‘All Ages and Abilities’: exploring the language of municipal cycling policies

ABSTRACT

As cities work to support greater uptake and equity in cycling, the terminology ‘All Ages and Abilities’ (or AAA) is increasingly common in cycling research and practice vernacular. However, it is unclear the values that underlie this. We undertook a policy scan of Canadian municipal and regional policy documents to understand: the language used to describe ‘All Ages and Abilities’; the infrastructure specified; how municipalities and regions define a cycling network; and how equity and priority populations are incorporated into these plans. Of 35 plans, 25 mentioned ‘All Ages and Abilities’. Fourteen mentioned specific ‘All Ages and Abilities’ infrastructure, with cycle tracks, local street bikeways, and multi-use paths most frequent. Reference to the idea of a network was common (32 plans), with some defining this as a minimum grid. Within plans that used ‘All Ages and Abilities’ language, children and older adults were the most common populations mentioned (e.g. ‘Ages’), but there was more ambiguity around who was being referred to with ‘Abilities’. As use of this terminology continues, clarity is needed on the meaning and values that underpin it. A lack of specificity in design standards and whom this infrastructure serves is a barrier to concrete, consistent implementation.

KEYWORDS:

• Bicycle network
• equity
• all ages and abilities
• transportation plans
• policy scan
• active transportation planning

1. Introduction

The most recent report from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change identifies cycling as a critical component of climate adaptation and resiliency within the transportation sector (IPCC, 2023). Building a connected network of safe, comfortable, and direct cycling routes is an essential first step to a convenient alternative to motor vehicle use (Szell et al., 2022). Yet while some neighbourhoods and cities in Canada have invested heavily in the creation of safe and protected cycling infrastructure, others have lagged, thereby creating inequities in spatial access to safe cycling spaces (Doran et al., 2021). Investments in cycling infrastructure reflect historical, gendered, and racialised patterns of involvement in municipal decision-making, resulting in investments that continue to reinforce inequities in urban environments (Sheller, 2018). In Canada, there is clear demographic stratification in the current cycling population, across age, gender, race, and income (Damant-Sirois & El-Geneidy, 2015; Firth et al., 2021; MacEacheron et al., 2023; Mitra & Nash, 2019; Winters et al., 2023). Structural and systemic forces drive these patterns. For example, gender differences stem from safety concerns regarding traffic and personal safety in public spaces, as well as gendered differences in trip characteristics and division of household labour, and cultural norms and meanings associated with cycling (Lam, 2022; Ravensbergen et al., 2019; Sersli et al., 2020). Commute to work data, while an incomplete picture of cycling, is the most consistent data for cycling in Canada over time. Across 20 years, patterns show that women, older age groups, and racialised people are less likely to cycle to work; comparisons across income groups show higher commute cycling rates for people below the income cut-off, which may reflect a lack of transportation choices (MacEacheron et al., 2023).

Evidence shows that well-designed cycling infrastructure can have health, transportation, and environmental benefits, and support equity by improving access to cycling across different demographic groups (Buehler & Pucher, 2021; Doran et al., 2021; Fishman et al., 2015; Mitra & Nash, 2019). The presence and quality of cycling infrastructure influences who cycles, how much they cycle, and how far they go. North American cities with more cycling infrastructure have greater ridership, leading to a greater proportion of the population that experiences the benefits of cycling (Schoner & Levinson, 2014). High-quality cycling infrastructure such as off-street bicycle paths, local street bikeways, and cycle tracks are the most widely desirable route types, and building these types of infrastructure align with goals of making cycling more accessible for inexperienced cyclists, risk-averse individuals, women, people with children, younger and older people, and people experiencing disability who are less likely to ride near motorised vehicles (Branion-Calles et al., 2019; Clark et al., 2021; Clayton et al., 2017; Dill et al., 2014; Garrard et al., 2008). These protected routes also offer the greatest safety benefits (Harris et al., 2013; Ling et al., 2020; Pucher & Buehler, 2016 (Teschke et al., 2012).; Building these types of cycling infrastructure brings the potential to reshape the prevailing notion of ‘the cyclist’ (Daley & Rissel, 2011) from the image of an exclusive cohort dominated by experienced male riders to one encompassing individuals of diverse abilities and genders who cycle as part of their daily routine.

As a policy approach to improve access to cycling for all, the language of ‘All Ages and Abilities’ (or ‘AAA’) has become increasingly common in bicycle research and practice vernacular to describe the provision of connected networks of safe and comfortable cycling infrastructure (NACTO, 2017). Guidance from the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) defines ‘All Ages’ as being suitable for school-aged children through to older adulthood, while ‘All Abilities’ encompasses less confident cyclists and people experiencing various physical and/or cognitive disabilities (NACTO, 2017). In essence, the term ‘All Ages and Abilities’ embodies a cycling ecosystem designed to be accessible, safe, and comfortable for anyone to cycle.

Despite the known benefits of cycling infrastructure, less is understood about how ‘All Ages and Abilities’ networks are being implemented in policy and on the ground in Canadian cities. For context, the Canadian government has committed $400 million over five years to expand active transportation infrastructure, recognising the crucial role that cycling and pedestrian networks play in reducing carbon emissions and promoting sustainable urban mobility (Government of Canada, 2021). This commitment aligns with the broader goal of achieving net-zero climate emissions by 2050, demonstrating Canada’s commitment to environmental sustainability and climate action.

