Every café stop has heard the prediction. A bike lane goes in, nobody will use it, traffic will grind to a halt, and the shops will die.
Cities have been running that experiment since the mid-2000s, and they kept the receipts: rider counts, crash reports, travel times, and sales figures. Those receipts show what happens when cities build bike lanes.
Quick terminology first. A painted lane is a stripe on the road, a protected lane is separated by posts or a curb, and a sharrow is just a bike symbol painted in the traffic lane.
The stakes are live again. In October 2026, removal crews arrived at a protected lane in Toronto, Canada.
Here is what the numbers showed, outcome by outcome, including the parts that didn’t go to plan and what it means at 20 mph.
Did People Actually Start Riding?
The oldest objection is that lanes sit empty. In Seville, Spain, they filled.
From 2006 to 2011, the city built a continuous network of separated cycle paths. Cycling went from a negligible share of trips to about 6%, and bike counts at fixed points rose roughly sixfold.
Paris, France, tells a similar story over a shorter window. In a 2022-23 GPS survey of 3,337 residents reported by the City of Paris, bikes made up 11.2% of trips inside Paris against 4.3% by car, up from about 3% in 2010. The pandemic, e-bikes, and new car restrictions all helped, so the lanes don’t get all the credit.
The cleanest US evidence comes from 28 cities. A 2025 study followed 14,011 block groups for six years and found that neighborhoods gaining protected lanes saw bike-commuter growth 4.3 times larger than those with no new lanes, and 1.8 times larger than painted-lane blocks. Sharrow mileage showed no significant link, and the authors add nuance to the old build-it-and-they-will-come mantra.
A PNAS study found that in 2020, provisional pop-up lanes in 106 European cities lifted cycling by between 11% and 48% on average within four months.
What got built mattered as much as whether anything got built. More riders on the road raises an obvious question. Did crashes follow?
Were Streets Safer for Everyone, Not Just Cyclists?
The fear that follows is visual: more bikes means more bodies in the road. New York City’s own numbers say the opposite for protected lanes.
The city’s 2014 protected-lane report tells the story. On Manhattan protected lanes with three years of after-data, injury crashes fell 17%, pedestrian injuries 22%, and total injuries 20%, even as cycling rose.
Washington, DC saw the same shape on 15th Street NW. After a new stretch of protected lane went in during 2021, the city’s after-study found all crashes down 46% and bicycle injury crashes down 91% on that corridor, though the city’s own exposure-adjusted update later put the all-crash drop lower.
Even the cheap fix moved the needle. Separating a painted lane with flexible posts can cut bicycle-vehicle crashes by up to 53%, per the Federal Highway Administration.
A 13-year study of 12 large US cities in the Journal of Transport & Health found an association, a link rather than proof, between protected lanes and better safety for everyone. More cyclists alone didn’t explain it.
The same New York report doesn’t hide the gaps. Cyclist injury risk on 8th Avenue barely moved, down 2.4%, and one Broadway segment got worse, up 11.2%. Gains followed protection and design, not paint alone.
💡 Painted, protected or no lane at all? Protected is good, if it’s designed properly.
Which sets up the loudest objection of all: what did it do to car traffic?
Did Car Traffic Grind to a Halt?
If you listen to the opposition, the next chapter writes itself: gridlock from lost lanes.
New York’s central business district taxi speeds stayed steady, per the city’s 2014 report. On Washington’s 15th Street, the city’s first after-study found car speeds rose 17%, and peak travel times came in about 36 to 40 seconds shorter.
Calgary, Canada, built a 4-mile (6.5 km) pilot cycle track network in 2015. Weekday bike trips on those routes tripled, and the city’s final report judged peak car travel times minimally impacted. Women and children made up a higher share of riders, and sidewalk riding dropped.
Toronto, Canada, is the honest exception. The Bloor Street pilot in 2016-17 grew cycling 49% and cut near-miss conflicts, those close calls between road users, by 44%. The city’s evaluation also recorded the sting: peak car travel times rose by up to 8.5 minutes at first, then the increases fell to roughly 2 and just over 4 minutes after signal retiming.
One comfort stat from the same report: drivers comfortable driving beside cyclists rose from 14% before to 66% after.
The Bloor minutes were real. What about the shops, then?
What Happened to the Shops?
The next fear is economic: lose parking, lose customers.
On New York’s 9th Avenue, from 23rd to 31st Street, local retail sales rose up to 49% after the protected lane went in, against 3% for the borough as a whole.
Toronto’s Bloor pilot found card spending grew more than in the surrounding area and more than on a comparison street.
The broader pattern holds up. A 2021 review of 23 US and Canadian studies found retail and food businesses saw positive or no measurable effects when bike and walking upgrades arrived, whether or not parking or a travel lane was removed. The carve-out: car-dependent businesses may lose.
A Portland State University study of 14 corridors in six US cities reached the same conclusion: positive or non-significant economic impacts.
Backlash is real, too. A Salt Lake City florist wanted a new bike route removed after a close call.
A Philadelphia funeral home is at war with a bike lane.
So what does more riding actually do for the riders themselves?
