The City of Lethbridge's Bike Lane Debate: A Case Study in Civic Accountability and Infrastructure Trade-offs

What councils across Canada can learn about active transportation, federal strings, and balancing local priorities

Immediately following its powerful deliberation on the PCP emissions reduction target, Lethbridge City Council turned its attention to another hot-button issue: the future of its downtown bike lanes. What emerged was a revealing, respectful—and at times passionate—public and council discussion that municipalities across Canada should take note of.

🎥 Watch the Full Bike Lane Discussion Here

📄 Read about the PCP Climate Target Debate: The City of Lethbridge Sets the Standard: A Model for Municipal Scrutiny of the PCP Program

The debate centered around a status update on the city’s protected downtown bike lanes: their costs, usage, accessibility, public reception, and compliance with the terms of a federal grant. While no votes were taken (this was an informational report), the exchange provided key insights into how infrastructure shaped by federal funding can challenge local consensus, business access, and community norms.

---

5 Lessons for Canadian Municipalities from Lethbridge’s Bike Lane Update

1. Public feedback is essential—even on funded projects.
While the bike lanes were introduced under a previous council and supported by federal grants, several citizens shared firsthand concerns: reduced access for seniors and mothers with strollers, low usage (especially in winter), and direct conflicts with local traffic patterns. Civic engagement is still critical—even after money is spent.

2. Infrastructure must serve real needs, not just funding timelines.
Because the federal grant requires a 5-year maintenance commitment, the city cannot remove the infrastructure without repaying funds. This illustrates a broader issue: once municipalities accept top-down funding, local flexibility is often sacrificed. Even if the infrastructure underperforms or causes issues, councils may be locked in.

3. Usage is slowly increasing—but still low.
The city reported a measurable rise in ridership since connecting the downtown lanes to existing routes like 7th Avenue. However, winter ridership averaged around 20 cyclists per day, with summer counts between 100–150. Compared to motor vehicle volumes in the thousands, bike traffic remains minimal—though growing.

4. Maintenance costs are real and ongoing—and higher per user.
The 2024 winter maintenance cost was $40,000, with annual projections nearing $80,000 plus $10,000 for street sweeping and repainting. Smaller equipment is required to service the narrow lanes, driving up per-kilometre costs.

To put this in perspective, Lethbridge’s full snow and ice control budget is approximately $3.88 million for 580 km of roads. That averages about $6,690 per kilometre per year. By contrast, the downtown bike lanes—less than 5 km—will cost roughly $90,000 annually, or over $18,000 per kilometre, nearly triple the cost per km.

5. Perception matters: Is parking available—or are people just avoiding downtown?
Staff cited data showing that parking stalls near the bike lanes were still 64–65% occupied at peak hours. But councillors and residents raised a key point: what if those numbers reflect avoidance rather than availability? Several residents said they no longer drive downtown due to the confusion and disruption caused by the bike lanes. Metrics must be paired with real-world experience.

---

Broader Implications for Local Governance

Bike lanes are often framed as neutral infrastructure, but in reality, they touch on multiple values:

• Mobility justice (Who gets access?)

• Fiscal prudence (Are we spending wisely?)

• Sovereignty and consent (Are decisions local or federal?)

Lethbridge’s debate showed that residents want infrastructure that reflects their lived experience, not international development trends. Councillors raised valid questions about transparency, fairness, accessibility, and usage goals.

---

Key Questions Other Councils Should Ask:

• Are federally funded projects imposing rigid conditions or timeframes?

• Are we tracking real usage and long-term maintenance costs?

• Are businesses, seniors, and mobility-impaired residents being adequately consulted?

• Could future infrastructure serve broader goals without restricting access or parking?

• Are people using the new infrastructure—or avoiding it altogether?

---

Conclusion: Dialogue Over Dogma

Lethbridge’s approach—inviting respectful public comment, clarifying cost realities, and distinguishing between policy and practicality—offers a model for other cities. This isn’t about being “for or against” bikes. It’s about ensuring infrastructure is justified, balanced, and locally accountable.

With continued reporting, council oversight, and public input, the city can ensure that any mode of transportation—bike, car, or pedestrian—reflects the real needs of the people it serves.

Thank you to the citizens who showed up, to the councillors who asked hard questions, and to the staff who answered with transparency.

More updates to come after May 13.

#LethbridgeListens #ActiveTransportation #LocalControl #FCMFederalStrings #BikeLaneReview