Moreover, Canada has taken significant strides to promote inclusivity and accessibility through new legislation. The introduction of Canadian accessibility legislation in 2019 aims to uphold the rights of all individuals in Canada to fully participate in society, regardless of their physical and/or cognitive abilities or circumstances (Accessible Canada Act, 2019). This legislation underscores the importance of creating transportation systems and infrastructure that support the needs of diverse populations, further enhancing the development of municipal and regional policies related to cycling.

However, there are challenges in practice when it comes to implementing ‘All Ages and Abilities’ cycling infrastructure. The lack of a standardised definition for ‘All Ages and Abilities’, or even what constitutes a ‘network’, leads to variability in the implementation of such networks across jurisdictions. The vagueness of ‘All Abilities’ language has also been criticised by advocates in the cycling and disability advocacy communities (Halifax Bike Mayor, & Halifax Cycling Coalition, 2021). Additionally, while issues of equity and mobility justice are gaining attention in academia and practice, translating these considerations into everyday planning policies and processes—from design and engagement to implementation and evaluation—remains a recognised challenge (Doran et al., 2021; Sheller, 2018; Williams & Winters, 2023).

Given the increasing popularity of ‘All Ages and Abilities’ networks in the vernacular of cycling planning practice, we undertook a policy scan of municipal and regional policy documents from across Canada. In doing so, we sought to understand the language used to describe ‘All Ages and Abilities’ cycling infrastructure, the types of facilities that municipalities define as ‘All Ages and Abilities’, how municipalities and regions define a cycling ‘network’, and how equity and consideration of priority populations are incorporated into these plans. Municipal and regional plans were chosen because municipalities and regions have the primary jurisdictional authority for the planning, implementation, and maintenance of cycling infrastructure. This research compiles and explores how the language is being used in various Canadian municipalities and shares examples of clear and specific policy language relating to ‘All Ages and Abilities’ networks.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Study area and sampling strategy

We included municipal or regional transport policy documents from each of Canada’s 10 provinces and three territories. We prioritised the largest population centres, which may be more likely to have recently published cycling-related transportation documents and to ensure a broad geographic spread of sampled municipalities within each province and territory (e.g. to avoid selecting neighbouring municipalities from the same urban area). To do this, we selected the core municipality or region from the largest 20% of population centres (POPCTR) within each of Canada’s 10 provinces. As none of Canada’s territories have a medium (populations 30–99,999) or large (population ≥100,000) urban population centre, we selected the largest city in the territory, which fell within a small population centre category (population 1000–29,999).

2.2. Methods

2.2.1. Search strategy

Each municipality’s ‘transportation plan’, ‘active transportation plan’, ‘cycling/bike (master) plan’, or ‘design guide’ was acquired by searching for terms (and variants) within the municipality’s website or Google search with the search phrase ‘municipality + (transportation OR cycling OR active transportation) AND (plan OR guide OR design OR master plan)’. For each population centre, the policy selection criteria were as follows: a city-level active transportation and/or cycling plan no older than 2010, and if none; a city-level transportation master plan dated no earlier than 2010. We selected at least one plan from each population centre.

2.2.2. Data analysis

Data were extracted from each plan using the control-F function for key terms related to ‘All Ages and Abilities’, ‘networks’, and ‘equity’. We also looked through the table of contents to ensure that key sections pertaining to the topic were not missed. We extracted the most relevant content related to a definition/description for terms, and captured this in an excel spreadsheet (available here: ‘Cycling Plan Scan’). An author (KL), who is fluent in French, analysed two plans that were available only in French. They used the same process to review the plans for key terms and definitions. Municipalities and regions use a large variety of terms for cycling infrastructure: for reporting in this manuscript we generally follow the Canadian Bikeway Comfort and Safety (Can-BICS) Classification Scheme (Winters et al., 2020).

Each plan was assessed against the following questions:

1. Was ‘All Ages and Abilities’ described?

• If so, what facility types were considered ‘All Ages and Abilities’?

2. Was the concept of a ‘network’ described?

3. How was equity considered?

• Which priority populations are mentioned?

• How was equity described?

3. Results

Our search resulted in the identification of 35 plans from 24 cities or regions (15 cities with 1 plan, 7 cities with 2 plans and 2 cities with 3 plans) (Table 1). These included cycling plans (n = 13), active transportation plans (n = 12), transportation master plans (n = 9), and one general plan.

Table 1. Full list of Canadian municipal and regional plans used in the scan for ‘All Ages and Abilities’ language.