What More Riders Means for Health and Carbon
Some of the biggest wins never show up on a street sign.
Take health. A BMJ study of 263,450 UK adults found cycle commuters had about a 41% lower risk of death from any cause over roughly five years. That is a link from one large cohort, not a controlled lane trial, but it suggests what a rider gains.
Then the carbon. Researchers tracking people across seven European cities estimated that swapping one car trip a day for a bike trip, 200 days a year, cuts a person’s transport CO2 by about 1,100 lb (0.5 tonnes) a year. The payoff scales with each rider a lane adds.
Which Cities Turned Their Streets Around?
Four cities show how quickly a street can change.
Paris, France: Rue de Rivoli
Cyclists once shared a bus lane with buses on Rue de Rivoli. A two-way protected track was built in phases from 2017 to 2019, and in 2020 the street closed to through car traffic for bikes and pedestrians.
The video pairs a 1990s photo of the street with today, then rides through Paris.
The city’s own counters recorded 8,945 riders per weekday in 2022 and 11,391 a day in 2025, when it was Paris’s second-busiest bike route.
Seville, Spain
A basic network was built in two years, mostly on top of former parking lanes, with some traffic lanes narrowed or removed. In four years the city went from 7.5 miles (12 km) of disconnected paths to 75 miles (120 km) of protected bike lanes.
The video shows street-level riding on the network.
Crashes per counted cyclist fell from 0.17 in 2006 to 0.05 in 2011. Researchers called cycling in Seville more than three times safer, though total crashes still rose because far more people rode.
Hoboken, New Jersey
Between 2014 and 2018, the city recorded 4,451 crashes, 10 serious injuries and 3 deaths. It added protected bike lanes, a citywide 20 mph speed limit, and 418 posts at intersections to keep corners clear.
The video follows the mayor through the corner and street changes.
The city credits the whole package, not bike lanes alone. As of March 2026, it reported nine consecutive years without a traffic death.
Montreal, Canada
In 2020 Montreal built the first leg of its REV network, a planned 119-mile (191 km) web of protected express bike routes, on rue Saint-Denis, a major street. Car traffic was cut to one lane per direction on part of it.
The video tours the REV and how it was planned.
The lanes are 7.9 to 9.8 feet (2.4 to 3 m) wide, and signals are timed for riders at about 12 mph. The city’s own counters on Saint-Denis averaged 5,167 riders per weekday from May to October in 2021, rising to 7,790 in 2025, about 51% more.
The flip side is less comfortable. What happens when a city takes those lanes away?
What Happened When Cities Tried to Remove Them?
The best removal evidence comes from London, England, though technically from low-traffic neighborhoods, or LTNs: residential streets closed to through traffic, not bike lanes themselves.
Of 113 LTNs built between 2015 and 2024, 27 were later removed. A 2025 London study found the LTNs cut all injuries by 35% and deaths or serious injuries by 37%.
After removal, injuries climbed back to pre-LTN levels.
Toronto, Canada, is testing the same question in real time. Ontario’s 2024 law, Bill 212, allowed removing lanes on Bloor Street, Yonge Street, and University Avenue. A lower-court judge found in 2025 that removal would raise the risk of harm and death.
The Court of Appeal for Ontario overturned that ruling in August 2026. “There is no Charter right to bicycle lanes,” it ruled.
Removal of the Bloor Street West lane in Toronto’s Etobicoke district began in October 2026. That stretch is a different, later section from the 2016-17 pilot measured earlier. Toronto cyclists blocked the trucks as work began.
As of October 2026, Cycle Toronto was seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. It’s too early for crash or travel-time numbers from the removal.
Washington, DC nearly ran the same experiment. The federal push to remove it targeted the 15th Street lane’s section on federal land near the National Mall.
On April 21, 2026, US District Judge Amy Berman Jackson blocked the removal before work was due to start, finding the agencies acted arbitrarily. The lane was not removed.
🔧 If a lane was designed poorly, then design it properly. Don’t rip it out.
That leaves the view from the saddle, when you’re the one riding.
What It All Means for Road Riders
You’re rolling at 20 mph in a group, and the bike lane ahead may or may not be clear.
👍 Do I use protected lanes on a road ride at 18 to 25 mph, or in a group? It depends on the lane. A wide, clean, well-kept lane, I’ll use. A narrow, glass-strewn painted strip, I won’t.
That is the same signal the city data kept sending: what got built mattered. A lane full of glass, leaves, or gravel gets skipped no matter what the map says. We keep a list of the worst bike lanes.
Judge a lane by width, separation, and how often it gets swept, not by whether it exists. Even the Federal Highway Administration says a line of flex posts helps, so a decent lane doesn’t need to be a fortress.
The Bottom Line
Protected lanes mostly did what they promised on the streets that measured them. The costs were real but smaller than predicted. Poor design and removal undid the gains. The experiment is not settled, but the receipts are clear enough to act on.
Next time your city consults on a lane on a road you ride, comment on the design: physical separation, room to pass, and a sweeping schedule. See it done well in our guide to the top bike lane cities.
Know a riding buddy who needs this? Share it below👇
