On Tuesday, Mayor Andy Fillmore will put forward a motion that could kill or drastically reduce the Regional Centre Bike Network and potentially throw away over $8 million in remaining federal and provincial funding. Rather than a city that, although imperfectly, is working towards a more sustainable future, the Mayor is proposing to take us back. His motion and its intent goes against all of HRM’s planning, environmental, and transportation goals and appears to be an appeal to populist politics. It is profoundly disappointing approach from a Harvard educated city planner who knows better what the realities of traffic congestion are. Here is the Mayor’s motion:
That Halifax Regional Council waive section 17 of Administrative Order One, requiring a staff report from the Chief Administrative Officer; and Direct the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) to: Pause awarding contracts for any new bike lane design or construction capital projects, effective immediately, until Council receives a supplementary staff report that:
- Provides a list of bike lane projects proposed in the current 4-year capital plan that could result in reduced vehicular traffic capacity and/or increased traffic congestion; and
- Assesses the feasibility of alternative network solutions that could achieve active transportation goals while sustaining or improving current traffic flow.
During the election, however, the Mayor had something different to say. Fillmore’s answers to the Cycling Coalition’s questionnaire:
A: Yes. I’ve heard from cyclists who are frustrated with the disconnected and disjointed network, and drivers who find it hard to understand the value of a bike lane that ends abruptly and puts cyclists back into shared traffic. A fully connected bicycle network should be the priority for HRM.
And
A: Yes. HRM residents are frustrated by traffic congestion almost every day. Making other modes of transportation more attractive is good for everyone: it allows people more choice in their lives, allows people to save money, lead a more active life, and reduces congestion.
How things change when the dust of an election settles! From a priority that reduces congestion to something that should be immediately paused and rethought as supposedly causing congestion? Disappointing.
Budget
A few things to note, HRM’s bike network is behind schedule and overbudget. That is pretty much a truism of every project over the last few years! Projects that have come to Council since the 2024 election that have all been overbudget include the Windsor Street Exchange, Eastern Shore Lifestyle Centre, and Dutch Village Road, but it’s only the bike network that the Mayor seems to think is a nice to have.
The work for 2025 is already fully funded and includes $8 million in federal and provincial money, money that we could lose if HRM abandons the bike network. Work planned for 2026-2028 doesn’t have a contribution from other orders of government (funding runs out this year). If HRM proceeds with work beyond 2025, we’re on the hook for those costs, the total of which is estimated to be $64 million over three years. For context, that’s 1/3 of the Windsor Street Exchange project, and equivalent to just one year’s paving budget (HRM will spend about $200 million on road paving over the same time period). Staff indicated at Transportation Standing Committee that they are seeking additional funding from the province and feds, but that hasn’t been secured yet…. probably the mayor casting doubt on HRM’s commitment to whole project isn’t helpful in making a funding pitch!
If a pause to reconsider is wanted, it shouldn’t imperil 2025 work that Council literally approved as part of the budget just two months ago. Waiving the need for a staff report and immediately throwing work that is already approved and in progress into jeopardy with no evidence or data to support such a major change is foolish. In District 5 the impacts could include Slayter Street, the Dartmouth North project, the Harbour Trail connection from Parker to Old Ferry, and the Sawmill River trail connection. I don’t support pausing this essential work, but if Council wants to rethink, we should be looking ahead to 2026-2028 when federal and provincial funding runs out, not creating chaos in stuff that is well underway and planned for 2025.
Public Support
The public, by and large, actually supports cycling infrastructure. HRM’s own survey results show that. In the recent Residents Survey, 35% indicated that HRM should reduce investment in cycling, while the other 65% either felt that HRM should invest even more or maintain its current program. Bike infrastructure is wrapped up in a culture war that makes for tempting ground for politicians to play wedge politics with (see Doug Ford in Ontario), but the folks who actually hate bike infrastructure aren’t the majority opinion.
Bike Usage
The bike network is used, even in its incomplete half-built state. Some census tracts in the urban core have bike usage that exceeds 10%. Even without the infrastructure to support, HRM is one of Canada’s top cycling cities. HRM has almost entirely built its cycling infrastructure without taking away car lanes. The traffic congestion that we’re experiencing isn’t because of bike lanes, it’s because HRM is growing rapidly and lacks suitable alternatives to car travel. In the absence of alternatives, lots of those new residents are driving. Pausing building out alternatives to car travel only ensures greater congestion and hurts everyone, including those that drive. Bike lanes are being used as a political scape goat for a challenge that has come from not investing in sustainable transportation and the rapid growth that HRM has experienced over the last few years. HRM has added 100,000 people in eight years! That’s the congestion source, not bike lanes. We need to build out active transportation and transit so that people have more choices in how they move around.