Jurisdiction		Publication			Mentioned in the document
Municipality	Population (2021)	Source Title	Year	Pages	All Ages and Abilities^a	Specific infrastructure as All Ages and Abilities^b	Network^c	Priority Populations^d	Equity^e
Vancouver, BC	662,248 (CSD)	Transportation 2040	2012	99	X	X	X, A	X	X
		Active Transportation Promotion & Enabling Plan: Background Report	2016	36	X	0	0	X	0
		Transportation Design Guidelines: All Ages and Abilities Cycling Routes	2017	6	X	X	X	X	0
Victoria, BC	91,867 (CSD)	Biketoria: a network that moves you (Cycling Plan)	2016	150	X	X	X, A	X	X, S
		Go Victoria (Transportation Plan)	2020	73	X	X	X, A	X	X, E
Kelowna, BC	144,576 (CSD)	Kelowna on the Move: Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan	2016	132	X	X	X	X	0
		2040 Transportation Master Plan	2022	126	X	0	X, A	X	X
Edmonton, AB	1,010,899 (CSD)	The Bike Plan	2020	44	X	X	X, A	X	X
Calgary, AB	1,306,784 (CSD)	Cycling Strategy	2011	82	0	0	X, A	X	0
		Transportation Plan	2020	102	X	0	X, A	X	X
		5A Network Guiding Principles (Always Available for All Ages and Abilities) Pathway and Bikeway Plan	2021	18	X	X	X, A	X	0
Saskatoon, SK	266,141 (CSD)	Active Transportation Plan	2016	152	X	X	X, A	X	X, S, E
Winnipeg, MB	749,607 (CSD)	Winnipeg Transportation Master Plan	2011	120	X	0	X, A	X	X
		Winnipeg Pedestrian and Cycling Strategies	2014	344	X	X	X, A	X	X, S
Ottawa, ON	1,017,449 (CSD)	Ottawa Cycling Plan	2013	152	0	0	X, A	X	0
Toronto, ON	2,794,356 (CSD)	Toronto Ten Year Cycling Network Implementation Plan	2016	28	X	0	X	0	0
		Transportation Master Plan Final Report	2017	175	0	0	X, A	X	0
Hamilton, ON	569,353 (CD)	Cycling Master Plan Review and Update	2018	53	0	0	X, A	0	X
Kitchener, ON	256,885 (CSD)	Cycling and Trails Master Plan	2020	62	X	X	X, A	X	X, S
London, ON	422,324 (CSD)	City of London Cycling Master Plan	2016	113	X	0	X, A	X	0
Durham Regional Municipality (includes Oshawa, ON)	696,992 (CD)	Regional Cycling Plan (Durham Region)	2021	99	X	X	X	X	X, E
Oshawa, ON	175,383 (CSD)	Active Transportation Master Plan	2015	45	X	0	X, A	X	0
Windsor, ON	229,660 (CSD)	Walk Wheel Windsor Active Transportation Master Plan	2019	161	X	X	X, A	X	X, S, E
Montréal, QC	1,762,949 (CSD)	Montréal, City of Cyclists	2017	36	0	0	X, A	0	0
Québec, QC	549,459 (CSD)	Vision de la mobilité active 2023–2027	2022	40	X	0	X, A	X	X
Sherbrooke, QC	172,950 (CSD)	Plan de mobilité durable intégrée	2021	44	0	0	X	0	0
Moncton, NB	79,470 (CSD) 157,717 (CMA)	Destination 2040: Regional Sustainable Transportation Master Plan	2015	16	0	0	X	0	X
		City of Moncton Active Transportation Plan – Phase Two	2022	27	X	0	X, A	X	X
Charlottetown, PEI	Greater Charlottetown Area 78,858 (CA)	Regional Active Transportation Plan – Greater Charlottetown Area	2012	47	0	0	X, A	X	0
Halifax, NS	Halifax Regional Municipality: 439,819 (CSD)	Making Connections: 2014–2019 Halifax Active Transportation Priorities Plan	2014	91	X	0	X, A	X	0
		Halifax Integrated Mobility Plan	2017	182	X	X	X, A	X	X
St. John’s, NL	110,525 (CSD)	Bike St. John’s Master Plan	2019	125	X	0	X, A	X	X, S
Whitehorse, YK	28,201 (CSD)	City of Whitehorse Bicycle Master Plan	2018	55	X	X	X, A	X	X
Yellowknife, NT	20,340 (CSD)	Smartgrowth Development Plan Transportation Study	2010	75	0	0	0	0	0
Iqualuit, NU	7,429 (CSD)	City of Iqaluit General Plan	2010	90	0	0	0	0	0

^aList of words or phrases the plan uses to define or describe the All Ages and Abilities (AAA) design standard, AAA cycle routes, or AAA cycling networks.

^bList of cycling facilities the municipality considers to be All Ages and Abilities (AAA) (if specified).

^cX=List of words or phrases the plan uses to describe or define municipal cycling network(s). A= A flag if the source document also includes language on access to opportunities, including: work/employment, school/education, grocery stores, child care, commerce, green and blue spaces, healthcare, entertainment, civic amenities, sport and recreation.

^dThe list of the equity-deserving groups the plan identifies as requiring thoughtful design consideration to make cycling accessible. Includes segmentation of the population by age, gender, economic status, race, physical or cognitive ability.

^eEquity discussed in relation to cycling infrastructure or active transportation planning. (Sometimes as universal design or access*). ‘S’ indicates those plans that also included a socio-spatial analysis in their planning. ‘E’ indicates where equity was mentioned in relation to the engagement process.

CSD - refers to Census subdivision; CD - refers to Census division.

3.1. Was ‘All Ages and Abilities’ described?

Of the 35 municipal or regional plans included in the scan, 25 (71%) mentioned the term ‘All Ages and Abilities’ (Table 1), but only a third of these explicitly defined the term (Table 2). The earliest plan that mentioned this term was from 2011, and plans did not begin explicitly defining ‘All Ages and Abilities’ until at least 2017. Winnipeg’s Pedestrian and Cycling Strategy (2011) notes in its ‘Measures of Success’ (p. 322) the ‘need to define what “All Ages and Abilities” means’.

Table 2. Plans that explicitly defined All Ages and Abilities.

