The Forgotten Suburbs: How Quantitative Micromobility Research Failed to Consider Transportation Equity

A recent study by a group of McGill researchers concluded that doubling Montreal’s cycling infrastructure would have minimal impact on drivers. Their reasoning is simple: bike lanes take up far less space than automobile lanes. Yet this research has important blind spots. It overlooks drivers’ concerns and fails to address broader criticisms of the city’s growing fixation on bike lanes.

Skeptics have long raised several points against the relentless expansion of cycling infrastructure. First, Montreal is a winter city. For nearly half the year, bike lanes see limited use, while automobile lanes remain indispensable. Second, Montreal is already recognized as one of the most cycling-friendly cities in Canada. The system is strong: why not prioritize road repairs that save drivers from the costs of pothole damage instead? Third, the constant comparisons to European cities miss the point. North America is fundamentally car-centric, and infrastructure in a single city cannot overturn that reality when people travel across municipal boundaries. Finally, new bike lanes often come at the expense of accessibility. In areas like NDG, barriers created by cycling corridors make it harder to reach churches or small businesses, a pattern that could easily repeat elsewhere.

The McGill study’s conclusion that “the cars are going to be alright” rests on shaky ground. Researchers emphasize the spatial efficiency of bike lanes, but parking, not road space, is the real pain point, especially downtown. Residents from outside the core often avoid visiting because of limited parking, and BIXI stations in the summer remove even more spots. Ironically, BIXI itself is scarce or non-existent in many Montreal suburbs. The city’s downtown businesses bear the cost of this cyclist-first ideology. On top of that, many Montreal streets are already narrow, leaving drivers squeezed into smaller cars even before more bike lanes are added.

A second flaw in the study is its limited geographic scope. The researchers analyzed only traffic within the city of Montreal, ignoring the broader metropolitan region. The North and South Shores, including ARTM zones C and D, were excluded. Suburban residents also need access to the island for work, leisure, and essential services. To double bike lanes without considering them raises a transportation equity issue: who actually benefits? The study measured trips passing through boroughs but neglected origins and destinations. Given the limited range of bicycles, many of these trips are likely short-distance. For suburban residents, however, expanded bike lanes can create barriers, especially where public transit is sparse.

The lead researcher argues that Montreal simply does not have enough bike lanes. But enough for whom? This is precisely why quantitative models fall short: they leave out the human dimension of transportation, and we must bring people back to the conversation. The city’s cycling infrastructure is already world-class. Yet the city’s priorities reveal a bias: during winter, bike lanes are often cleared of snow before sidewalks, a fact so absurd my friend and I can only laugh. Who benefits more from cleared paths in January: the handful of cyclists braving the cold, or the thousands of pedestrians?

The truth is that car demand persists, and it will not be solved by adding bike lanes. If the city truly wants to reduce congestion and emissions, it must invest in robust mass transit: subways, light rail, buses, or even intercity high-speed trains. Give people real alternatives, and they will leave their cars at home. Doubling down on bike lanes while sidelining the needs of suburban residents is not equity — it is obsession.