The Road Less Pedaled: Why Building Bike Lanes is Harder Than Highways
A drive into the societal, historical, and political factors that shape our urban mobility landscape
As I pedaled my bike down a busy NYC street recently, narrowly avoiding parked cars and dodging impatient drivers, a thought struck me: Why is it so much harder to build a bike lane than to expand a highway?
This question, seemingly simple on the surface, actually cuts to the heart of how we design our cities, allocate our public spaces, and envision our urban future. As a sociologist and urban planner with over two decades of experience, I've spent countless hours grappling with this very issue. The answer, I've found, is deeply rooted in our societal norms, historical development patterns, and entrenched power structures.
Let's go on a journey through the winding streets of urban planning history, the superhighways of car-centric design, and the sometimes bumpy bike lanes of progress. Along the way, we'll explore why active mobility infrastructure - things like bike lanes, wider sidewalks, and pedestrian zones - often face an uphill battle, while car infrastructure continues to coast along smoothly.
The Road Behind Us: A Brief History of Car-Centric Design
To understand our current predicament, we need to look in the rearview mirror at how we got here. The 20th century saw a massive shift towards car-centric urban design, particularly in the United States. This wasn't just a natural evolution - it was actively promoted by automobile and oil companies, and supported by government policies.
The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 serves as a perfect example. This piece of legislation pumped billions of dollars into interstate highway construction, reshaping American cities and suburbs in the process. Suddenly, it became possible - even desirable - to live far from city centers and commute long distances by car.
This car-centric development quickly became the norm, the default way of building our cities. Shopping malls surrounded by vast parking lots sprouted up. Residential areas were designed with wide streets and garages prominently featured. Public transit, once a vital part of many cities, began to decline as more and more people relied on personal vehicles.
But this transformation came at a cost. Many urban neighborhoods, particularly those home to low-income communities and communities of color, were literally bulldozed to make way for new highways. The environmental consequences of all this driving began to mount, from air pollution to greenhouse gas emissions. And our cities became less walkable, less human-scaled, and often less livable.
The Silent Majority: How Car Infrastructure Gets Built
One of the most striking aspects of our car-centric urban design is how it often happens without much public input. Highway expansions, for instance, frequently occur over the objections of local residents. This top-down approach to car infrastructure is a prime example of how deeply ingrained our car-centric mindset has become.
When a state department of transportation decides to widen a highway, they don't typically hold multiple rounds of community meetings to gather input. They don't put the project up for a public vote. They simply present their plans, perhaps hold a perfunctory public comment period, and then proceed with construction.
This approach is justified by the perceived necessity of car infrastructure. Roads and highways are seen as essential public goods, vital for economic growth and mobility. The benefits are assumed to be self-evident, negating the need for extensive public consultation.
But this process often ignores the very real costs of such projects. Expanding highways can lead to increased traffic (a phenomenon known as induced demand), more pollution, and the destruction of urban neighborhoods. Historically, these negative impacts have disproportionately fallen on disadvantaged communities, perpetuating cycles of environmental injustice.
The Uphill Battle: Why Active Mobility Projects Face Resistance
Now, let's shift gears and look at how active mobility projects are typically handled. When a city proposes a new bike lane or a pedestrian-friendly street redesign, the process is often markedly different from highway construction.
These projects frequently face multiple rounds of community feedback, detailed scrutiny, and sometimes outright opposition. Why? Because they're seen as challenging the status quo, as taking something away from drivers to give to cyclists or pedestrians.
This perception isn't entirely unfair. In many cases, creating space for bike lanes or wider sidewalks does require reallocating road space that was previously used for car lanes or parking. But this reallocation is often necessary to create safer, more equitable, and more sustainable urban environments.
The resistance to active mobility projects comes from several sources:
1. Status Quo Bias: People tend to prefer the current state of affairs, even if alternatives might be objectively better. Those who have grown accustomed to car-centric design may resist changes, even if they could benefit from them.
2. Lack of Experience: Many people, especially in car-dependent areas, may not have experienced well-designed active mobility infrastructure. They might struggle to imagine how it could improve their daily lives.
3. Vocal Minorities: While surveys often show broad support for bike lanes and pedestrian improvements, a vocal minority of opponents can dominate public meetings and feedback sessions.
4. Political Pressure: Powerful lobbying groups representing automobile interests often push back against projects that might reduce car use.
5. Short-Term Thinking: The immediate inconvenience of construction or changes in traffic patterns can overshadow the long-term benefits of active mobility infrastructure.
The irony is that well-designed active mobility infrastructure brings numerous benefits: improved public health, reduced carbon emissions, enhanced social cohesion, and often economic benefits for local businesses. Yet these projects often need to build a strong base of community support to overcome resistance.
The Dutch Model: A Blueprint for Change
At this point, you might be feeling a bit discouraged. Is it really possible to shift away from car-centric design and create cities that prioritize active mobility? The answer, fortunately, is a resounding yes. And we have a shining example in the Netherlands.
In the 1970s, the Netherlands faced a crisis. Traffic fatalities were rising, particularly among children. The oil crisis had highlighted the vulnerabilities of car-dependent transportation. In response, Dutch citizens - particularly parents concerned about their children's safety - mobilized to demand safer streets and better cycling infrastructure.
This grassroots movement, combined with responsive political leadership, led to a transformation of Dutch cities. Today, the Netherlands is famous for its extensive network of protected bike lanes, its pedestrian-friendly city centers, and its high rates of cycling for everyday transportation.