City	Type of plan	Year	Example definitions of All Ages and Abilities
Victoria, BC	Bicycle Network Plan	2016	‘The aim of the city’s planned AAA network is to provide an interconnecting system of bicycle facilities that is comfortable and attractive for a broad range of users, including women, children, and seniors…comfortable for users regardless of their ability as they provide comfort and safety through the use of high quality facilities such as protected bike lanes, off-street pathways, and neighbourhood bikeways (Victoria Bicycle Network Plan (2016), pg. 17)’.
Edmonton, AB	Bike Plan	2020
Calgary, AB	Transportation Plan	2020
Calgary, AB	5A Network Guiding Principles	2021
Saskatoon, SK	Active Transportation Plan	2018	‘Planning, design and programming that enables use by people of all ages and with a variety of physical abilities (pg. 171) … Bicycling should be comfortable and enjoyable for people of all ages and abilities – from children to seniors to new bicyclists … Mobility options should provide people of all ages and abilities with the independence to pursue these activities, including those with physical, visual, auditory and mental disabilities (Halifax Integrated Mobility Plan (2017), pg. 7)’.
Kitchener, ON	Cycling and Trails Master Plan	2020
Windsor, ON	Active Transportation Master plan	2019
Halifax, NS	Integrated Mobility Plan	2017
Whitehorse, YK	Bicycle Network Plan	2018

The other 16 of the 25 plans using the terminology had some general description, rather than a clear definition. For example, the Kelowna on the Move Action Plan (2016) used the following description: ‘In order to attract a broad range of users so that users feel confident to walk and cycle, a network and design approach was followed that takes into account needs of users of all ages and abilities’. Although this description captures the spirit of ‘All Ages and Abilities’ design, it does not specify who the users are or what type of infrastructure would fit into this category. This type of description was common across many of the plans, including St. John’s Bike Master Plan (2019) that has a vision to ‘build and maintain cycling infrastructure that is inviting for people of all ages and abilities’, but does not provide detail on what that would look like. Some plans that did not have definitions, per se, still had quite specific information. For example, while Vancouver’s Transportation Design Guidelines (2017) did not define ‘All Ages and Abilities’ cycling infrastructure, they did provide 10 rules to follow when ‘designing or designating a route AAA’. These rules include vehicle volumes and speeds and road grades, surfaces, and widths.

Notably, while many plans aligned with the ‘All Ages and Abilities’ terminology, we encountered instances where jurisdictions went beyond this standard. For instance, Calgary’s 5A Network Guiding Principles (2021) demonstrated a heightened commitment to inclusivity and accessibility by adopting what is referred to as the ‘5A’ language, alluding to the inclusion of lighting and snow clearance. This extended approach, building upon the foundation of ‘All Ages and Abilities’, emphasises a more comprehensive scope by incorporating the principle of ‘Always Available’. Reflecting a comprehensive approach to cycling infrastructure development that is not only inclusive of diverse user needs, the 5A network planning framework promotes an adaptable cycling network that is accessible to everyone and available for year-round transportation and recreation use. Likewise, Montreal’s Cycling Plan (2017) did not mention ‘All Ages and Abilities’, but still identified the need for cycling infrastructure that was ‘safe and accessible year-round’.

The 10 plans that did not mention ‘All Ages and Abilities’ at all ranged from the years 2010 to 2022, with most being from smaller municipalities.

3.1.1. What infrastructure was included in ‘All Ages and Abilities’?

Notably, just over half (14/25) of the plans mentioning ‘All Ages and Abilities’ made specific reference to the types of infrastructure that they consider meeting this designation (Table 1). Within these plans, four different types of cycling infrastructure were commonly identified (Table 3). Almost all the plans mentioned cycle tracks (or protected bike lanes) and 13 indicated neighbourhood greenways/local street bikeways as ‘All Ages and Abilities’ infrastructure. Some plans also included multi-use paths as an example of ‘All Ages and Abilities’ infrastructure (9/14 plans). The fourth type of infrastructure, bike-only paths, was specified in six of the plans.

Table 3. Specific cycling infrastructure indicated to be All Ages and Abilities.

Jurisdiction		Publication		Infrastructure indicated to be All Ages and Abilities
Municipality	Population (2021)	Source Title	Year	Neighbourhood Greenway/Local Street Bikeway	Cycle tracks/Protected Bike Lane	(Separated) Bicycle Path	Multi-use Path	Additional terms or facilities mentioned
Vancouver, BC	662,248	Transportation 2040	2012	X	X	0	0
		Transportation Design Guidelines: All Ages and Abilities Cycling Routes	2017	X	X	X	0
Victoria, BC	91,867	Biketoria: a network that moves you (Cycling Plan)	2016	X	X	X	0
Kelowna, BC	144,576	Kelowna on the Move: Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan	2016	X	X	0	X	Buffered bike lanes on minor collector streets
		2040 Transportation Master Plan	2020	X	0	0	0	Specific facilities (e.g. Okanagan Rail Trail) named as being ‘an important all ages and abilities walking and bicycling connection’.
Edmonton, AB	1,010,899	The Bike Plan	2020	X	X	0	X	Local street bikeway referred to as a ‘Shared roadway’ (speed and volume of motor vehicles limited).
Calgary, AB	1,306,784	5A Network Guiding Principles (Always Available for All Ages and Abilities) Pathway and Bikeway Plan	2021	X	X	X	X	‘Twinned pathways’ instead of bicycle path; Shared spaces
Saskatoon, SK	266,141	Active Transportation Plan	2016	X	X	0	X	Local street bikeways referred to as ‘bicycle boulevards’.
Winnipeg, MB	749,607	Winnipeg Pedestrian and Cycling Strategy	2014	X	X	X	0	Bike paths referred to as ‘Off-street pathways’ with ‘separated bicycle and pedestrian pathways’ noted as having a higher benefit for safety.
Kitchener, ON	256,885	Cycling and Trails Master Plan	2020	X	X	X	X	Multi-use trails and Boulevard Multi-Use trails both mentioned. Bike paths referred to as ‘separated bicycle lanes’.
Durham Region, ON	696,992	Regional Cycling Plan (Durham Region)	2021	0	X	0	X	Paved/buffered shoulders in rural settings; buffered bike lanes; signed routes
Windsor, ON	229,660	Walk Wheel Windsor Active Transportation Master Plan	2019	X	X	0	X
Halifax, NS	HRM: 439,819	Halifax Integrated Mobility Plan	2017	X	X	0	X
Whitehorse, YK	28,201	City of Whitehorse Bicycle Master Plan	2018	X	X	X	X	Separated bicycle path used as an umbrella term for both bicycle paths and protected bike lanes.