Economics
Cities that invest in alternatives are seeing results. If you build it, they will come and it’s also an economic selling point. The Amazon bid that HRM made a few years back, although silly in many ways, did well illustrate one thing: companies want to locate in cities that provide good transit and active transportation. The bid criteria included alternative transportation! If your city doesn’t offer these things, it will increasingly be at an economic disadvantage in attracting business and residents who have the choice of setting up anywhere.
Road Safety
The bike network is literally an issue of life and death. Without suitable road infrastructure, cyclists remain at greater risk of injury and death on the road. When I think of road safety, I always think of Johanna Dean, a teacher killed on Albro Lake Road by a turning truck in 2014. Johanna’s family gave a very good interview to Global (it’s an easy one to tear up at) where they noted the need for better infrastructure. Others have been killed and injured since Dean’s death and if HRM doesn’t provide safe spaces, we will continue to lose and shatter lives on our streets.
What Can You Do?
So it’s pretty clear that I absolutely don’t support the Mayor’s motion whatsoever. Not a surprise I’m sure for anyone who has followed my approach to transportation issues over the years! The Mayor is one vote on Council so whether this passes or fails will depend on what eight other Councillors decide to do. Councillors aren’t like MLAs or MPs who are constrained by party discipline, we get to vote our conscious on every issue. A good argument does matter at City Hall and I have seen people change their minds based on perspectives and evidence that they didn’t have when an idea was first put to them. Reaching out to us is an important part of that. So if you care about this issue, for or against, now is the time to write Council to share your views. I would encourage anyone who has feedback on this proposal to share it before Tuesday’s vote.
Thank you for this well reasoned and thoughtful response! The HRM is lucky to have several councillors, you included, who believe in making policy decisions based on evidence.
Thanks for the timely update, Sam. I’ll brainstorm with the family over the weekend, and have forwarded your explanation to everyone I know.
Andy Fillmore has a problem with pedestrians too this no surprise to me
I may be wrong, but I believe you survey methodology is flawed. I believe that the HRM survey re. bike lanes was not a legitimate randomized survey done by an independent third party. Instead, I believe the survey is based upon residents responding to questions HRM posed on its website. In that methodology, anyone can respond to the survey rather than being a true representative sample (in fact, it may have even been possible for people to respond to the survey more than once). In such a case, it is possible for the bike lane lobbyists to mobilize and skew the survey results inappropriately. I suspect that if a fair and legitimate survey was conducted by and independent third party, the results could be much different.
It is incredibly frustrating for HRM to be paying close to $100M for bike lanes that are used by a minority of HRM citizens and are used very infrequently in the winter, when that money could be better spent elsewhere to serve the bulk of residents.
I looked at the downtown bike lane data on HRM’s own open data last year, and I will use South Park St. as an example. Based on my review of this data, it appears to me that the peak hourly bike count on South Park St. in 2024 was 81, which occurred on Sept. 5 between 4pm and 5pm (this makes sense, as that is typical rush hour for work commuters). The data also shows a max of about 15,000 bikes per month on South park St. (it occurred in July 2024). This equates to a maximum average of roughly 485 bikes per day in on South Park Street. I also did a quick analysis of the bike count data available on HRM’s Open Data website for Hollis St. and found that the peak hourly recorded bike volume on Hollis St. in 2024 was 67 and occurred on July 11 at 5pm (note that the Open Data website shows some higher numbers than this for Hollis St., but these numbers occurred in January and February and had much lower volumes in the immediately preceding and following hours, so I have assumed they were in error). Further, if you look at the data for both South Park St. and Hollis St., you can see the obvious decline in bike lane use in the winter, where counts go much much less to roughly 2,00 to 3,000 users per month, or less than 100 per day. These numbers do not suggest that the bike lanes are being widely used at all. If the data was available, it would also be interesting to compare these numbers to bike trips on these streets before the bike lanes were built. Unfortunately, I don’t think that data is available, but certainly there were bikes travelling on these streets before the bike lane. So the incremental increase in bike lane use after the bike lanes were built is even less than the numbers I have presented above.