The Dutch example shows us that change is possible, even in places with a strong car culture. But it also highlights the importance of public engagement and political will in driving this change.
Building Momentum: Strategies for Promoting Active Mobility
So, how can we apply these lessons to create more balanced, sustainable urban mobility systems? Here are some key strategies:
1. Shift the Narrative: Instead of treating active mobility infrastructure as an "extra" that needs to be justified, we should present it as an essential part of a well-functioning, equitable, and sustainable urban transport system. We need to challenge the assumption that streets are primarily for cars and reframe them as public spaces for all users.
2. Use Pilot Projects: Temporary installations allow people to experience the benefits of active mobility infrastructure firsthand, often leading to increased support. Many cities have successfully used this approach to build momentum for more permanent changes.
3. Address Equity Issues: Car-centric design disproportionately benefits those who can afford cars, while active mobility infrastructure can provide more equitable access to transportation. By framing active mobility projects as a matter of social justice and public health, we can build broader coalitions of support.
4. Educate and Engage: Many people simply aren't aware of the benefits of active mobility infrastructure or how it can improve their daily lives. By sharing success stories from other cities and providing clear, accessible information about proposed projects, we can help build public understanding and support.
5. Integrate Planning: Rather than treating bike lanes or pedestrian improvements as isolated projects, we should consider them as part of comprehensive plans for creating more livable, sustainable cities. This can help build political support and make it easier to secure funding.
6. Push for Balanced Funding: While billions are routinely allocated for road construction and maintenance, active mobility projects often have to fight for scraps. We need to push for more balanced transportation budgets that reflect the true costs and benefits of different modes of transport.
7. Build Political Will: Ultimately, transforming our cities requires political leadership willing to make decisions based on long-term community benefit, rather than just responding to the loudest voices.
The COVID Catalyst: Accelerating Change
The COVID-19 pandemic, for all its challenges, has provided an unexpected boost to active mobility efforts in many cities. As people sought safe ways to move around and exercise during lockdowns, demand for cycling and walking infrastructure surged.
Cities around the world responded with rapid rollouts of "pop-up" bike lanes, expanded sidewalks, and car-free zones. Paris, under the leadership of Mayor Anne Hidalgo, has been particularly ambitious, adding hundreds of kilometers of bike lanes and pedestrianizing major streets.
These changes, implemented quickly out of necessity, have in many cases proven popular and effective. They've provided a real-world demonstration of how our cities can function with less space devoted to cars and more space for people.
As we emerge from the pandemic, the challenge will be to make these changes permanent and to build on this momentum. The crisis has shown us that rapid change is possible when there's political will and public support.
The Road Ahead: Challenges and Opportunities
Despite the progress we've seen, significant challenges remain in creating more balanced urban mobility systems:
1. Funding: Active mobility projects often struggle to secure funding compared to traditional road projects. We need to push for more equitable allocation of transportation budgets.
2. Political Will: Not all political leaders are willing to challenge the car-centric status quo. Building and maintaining political support for active mobility projects remains crucial.
3. Public Perception: Misconceptions about the impacts of bike lanes and pedestrian improvements (like fears of increased congestion or reduced parking) can fuel opposition. Continued education and outreach are necessary.
4. Equity Concerns: As we implement active mobility infrastructure, we need to ensure it benefits all communities, not just affluent areas.
5. Integration with Public Transit: For active mobility to truly replace car trips, it needs to be well-integrated with robust public transit systems.
6. Winter Cities: Cold-climate cities face additional challenges in promoting year-round active mobility, requiring specialized infrastructure and maintenance.
7. Suburban and Rural Areas: While much of the focus is on urban cores, we also need strategies to promote active mobility in lower-density areas.
Despite these challenges, the opportunities are enormous. By shifting towards more active, sustainable urban mobility, we can create cities that are healthier, more equitable, more environmentally friendly, and more economically vibrant.
Imagine cities where children can safely bike to school, where the air is cleaner, where streets are lively public spaces rather than just conduits for cars. Imagine communities where everyone has access to affordable, healthy transportation options, regardless of whether they own a car.
This vision is within our reach, but achieving it will require continued advocacy, smart planning, and political courage. It will require us to challenge long-held assumptions about how our cities should function and how we allocate our public spaces.
Just Build It (But Build Support First)
In an ideal world, we could "just build it" when it comes to proven, beneficial infrastructure like bike lanes and pedestrian zones. The evidence is clear that these projects, when well-designed, bring numerous benefits to cities and their residents.
But in the real world of competing interests and limited resources, we often need to build public support first. This doesn't mean endless rounds of consultation that allow a vocal minority to block progress. Rather, it means engaging with communities, addressing concerns, and building a broad base of support for a new vision of urban mobility.
The good news is that as more cities successfully implement active mobility projects, we're building a stronger case and creating more examples to point to. Each new bike lane, each pedestrian-friendly street redesign, is a step towards reimagining our cities as places for people, not just for cars.
The shift towards more active, sustainable urban mobility is happening, even if it's not always as fast as we'd like. It's a challenging process, but as more people experience the benefits of these changes, the momentum for further transformation grows.
So while it's frustrating that we can't always "just build it," we can take heart in the progress that's being made. And we can continue to push for faster, bolder action - armed with evidence, examples of success, and a vision for cities that prioritize the health, safety, and well-being of all their residents.
The future of our cities depends on it. So let's keep pedaling forward, knowing that each small victory brings us closer to the livable, sustainable cities we envision. The road may be long, but the destination is worth the journey.