However, there was also discrepancy in specific nomenclature and categorisation between plans. One plan relating to a rural context considered paved and buffered shoulders as part of ‘All Ages and Abilities’ infrastructure. Some plans used unique language for cycling infrastructure; these are noted in the ‘Additional Facilities Mentioned’ column in Table 3.

Additionally, 11/25 plans that mentioned ‘All Ages and Abilities’ did not identify specific infrastructure at all.

3.2. Was the concept of a ‘network’ described?

A network of cycling infrastructure is vital so that people are able reach the destinations they need along using routes with high quality, safe facilities. Of the 35 plans, most plans (32) had some mention of the concept of network (Table 1). Six of these 32 plans only had very brief attention, using the words ‘network’ or ‘connection’. For example, the Toronto Ten Year Cycling Network Implementation Plan (2016) described a network as ‘the collection of on-street and off-street cycling routes that form a network (pg. 11)’. Vancouver’s Transportation Design Guidelines: All Ages and Abilities Cycling Routes (2017) simply used the term ‘connected network’, with no further explanation.

The other 26 of the 32 plans expanded on the concept, mainly defining networks in terms of connectivity to opportunities (Table 1) and/or as a minimum grid of separation between bicycle facilities (details within Table 4). Many included some description of the intention of network as a continuous or connected system that gave people access to key opportunities or destinations such as shopping, school, work, etc. For example, Halifax’s Integrated Mobility Plan (2017) describes: ‘bicycling routes are most useful when they form a connected and cohesive network that provides direct and convenient access to important destinations like employment districts, shopping, schools, service centres and other community amenities (pg. 90)’. Destinations that were mentioned across the plans included work/employment, school/education, grocery stores, childcare, commerce, green and blue spaces, healthcare, entertainment, civic amenities, sports and recreation.

Table 4. Plans that mentioned a minimum grid.

City	Type of plan	Year	Specified distance	Description
Victoria, BC	Bicycle Network Plan	2016	200–400 m	‘This network will establish a city-wide minimum grid of AAA bicycle facilities that connects residents to destinations across the city’.
Kelowna, BC	Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan	2016	400–800 m	Grid mentioned but not ‘minimum grid’.
Saskatoon, SK	Active Transportation Plan	2018	400–800 m	‘Developing a minimum grid network ensures that all residents are within 400 metres of a designated bicycle route’. Note: network includes infrastructure not considered All Ages and Abilities.
Kitchener, ON	Cycling and Trails Master Plan	2020	400 m	‘ … is intended to provide a city-wide grid network of AAA on-street cycling routes and off street trails that connects all major destinations within the city … ’
Windsor, ON	Active Transportation Master plan	2019	200–400 m	‘In the downtown core, AAA routes will be within 200–400 m’.
Whitehorse, YK	Bicycle Network Plan	2018	No distance	‘ … connected minimum grid … ’

Six plans included the concept of a ‘minimum grid’ as a key component of a cycling network, for example, that most residents should be within a specific distance threshold of a cycling route or trail (Table 4). Specified distances for minimum grid ranged from 200 to 400 m, with some as high as 800 m. Several plans included descriptions that comprised both connections to key destinations and the minimum grid concept, for example, Kitchener’s Cycling and Trails Master Plan (2020): ‘the City Spine network is intended to provide a city-wide grid network of AAA on-street cycling routes and off-street trails that connects all major destinations within the city, such as major commercial and employment areas, parks, schools, and connections to ION rapid transit stations … the network should be comfortable, connected and complete, ensuring that most residents are 400 m from a cycling route or trail (pg. 22)’.

3.3. How was equity considered?

To understand how the language of ‘All Ages and Abilities’ relates to equity, we examined plans for both considerations of how priority populations and equity were described in both the planning and policy.

3.3.1. Which priority populations are mentioned?

We analysed the presence of explicitly named population groups within policy documents as an indicator of the specific considerations or priorities in cycling planning. Out of 35 plans examined, 28 plans mentioned distinct populations either in a general context or directly concerning ‘All Ages and Abilities’ language (Table 1). Among the 25 plans that used terminology, seniors and children were the most frequently referenced groups, appearing in 23 plans—though not always identical across each term (Table 5). These groups reflect the ‘age’ aspect of ‘All Ages and Abilities’. The phrase ‘planning for ages 8–80’ was also commonly used.

Table 5. Priority populations included in plans that mentioned ‘All Ages and Abilities’ (n = 25).