I also encourage you to read the following article from “the bee” that also provides some perspective on the bike lanes: https://thebeens.substack.com/p/how-the-f-and-could-this-cost-a-100?r=1kgo8w&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&triedRedirect=true. While you may not agree with everything in the article, it does present some hard numbers about the cost of the bike lanes on a per trip and per kilometer basis. The numbers are astounding: under very conservative assumptions the cost to taxpayers is $5.34/trip, and under more realistic assumptions the cost approaches $487/trip. and the cost per km of bike lane: $1,886,000!!!!
Also, I am not entirely sure about your comment related to HRM has almost entirely built its cycling infrastructure without taking away car lanes. While I am not sure whether that statement is factual as it relates to existing bike lanes, it is certainly not factual with regards to HRM’s plans for the Morris St. bike lanes where that heavily travelled roadway will be turned from a two way street to a one way street.
I for one, support Mayor Fillmore on this motion and I certainly hope that other councillors will as well!
You’re actually wrong. The Residents Survey was sent out to a random sample by a professional company.
Can you please send me the survey questions, the survey results, the survey methodology, the survey sample size, number of respondents, and the means of selecting the survey participants. I would like to have this info to confirm whether the survey was conducted to legitimate standards per the “Standards Methods and Practices” of Statistics Canada. If I am wrong about the survey, I will gladly retract my statement about the survey.
Nevertheless, I stand by the numbers I quoted though for bike users, as that data comes directly from HRM’s own data. In my opinion, the use of the existing bike lanes is woefully inadequate to justify a $100 million cost to taxpayers.
It’s up online. It had a statistically randomized send-out and also an open response that anyone could answer. You can find data from both here. https://www.halifax.ca/city-hall/accountability-transparency/resident-survey
Thanks for pointing me to the survey. The website for the survey says: “From Sep. 20 to Oct. 13, 2024, residents in randomly selected households across the municipality were invited to complete the 2024 Resident Survey. There were 2,029 responses to the survey. Results were provided to Regional Council on Jan. 14, 2025.” When I look at these survey results (by district) regarding bike lanes, here is what I see:
1. What, in your opinion, would you say are the top three (3) most significant things that contributed to [an IMPROVED] quality of life in the region?
– Bike Lanes/Trails: Overall 7%
2. What, in your opinion, would you say are the top three (3) most significant things that contributed to [a WORSENED] quality of life in the region?
– Issues with bike Lanes: Overall 2%
3. Please tell us how satisfied you are with each of the following services provided by the municipality. If you don’t know or have not had any experience with the service to provide a rating, please choose ‘Don’t know / no opinion’: Bike lanes/cycling facilities – Overall: Very Satisfied/Satisfied 42%; Dissatisfied/Very Dissatisfied: 58%
4. For each of the following service areas, please indicate whether you would be willing to pay additional tax to improve the service.: Bike Lanes/Cycling Facilities – Overall: Yes 34%; No 66%
5. For each of the following service areas, please indicate whether you believe the municipality should increase the level of service, maintain the level of service, or reduce the level of service: Bike Lanes/cycling facilities: – Overall: Increase 27%; Maintain 38%; Reduce 35%
6. The municipality spends a portion of its annual budget on infrastructure to meet both growth requirements and community expectations. Please select what you believe are the five most important infrastructure projects for the municipality to invest in over the next five years, placing a 1 beside the single most important, a 2 beside the second most important, and so forth. First Mention – Bikeways – new/repaired (includes local street bikeways, multi-use pathways): Overall 2%
7. The municipality spends a portion of its annual budget on infrastructure to meet both growth requirements and community expectations. Please select what you believe are the five most important infrastructure projects for the municipality to invest in over the next five years, placing a 1 beside the single most important, a 2 beside the second most important, and so forth. Total Mentions – Bikeways – new/repaired (includes local street bikeways, multi-use pathways): Overall 11%
8. What are the greatest barriers to you always being able to get the food you need to be healthy and active? Please select up to three items below, choosing those most important to you – Lack of transportation options (for example, public transit, bike paths): Overall 8%
9. In general, how safe do you feel when using municipal services – Active Transit -Bike Lanes: Very/Reasonably Safe 49%; Somewhat Safe/Safe 51%
10. In your opinion, what are the top three issues facing the municipality over the next five years?
– Active transportation – paved routes, walking paths, bike lanes, safe crosswalks: Overall 2%
The survey website also says: “An open survey containing the same questions was available to all residents to complete from Oct. 4 – 27. Due to the lack of ability to control the sample for this open survey, the results provided below are for information only and should not be used for decision-making purposes as no margin of error can be assigned to the results.” I did not look at the results of this particular survey, as it is clear form the website that those results should not be used for decision making purposes.
