The U.S. Government sent letters to local governments in at least six states informing them that it would be withdrawing funds it awarded in 2021, as part of a $1.1 trillion infrastructure bill. Local governments in the states of Alabama, California, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts and New Mexico received letters indicating that the government planned to withdraw those funds, effectively cancelling infrastructure projects that were, in at least some cases, already under development. The cuts run into the millions of dollars.
The bike world was excited at the time because it meant a stunning uptick in investment in alternative forms of transportation. The reason given to the governments was that the projects failed to promote road capacity or were, in some cases, “hostile to motor vehicles.”
A $1.2 million San Diego road improvement project that included a road diet that added bike lanes was canceled because, “appears to reduce lane capacity and a road diet that is hostile to motor vehicles,” according to an official at the U.S. Department of Transportation. An $11.7 million project to add bike lanes in Fairfield, Ala., was canceled because it ran “counter to DOT’s priority of preserving or increasing roadway capacity for motor vehicles.”
The city of Boston received a letter canceling a project because it did not prioritize the “current auto-centric configuration” because it would “impede vehicle capacity and speed.”
An $11.5 million grant to the city of Albuquerque appears to be doomed, even though the project would not reduce car capacity on any road. The project the funds were intended for was to complete a rail trail through downtown. The funds in question were meant to help complete a project already partially built.
Governments are allowed to reallocate funds that they believe have been unwisely earmarked. That point is easy to concede. What’s much harder to swallow is the idea that creating bike lanes through a road diet is a hostile act against cars. If you told a friend you were going to give them $100, but for some reason realized that you were unable to fulfill your offer, that’s not hostility. Threatening to punch them if they complained is.
Given the political divide we face in our country, complaining about anything the government does often devolves (at microprocessor speed) into an us vs. them argument. However, I believe this is an issue that transcends political parties. Why? Because I know both conservatives and liberals who ride bikes.
All cyclists need good road infrastructure in order to be able to survive our road rides. Whether someone rides to commute to work, to train as a racer, or simply do a group ride with friends, we need roads that are wide enough to accommodate us. If a bike lane is now “hostile” to cars (it’s not, but we’re going to keep moving), then what is to become of wide shoulders? If the USDOT now has a “priority of preserving or increasing roadway capacity for motor vehicles,” that language puts shoulders at risk to be turned into traffic lanes.
There lies another, potentially larger problem. Car ownership is in decline with Millenials and Gen Z. This has been driven in part, due to some significant factors. First, for many Millenials and Gen Zers, finding a job that will allow them to afford a car, gas, maintenance, insurance and registration isn’t as easy for them as it was for their parents. Second, many are more environmentally conscious than their forebears and they know that there is no better way to cut their carbon footprint than by eliminating miles driven or ridden in a car. There’s also the fact that many are choosing to live more local lives that simply don’t require the long commutes that characterized life for many Baby Boomers and Gen Xers. Without that long work commute, a bike can sometimes be enough. That’s not the problem. This is: Why work so hard to preserve existing car lanes and build new ones if the coming generations are going to drive less?
If you’re wondering what our agenda is, here goes: You’re reading this, so odds are, you’re a cyclist. Odds are, you ride on the road. Odds are, you’ve noticed that as bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure grows and improves, riding becomes more pleasant and you read fewer stories about cyclists being hit by cars. What I found most alarming was the phrase, “impede vehicle capacity and speed.” Simply put, the faster cars go, the more likely we are to be hit, and die. And can we just take a moment to acknowledge that in most of the U.S. it’s simply not possible to increase both vehicle capacity and speed? As traffic density increases, speed falls. There’s also the inherent irony that multiple studies have shown that road diets often improve commute times by smoothing traffic flow and encouraging people to get out of their cars because their perception of safety has increased. We’ve known for decades that if you want to improve the speed cars can travel on a given road, the best way to do that is to have fewer cars on that road.
Funny thing, that. Currently, governments have exactly one successful strategy for reducing the number of cars on the road: Ebike rebates. Nothing else is getting people out of cars as reliably. The people inclined to use public transportation are already doing so. But multiple cities have seen commute times drop as the number of people riding ebikes to work climbs. The problem, as you can see, is that if the government cuts funding for bike and pedestrian infrastructure, people are going to be less likely to buy an ebike to ride to work.
If you’re thinking that there’s no good reason to pull funding from rail trail projects, such as the Route of the Hiawatha shown in our photo above, considering the government’s stated purpose is to keep as many cars on the road as possible, then you’re not alone. But hey, pulling funding for any bike/pedestrian infrastructure runs counter the survival of cyclists. We encourage you to contact your representatives in Washington. This is an ideology-free appeal! We need infrastructure for bikes and pedestrians. Please make your voice heard.
At first glance the article title looks like it says, “IDIOT Cuts Bike Infrastructure Grants ‘Hostile’ to Cars” which also works.