire network in two years requires a governance model built for speed. Toronto’s current ward-by-ward approvals and multi-year studies are too slow and too vulnerable to political fights. A dedicated delivery office with direct authority is needed to keep projects on schedule. This office must bundle projects, cut red tape, and report quarterly progress against the two-year deadline.

• Launch an Active Transportation Delivery Office at the start of the program.
• Bundle projects into quarterly 10–30 km delivery packages.
• Coordinate with utilities so relocations don’t stall installations.
• Report quarterly on kilometres delivered, gaps closed, and residents within 300 m of a safe route.

‍

Common Questions

Won’t this make traffic worse?
Experience in other cities shows congestion is caused mainly by car volumes, not bike lanes. When safe routes exist, many short car trips shift to bikes or scooters, freeing up space on the road. By prioritizing traffic flow on key arterials and focusing bike lanes on alternatives where possible, this plan reduces conflict and keeps streets moving.

How much will this cost?
Delivering a full citywide active transportation grid with quick-build methods is possible at $1–2 million per 5km, meaning thousands of kilometres can be delivered for the price of a single kilometre of subway construction. Permanent upgrades such as concrete curbs and raised crossings do not need a separate funding program — they can be added later as part of the normal lifecycle of road resurfacing and reconstruction. This approach keeps upfront costs low while ensuring the system becomes permanent over time.

Why not build slowly and carefully?
Incremental expansion works for long-term projects like subways, but it fails for bike networks. Slow, piecemeal delivery leaves gaps that discourage riders and invite constant opposition. Cities like Seville and Paris saw success by moving quickly and building complete grids — Toronto should do the same.

Isn’t Toronto’s weather a barrier?
Most trips in Toronto are short — under 5 km — and e-bikes and scooters make longer rides much easier. With proper snow clearing and all-season maintenance, many people will cycle year-round, as they already do in cities with harsher winters. The network will still be valuable even if usage dips in the coldest months, because it gives people a safe option most of the year.

Do bike lanes hurt local business?
Evidence from Toronto and other cities shows that bike lanes generally help or have little impact on businesses. Cyclists and pedestrians shop more often, and safer, calmer streets attract more people. This plan also guarantees loading and short-term access, so merchants can serve customers without disruption.

‍

Conclusion

Toronto’s active transportation network is still a patchwork, delivered slowly and debated one block at a time. The result is unsafe gaps, endless fights over space, and infrastructure that never reaches its potential. A two-year blitz to complete the network can change that. By approving a binding map, using quick-build methods, and balancing bikes and cars intelligently, Toronto can finish the job quickly and affordably. Other cities have proven this works: once a safe, continuous grid is in place, people use it, support grows, and the old debates fade. This is not about ideology — it is about building a system that works. If Toronto commits to completing the network in two years, it will deliver safer streets, more travel choices, and a city where everyone can move more efficiently.

‍