So, in my opinion, based on the results from the randomized survey, it seems clear to me that the majority of HRM residents are not in favor of bike lanes and/or do not consider bikes lanes to be a priority for the Municipality. Of particular interest: 66% of the survey respondents said they would not be willing to pay additional tax to improve bike lane/cycling facility service. Thanks again for providing the link to the survey data.
Asking folks in the abstract if they want to pay more tax is a bit of a doozy question. It’s illustrative, but worth noting that the only item that had majority support to pay more was addressing homelessness. Not a single other service had over 50% support. That includes, police, fire, transit, street maintenance, library etc. Is that really people really mean though? They also indicate they want improved service and more/better service doesn’t square with not paying for it. So that’s where I and my colleagues come in. Trying to find the balance between those two wants that are mutually exclusive.
Your interpretation of the data misses critical context. I suggest reading the full report, IMP summaries, or AAA engagements as they interpret the data more fully. For example, these quotes stood out to me from the survey report.”Virtually all residents feel that Integrated Mobility is important… Key Difference -Women, 2SLGBTQ+ folks, lower-income residents, renters, and urban dwellers especially value safe, barrier-free options.” AND “Only half of residents feel safe using bike lanes.” You also keep citing this infrastructure cost without mentioning that costs for all infrastructure projects have skyrocketed since 2017 (luckily the HRM budget has increased accordingly) or the cost of inaction. For example, bike-related accidents cost $78M directly (e.g., healthcare) and indirectly (e.g., productivity) in BC during 2023. If you consider this, plus other factors like lower productivity from congestion (because congestion comes cars and people will remain in cars without alternatives), public health from lower air quality and sedetary behaviours, the poor performance of the recent Bird Canada contract, we reach 100m quickly. Investing in better alternatives means less congested and safer roads for everyone, including drivers. In our city and beyond, research has shown that pausing will not improve congestion nor decrease costs and that investment causes real positive change. It also highlights real financial, safety, and equity issues. Issues that further reporting will not add new information to. You may be interested in this review of 100 studies https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01441647.2025.2480292#abstract or this panel of planning experts moderated by Mayor Fillmore https://www.cip-icu.ca/learning-hub/planning-for-active-transportation/
I took a look at the study you quoted. Its interesting for sure and very academic in nature. It does not, however, supplant the results of the HRM resident survey, which is what should really matter in this case. It is clear from the survey results that HRM residents do not consider bikes lanes to be a priority for the Municipality. And I would suggest even more so at a now projected cost of close to $100 million.
And I do not agree with the councilor’s suggestion that the survey results indicate that more people in HRM want increased investment in bike lanes. The councilor is correct that 65% of survey respondents felt that HRM should invest more or maintain its current program. But the survey results actually say this:
For each of the following service areas, please indicate whether you believe the municipality should increase the level of service, maintain the level of service, or reduce the level of service: Bike Lanes/cycling facilities: – Overall: Increase 27%; Maintain 38%; Reduce 35%
So although 65% of respondents felt that HRM should invest more or maintain its current program, you could also say that 73% said to reduce or maintain investment in bike lane infrastructure. In fact, 35% said reduce while only 27% said increase.
The education of drivers to the rules of cycling is sorely lacking and the presence of bike lanes gives us cyclists a clearer place in the infrastructure, which is critical to the safety of every road user. We need more not less.
This is the part that blows my mind. $100m for paint and green plastic sticks, but seemingly little to no resources or effort allocated to educating, informing, or inspiring our community to:
– Actually consider buying a bike and riding it to work (surely, most haven’t even considered it as an option for varying reasons)
– Respect and value the safety of cyclists (I was brought up and conditioned, like so many here, to see cyclists as a nuisance)
– Consider what would happen to our roads and communities if there were a few thousand more bikes on the road and a few thousand less cars.