Jurisdiction	Plan	Year	Children or youth	Seniors	People with disabilities	New riders	People who use different types of cycles	People who use other wheeled devices	Women	Immigrants or newcomers	Different cultural backgrounds	Racialised people	Indigenous people	Low-income individuals	Vulnerable populations
Vancouver, BC	Transportation 2040	2012	X	X	X	X
	Active Transportation Promotion & Enabling Plan: Background Report	2016		X					X		X
	Transportation Design Guidelines: All Ages and Abilities Cycling Routes	2017	X	X	X	X	X	X
Victoria, BC	Biketoria: A network that moves you	2016	X	X					X
	Go Victoria	2020			X									X
Kelowna, BC	Kelowna on the Move: Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan	2016	X	X		X
	2040 Transportation Master Plan	2022	X	X	X									X
Edmonton, AB	The Bike Plan	2020	X	X	X		X	X	X			X		X
Calgary, AB	Transportation Plan	2020	X	X	X									X	X
	5A Network Guiding Principles (Always Available for All Ages and Abilities) Pathway and Bikeway Plan	2021	X	X	X		X	X	X					X	X
Saskatoon, SK	Active Transportation Plan	2016	X	X						X			X	X
Winnipeg, MB	Winnipeg Transportation Master Plan	2011	X	X	X
	Winnipeg Pedestrian and Cycling Strategies	2014	X	X	X					X			X	X
Toronto, ON	Toronto Ten Year Cycling Network Implementation Plan	2016	X						X			X		X
Kitchener, ON	Cycling and Trails Master Plan	2020	X	X						X			X	X
London, ON	City of London Cycling Master Plan	2016	X	X
Durham Regional Municipality, ON	Regional Cycling Plan (Durham Region)	2021	X	X	X				X	X		X		X
Oshawa, ON	Active Transportation Master Plan	2015	X	X							X			X
Windsor, ON	Walk Wheel Windsor Active Transportation Master Plan	2019	X	X						X			X	X
Quebec, QC	Vision de la mobilité active 2023–2027	2022	X	X	X
Moncton, NB	City of Moncton Active Transportation Plan – Phase Two	2022	X	X	X					X
Halifax, NS	Making Connections: 2014–2019 Halifax Active Transportation Priorities Plan	2014	X	X		X
	Halifax Integrated Mobility Plan	2017	X	X	X	X
St. John’s, NL	Bike St. John’s Master Plan	2019	X	X	X	X	X		X					X
Whitehorse, YK	City of Whitehorse Bicycle Master Plan	2018	X	X			X

Turning to the ‘abilities’ dimension encompassed by ‘All Ages and Abilities’, more than half of those plans specifically mentioned people experiencing disability (14/25 plans) (Table 5). Additionally, plans touched upon ‘abilities’ as cycling experience in a broader context, such as new riders (6 plans), and/or different types of cycles (e.g. adaptive bicycles, cargo bicycles, bicycle trailers) (5 plans), and/or other wheeled devices (3 plans). Noteworthy examples include Kelowna’s Transportation Master Plan, though not specific to cycling, includes Policy 1.2, which states: ‘Design the street network to consider the needs of people of all ages and abilities, including people with disabilities’. Similarly, Calgary’s 5A Network aims to ‘be accessible by people of all physical abilities’ and specified having ‘fewer barriers like off-set gates; smoother surface materials; and fewer routes on steep hills’.

Finally, several plans named demographic groups, potentially under the umbrella of ‘abilities’ or as equity-deserving groups more broadly, recognising their under representation in cycling. The plans specifically mentioned low-income individuals (13 plans), women and gender-diverse or non-conforming people (7 plans), immigrants or newcomers (6 plans), racialised people (4 plans), Indigenous peoples (4 plans), and people of different cultural backgrounds (2 plans).

3.3.2. How was equity described?

Over half of the plans referred to equity (19/35) (Table 1). Some included specific definitions, for example, Winnipeg’s Pedestrian and Cycling Strategy (2014) defined equity as: ‘equitable access for all people means that people in all neighbourhoods can successfully complete a bicycle trip’ and went on to expand ‘In Winnipeg, many households do not have access to a car; many residents are too young or too old to drive or are incapable due to illness or disability; or are simply unwilling to drive. Transportation choices for these users may include walking, riding a bicycle, taking transit or carpooling. The bicycle network plan strives to achieve equity in two ways- through population and geographic equity (pg. 153)’.

Out of the 19 plans that mentioned equity, only six plans explicitly described how they were building equity into their planning process, including the actions to address equity through their transportation plan (Table 1). All six mentioned conducting a socio-spatial equity analysis to ensure network development is prioritised in underserved areas. For example, from Kitchener’s Cycling and Trails Master Plan (2020): ‘[we conducted an] equity analysis to identify under-served areas in the city where there is an opportunity to strategically invest in areas where there are higher concentrations of people who are more dependent on active transportation for moving around (pg. 14)’. Three plans, such as Durham Region’s Regional Cycling Plan (2021), mentioned equity in relation to the public engagement process: ‘[Health, economic, or social equity] involves … being integrated into decision making and planning’ (p.28).

