A network to last: Rail and bike urbanism
A transportation network that is fast, cost effective, healthy, and resilient.
The current chaos in Toronto and Montreal’s conventional local transit systems and the parallel continuous improvement in their cycling networks and rail networks (delayed as those rail improvements are) makes me think — Canada seems to be headed for what I’d call “rail-and-bike” urbanism. So what is it, and what are its positives and negatives?
To introduce the idea, I’d say the Dutch model of sustainable transport is sort of rail-and-bike (plus some EVs and car-sharing). Yes, there are buses and ferries, but they feel somewhat secondary, especially compared to some locales around the world — such as Toronto!
I actually think there’s a place that is even more invested in rail-and-bike than the Netherlands, and that’s the underrated cycling nation of Japan. I still remember seeing a crazy number of e-bikes when I was in Japan 10 years ago.
So, what does this model actually look like? Well, it’s more or less this: short trips are made by walking, long trips are made by rail, and everything in between (including the first and last mile) can generally be made by bike. In Japan in particular, the bus services are surprisingly not very good, but that’s generally not as big of a problem as you might imagine because most places you might want to take a bus to already have rail access, or rail close enough to them that you can bike!
Now, the actually quality of these solutions differs a lot — in both the Netherlands and Japan, I’d say the actual bikes people have access to and parking options for bikes are good, and both countries have rail systems that would blow anything in the Americas out of the water. However, Japan clearly excels with its phenomenal rail services, while the Netherlands is the seriously cycling champion — Japanese cities are still really lagging on bike lanes (and surprisingly EVs as well) on the whole. So then, how does biking around the country work? Well, my impression is from a really solid network of multi-use trails and paths along rivers, canals, rail lines and the like, which I discussed in the below piece.
Japan also does an excellent job having traffic light urban neighbourhood streets, where car traffic exists but is slow and deprioritized so biking is comfortable. Internal neighbourhood streets also often have shops and services, which is another awesome feature.
Now, despite the initial framing of this piece, I actually think rail-and-bike is a good model to build on, even if it means accepting that some things we’ve been doing are probably not sustainable. In many places in Canada, local transit service is on the decline, but we also arguably are overly reliant on it — we have high transit mode share in cities (often comparable to the Netherlands), but often painfully low cycling and walking mode share. This means that if transit wasn’t cannibalizing active modes (or to be fair filling a gap, walking and cycling often feel unsafe) it would be more obvious that we are behind the Netherlands with regard to the share of travel done using low-carbon modes.
Here are some of the arguments I would make for focusing on trying to make rail and bike work in Canada, as well as some of the challenges we face:
For one, rail-and-bike should provide fast travel because you can hop on a bike immediately, and for longer distances rail should generally be frequent for short journeys and increasingly fast for longer ones.
Rail-and-bike urbanism should also be rather cost effective. Rail costs per passenger capacity are lower for operations, and Canada (and many cities around the world) already has a rather extensive and rapidly growing existing rail network, which could get much larger if costs can be brought under control. These cities could better “sweat” their assets by building density at stations, and reducing the amount of short trips being taken on rail systems. Capacity upgrades in the form of larger stations, modern trains, and better signalling technology can also unlock significantly more capacity from our existing systems. At the same time, the costs for cycling infrastructure and bikes are just way lower than for local bus service, both for users and for society — a single routes worth of buses and bus shelters can pay for a lot of bike infrastructure.
Rail-and-bike is also a good model for public health, reducing emissions both CO2 and in the form of tire and brake dust, and increasing physical activity. In the Netherlands, it’s even apparent that cycling infrastructure can be used by people with disabilities using microcars. I also ultimately think car use and ownership particularly in urban areas is bad for your mental health, while riding a bike is arguably quite good!
One of the biggest things I like about rail-and-bike as a model is the inherent resiliency. Rail infrastructure tends to be lean and heavily-used enough that you can keep it in top shape at all times, and even run service twenty-four hours a day on weekends when maintenance is kept on top of. On the side of bikes, much like cars you can ride over any surface and you can also personally maintain your bike — not only affordable but also a good opportunity for regular folks to work with and get their hands dirty. Ultimately, it’s nice to have much of your travel needs fulfilled by something you can power and repair yourself, as opposed to buses.
Now, the idea that cutting back local transit service and replacing it with cycling is likely to be unpopular when framed that way, but my observation in Toronto and Montreal is that this has already happened. Living in a central neighbourhood in Toronto, most destinations could be reached more quickly on bike than on local transit — which often runs only every 15-20 minutes. Improved cycling options seem likely to have a particularly big impact on the Toronto streetcar network, which is particularly bad for diagonal trips. In Montreal, something similar has been happening, with street redesign and new “REV” routes being deployed across the city — and reduced bus service. In both cases, the bus ends up still existing, but becoming the option of last resort — or for bad weather — which, if operated with reliable (if infrequent) service with nice vehicles seems fine!
That’s not to say we are all the way there…
For one, our rail stations and other major destinations need better bike access and storage options. Without these, people are going to be afraid to use the bikes they have, as bike theft is a major issue. It’s also just not particularly nice to get on a cold wet bike during less warm parts of the year. Every rapid transit station should have indoor bike storage as seen in Vancouver (this can often be created by repurposing some car parking), and major local transit stops should have lockers and high quality racks. Major destinations like transit interchanges, malls, hospitals, universities, and large office complexes should have the large indoor bike parking facilities — akin to the ones from the Netherlands frequently shared on social media. Fortunately, bikeshare also helps reduce the need for this somewhat.
Stations and other major destinations like those mentioned above should also have safe connections to any multi-use paths nearby, and likely also high quality cycle tracks going out in all cardinal directions.
With these changes, Toronto in particular would be a pretty great city for rail and bike. Today, you can already reliably get most anywhere on the small rail system, and the rail system is getting much better and bigger. We just need to do the same for the bike network.
I am not a big fan of bike-and-rail to be seen as the be-all, end-all of urban transit. Because the Netherlands (and some cities in Germany, and probably elsewhere as well) show that it is not.
Sure, people biking somewhere is much better than them driving. No doubt about that. But from the perspective of "cities for humans", any kind of personal vehicle that people bring and then have to park somewhere in large numbers at key points (like train stations) and leave them there for extended periods of time (such as while they are traveling to work on a train, are at work, and then are traveling back) will become a problem. Parked bikes need less space then parked cars, but if they are many of them they still need considerable space nonetheless. Utrecht, for example, has the largest underground bike parkade in the world with > 10,000 spaces, but still there are tons of bikes parked next to Utrecht central station, making the life of pedestrians difficult.
So if we move from a "people drive everywhere" to a "people bike everywhere, or bike to the central station and take trains everywhere" system, that is an improvement (and a big one), but we are losing out on the much better system of "people take a bus to the station and then travel by train everywhere".
I like taking my bike out of the city on a train for some long bike rides. Here in the UK, I can do this easily by taking by bike on the train for free, in most cases as it varies by operator, and then I cycle along sections of the National Cycle Network created by Sustrans, then I go home with my bike on the train again. It's so easy and cheap and I have a great day out!