Pull a million bucks out of that budget and give it to a non-profit who could actually be out there getting butts on bikes and opening folks’ minds.
I support the mayor 100%. I live on a St that is a major bike lane $25 million creation. I did several bike counts using time lapse photography for councilor Trish Purdy. Autumn. winter and spring… with summer to follow. It takes 7-8 minutes to watch 2 hours of video and count the bikes. The results are as follows: Oct & Nov 35 per rush hour (4-6 pm). Winter February 12 bikes per rush hour 4-6 pm and spring May 48 bikes per rush hour 4-6 pm. To be clear this is for the 2 hour period, not per hour. Again this is the main route that connects Dartmouth Park & Lake Banook. All were clear sunny days. I did one rainy cold day in Feb as well with 2 cyclists. I offer these numbers from memory, but I posted the videos on my FB page the next day at the time.
where is your evidence ?
Does the mayor have a vote?
Yes. Folks often think the mayor only votes if there is a tie, but he actually votes on all issues. For this to pass, he’ll need 8 Councillors to support him. Doing a head count around the room, it will likely be close!
“The public, by and large, actually supports cycling infrastructure. HRM’s own survey results show that. In the recent Residents Survey, 35% indicated that HRM should reduce investment in cycling, while the other 65% either felt that HRM should invest even more or maintain its current program.”
The public supports more cycling infrastructure in theory. The Residents Survey was clear that they do not support it if it entails paying more taxes.
If Council feels confident that a majority of the public supports paying an additional *$64 million* towards cycling infrastructure at the expense of other services (including other transit improvements), then it should at least conduct a survey to confirm it.
the survey results actually say this:
For each of the following service areas, please indicate whether you believe the municipality should increase the level of service, maintain the level of service, or reduce the level of service: Bike Lanes/cycling facilities: – Overall: Increase 27%; Maintain 38%; Reduce 35%
So you are correct in saying that 65% of respondents felt that HRM should invest more or maintain its current program. But you could also say that 73% said to reduce or maintain investment in bike lane infrastructure. In fact, 35% said reduce while only 27% said increase.
The real problem in HRM are these bad drivers who ignor stop signs , pedestrian and cyclist . All thease road pay taxes too Also theare is a crosswalk that the falshing amber lights has been AWOL for 6 weeks now and all get back is they waiting for parts which is a complete BS . Pedestrians and Cyclist are taxpayayer they both have the right to safe infratrature . Andy Filmore hates both Cyclist and pedestrians , but he represwent these jerks that ignor the pedestrians and cyclist . I am a taxpayer I want street to be safe for all user and something to be done to the jerks that are the cause of the real problem
I am a cyclist who supports active transportation and bike lanes. That being said, I support the mayor’s motion. The current plan is way over budget and is unlikely to deliver expected benefits given the context in HRM. To say that all projects are over budgets, like it is a law of nature, is not an excuse to dismiss such concerns out of hand. Also, I have cycled extensively in Quebec and in other N American and European cities, and I know what a well used cycling network looks like. Halifax’s is not anywhere close to that. Other things than just building bike lanes have to happen, otherwise it will not work. I don’t know what those winning conditions would be for Halifax; in other cities it has been congestion charges, restricting parking, coordination with public transport, pushing through corridors in priority, or recently in London (UK) focusing on e-Bikes rental (e.g. the Bird trial here). Weather, geography (hills) and cultural divides (see the comments here!) are real constraints that cannot be ignored, or brushed away with superficial surveys (randomized or not). Unless I see a more systems, collaborative and evidence-based approach to transportation in Halifax, I don’t support adding more lanes at these costs.
There is only one city in all of North America with meaningful congestion pricing (NYC) and even there it’s been intensely debated. I can absolutely guarantee that the mayor is not going to start advocating for parking restrictions and congestion pricing.
“The bike network isn’t very good so let’s stop improving it” is the most bizarre line of argument in this debate. The city’s bike network is less than half built. The best way to continue increasing ridership is to continue piecing it together so that it’s a complete whole.
Thank you for continuing to champion the biking infrastructure we desperately need in HRM, Sam.
The bike network is great for people that use bikes, but not at the expense of the 90% of the population that need to get around. It is an over-built project from an over-exaggerated perceived need.
Transit is an actual need and its development being sacrificed for some bike lanes. A pragmatic approach to this would really help.