4. Discussion

This work was sparked by the increasing use of the ‘All Ages and Abilities’ terminology in research and practice discussions, and concerns raised that a lack of specificity about the ‘what’ and ‘for whom’ may limit the impact of investments towards supporting more equitable uptake of cycling (Halifax Bike Mayor, & Halifax Cycling Coalition, 2021). Our scan of municipal and regional transportation plans provides a snapshot of how communities across Canada are defining and applying ‘All Ages and Abilities’ language as they implement cycling infrastructure. Across the 35 plans, about 70% used this kind of terminology, but only a third of those provided any explanation of how they were using it.

Many municipal and regional plans continue to lack clear definitions of ‘All Ages and Abilities’ cycling infrastructure and/or fail to identify specific infrastructure types that fit this approach. Within those that did name types of infrastructure, four types were commonly mentioned: cycle tracks, local street bikeways, multi-use paths, and bike-only paths. These plans align with the high and medium comfort facility types named in the Canadian Bikeway Comfort and Safety Classification System (Can-BICS), a national effort to standardise cycling infrastructure terminology. For direction on the type of infrastructure, cities may look to provincial or national bodies, as well as peer cities. Some provinces have their own guides, such as the extensive British Columbia Active Transportation Design Guide released in 2019 (577 pages) and the Ontario Traffic Manual Book 18 – Cycling Facilities (2021, 387 pages), and both make mention of specific infrastructure as ‘All Ages and Abilities’. In terms of peer cities, Vancouver’s Transportation Design Guidelines: All Ages and Abilities Cycling Routes (2017) was an early guiding document that has been picked up by other cities. Some of the plans we reviewed included specific references other cities. For example, Quebec City’s Vision de la mobilité active 2023–2027 has a section on ‘What Other Inspiring Cities are Doing’ that describes approaches in Victoria, Vancouver, and Montreal. A reluctance to enshrine certain details in policy documents might stem from the ever-evolving nature of cycling infrastructure best practices or from the need for local, context-based solutions. Ultimately, should the omission of precise infrastructure specifications persist in municipal policies, a gap could emerge between aspirational cycling visions and on-the-ground implementation. To ensure a cohesive and effective transition from planning to execution, it is imperative that ‘All Ages and Abilities’ cycling infrastructure terminology and standards are consistently articulated, understood, and applied across diverse jurisdictions and contexts.

Municipal and regional plans had less alignment on the intended beneficiaries of an ‘All Ages and Abilities’ network. The ‘all ages’ terminology was consistent within plans, but there was a lack of clarity around whether the term ‘all abilities’ refers to experience, physical ability, or if it is meant to include individuals who experience disability. This ambiguity has been noted previously in relation to cycling plans in Halifax (Halifax Bike Mayor, & Halifax Cycling Coalition, 2021). The need for greater specificity in language is important, given that new Canadian legislation mandates that ‘all persons have barrier-free access to full and equal participation in society, regardless of their disability’ (Accessible Canada Act, 2019). People experiencing disability have commonly been excluded from cycling planning, perhaps based on the incorrect assumption that people who live with disabilities don’t or can’t cycle (Clayton et al., 2017). There is a problematic gap on cycling participation amongst people experiencing disability, as there are no pertinent national or provincial datasets. That said, research from focus groups with disabled cyclists identified that many used bicycles in the form of a mobility aid and that cycling was described as providing a safe and functional way to travel to destinations, maintain independence, and engage in physical activity (Cox & Bartle, 2020). There is certainly evidence on the heterogeneity of needs of people who experience disability. Multiple cycling options are available depending on the needs of the individual. For example, tandem bikes may support persons with visual impairments through cycling with a ‘pilot’; tricycles and recumbent bikes can support those with balance disorders, such as stroke or dyspraxia; handcycles may improve mobility for persons with limited lower body movement, such as spinal cord injury, amputation, or arthritis (Andrews et al., 2018). A handful of the plans we reviewed did specifically mention populations using adaptive bicycles, cargo bicycles, or other wheeled vehicles. With increasing choices and availability in adaptive cycling technology, it is imperative to refine design standards to reflect the needs of such cycles. This may mean wider mobility lanes, generous turning radii, care with bollard placement, and avoiding the use of ‘dismount’ zones that may exclude people who cannot walk their cycles, amongst others (Cox & Bartle, 2020). These design changes may benefit many people who cycle, not just those who live with chronic or acute conditions or impairments. Wider mobility lanes may allow families or social groups to cycle together, and generous turning radii may support new cyclists learning to navigate curves in pathway for the first time (Buehler & Pucher, 2022; Schijns & Smith, 2016). When design benefits everyone, it may be considered ‘universal’ (Imrie, 2012). Universal design aims to ensure everyone—regardless of age, gender, ability—can safely and effectively use the space. The ‘All Ages and Abilities’ terminology aligns well with principles of universal design. Cycling infrastructure that includes accessibility, functionality, and safety can improve desirable cycling conditions for many types of users and benefit those of all ages and all abilities (Gray et al., 2012).

There was explicit attention to equity in most of the plans. Ensuring equitable opportunities to cycling can contribute to a fairer and more inclusive society, where mobility is not limited by factors like income, gender, or race. Addressing this issue goes beyond transportation alone—it can address social disparities, promote equal access to urban amenities, and enhance quality of life (Cunha & Silva, 2023; Sheller, 2018). National data show that there are longstanding inequities in who cycles in Canada, and thus, who may achieve the health, social, and economic benefits from cycling (MacEacheron et al., 2023). The range of populations mentioned in the plans (Table 5) indicates a focus on fostering inclusivity within cycling: the groups included those who historically and persistently face barriers in accessing cycling opportunities. Addressing the needs of these structurally marginalised populations requires ongoing efforts to understand their unique challenges and aspirations within the cycling landscape, and this work needs to be grounded in an intersectional approach that looks at cycling experiences of those with overlapping social identities (Lam, 2022; Ravensbergen et al., 2020; Sheller, 2018; Yuan et al., 2023). To date, some groups have had more attention than others, raising the issue of ‘invisible cyclists’ (Agyeman, 2020; Andrews et al., 2018; Koeppel, 2015) who are often overlooked in planning. The term ‘invisible cyclists’ has been used for low income, racialised, or disabled cyclists, who were mentioned in select plans we reviewed. But other groups, such as food delivery workers (Lachapelle et al., 2021; Lee et al., 2016) or unhoused cyclists (Steinmann & Wilson, 2022), who make substantial proportions of cycling trips in some areas, were not mentioned in the plans we reviewed. Many of these structurally marginalised communities disproportionately face barriers that go beyond infrastructure, such as the theft/replacement cost of stolen bicycles, personal safety issues due to crime, enforcement, gendered harassment, and barriers to learning how to cycle because of cultural or gender norms, or poverty (Agyeman & Doran, 2021; Barajas, 2021; Ravensbergen et al., 2020). The research and practice community can benefit from a wealth of knowledge that could be gleaned from community initiatives already underway across the country to support cycling amongst under-served population groups (Martin et al., 2022; Verlinden et al., 2019).

Equity in the transportation context broadly considers both the outcomes (e.g. who benefits from access to infrastructure) and decision-making processes of transportation projects (e.g. who shapes the planning and design). A recent publication looked at Canadian transportation plans in terms of how they consider cycling equity (Doran et al., 2021) and reported four themes: socio-spatial network analysis; consideration of equity in projects and priorities, equity-oriented funding mechanisms; and inclusive design and safety. Our research includes some of these same transportation plans, as well as newer ones, and builds on Doran et al.’s work through a focus on equity in the context of ‘All Ages and Abilities’ language. Our findings resonate with their theme of ‘inclusive design and safety’ which touched on both accessibility (to opportunities) and on universal design/complete streets. Equity is an area of growing attention for transportation planning and engineering and more than half of the plans we reviewed did have some explicit mention of equity. Only six plans included detail on how cities are building equity into their planning process, using tools like socio-spatial analysis. Three plans acknowledged the importance of considering equity in the public engagement process. While it is probable that cities have processes or guides that may not be publicly available and thus were not captured here, the gap in how to operationalise equity in practice has been widely acknowledged by transportation professionals (Williams & Winters, 2023). More research, training, tools, and supports are needed, including opportunities to connect with and learn from peers in other cities. To this end, major national transportation and planning conferences in 2023 have featured keynote sessions, panels, and workshops that are focused on equity (ITE Canada, & CARSP, 2023). Fundamentally, advancing transportation equity will require transformative changes in practice, transparency in the values and priorities surrounding decision-making, and accountability in implementation (Linovski et al., 2018).

There are limitations to this scan. Our goal was to unpack and explore the language used in bicycle plans; to do this we drew on plans from a sample of cities spanning the country, but this may well not be representative set. For example, smaller communities not included in our sample may be less likely to have active transportation plans, or to have adopted ‘all ages and ablilities’ language. Our scan relied on public documents and we acknowledge that cities may also have internal guidelines that we were unable to access. Plans were very different in length, ranging from 6 to 182 pages. Longer plans naturally allow for more detailed content. We noted that a transportation plan may not be exhaustive in its attention to cycling; this may be especially true when it follows an earlier cycling or active transportation plan. Additionally, it is possible that we may have misinterpreted how different terms were used across plans because of the lack of a definition or standard for infrastructure. We aimed to be inclusive of French language plans (e.g. ‘All Ages and Abilities’ language in Quebec City’s ‘Vision de la Mobilité Active 2023–2027’ is ‘accessibles pour les personnes de tout âge et de toute aptitude’). We also flag that care is needed in translation. For example, ‘bike path network’ was used extensively throughout the Montreal plan we evaluated (an English translation of the French document), however, their ‘bike paths’ include multi-use paths, cycle tracks, and other on-street cycling infrastructure.

5. Conclusion

This policy scan is the first to describe how Canadian municipalities and regions define the terms ‘All Ages and Abilities’ in the context of cycling infrastructure and reveals the varied ways in which this language is used in current transportation policies. Looking ahead, the catchy ‘All Ages and Abilities’ language is likely to proliferate in both research and practice discussions, as this terminology encapsulates a vision of accessible and inclusive cycling networks, reflecting the growing commitment to active transportation, sustainability, and equity.

As cities across Canada commit to improved and inclusive cycling infrastructure, it is important for municipal plans to define and standardise ‘All Ages and Abilities’ cycling networks, specifying not only the infrastructure included and the intention of a network, but also the demographic groups that network aims to serve. Such clarity enables researchers and policymakers to better measure progress and evaluate impact of cycling infrastructure that is designed with ‘All Ages and Abilities’ in mind. These steps are important in turning the vision of inclusive cycling into a tangible reality, making urban cycling a safe and viable option for all.

Acknowledgments

We appreciate the insights from Tessa Williams on an earlier draft of this manuscript and discussions at the CapaCITY/É team meeting in March 2023.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research under Grant #HG6-185016. MW is supported by PHAC/CIHR Applied Public Health Chair, Gender and Sex in Healthy Cities.