The Trump administration's decision to remove bicycle lanes, lower speed limits, and other safety measures from the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) list of best practices has sparked controversy and concern among traffic experts and advocates. This move, which was defended as a way to prioritize driver needs and reduce congestion, has raised questions about the balance between safety and efficiency in transportation planning.
Personally, I think this decision highlights a deeper issue in the way we approach infrastructure development. The FHWA's argument that drivers want their tax dollars reinvested in roads, rather than 'social initiatives', is a common refrain, but it ignores the broader benefits of investing in pedestrian and cycling safety. In my opinion, this approach prioritizes short-term gains over long-term sustainability and public health.
One thing that immediately stands out is the lack of data to support the FHWA's changes. Safety advocates have long relied on research showing the effectiveness of bicycle lanes and lower speed limits in reducing crashes and improving overall safety. For example, a multistate study found that bicycle lanes can reduce total crashes by 49% on certain four-lane roads and 30% on two-lane roads. This data suggests that these measures are not just 'social initiatives' but proven safety countermeasures.
What many people don't realize is that the removal of these safety measures could have far-reaching consequences. Between 2021 and 2025, at least 41 cyclists and 320 pedestrians were killed on Long Island, while over 300 cyclists and 780 pedestrians were seriously injured. These numbers highlight the urgent need for safety measures, not their removal. By taking a step back and thinking about it, it becomes clear that investing in cycling and pedestrian infrastructure is not just a 'social initiative' but a necessary step towards creating safer, more livable communities.
This raises a deeper question: how do we balance the needs of different road users? In my view, the answer lies in a more holistic approach to transportation planning. We need to examine the situation, see what the problem is, and try different strategies. Just like the other 23 safety measures that remain on the best practices list, bicycle lanes and lower speed limits can be important safety tools when implemented in the right place. However, we must also consider the broader context and the needs of all road users.
A detail that I find especially interesting is the FHWA's statement that drivers paying taxes and vehicle fees expect their dollars to be reinvested in roads. While this is true, it ignores the fact that these roads are public spaces created and subsidized by all taxpayers. We need to continue to invest in successful, proven traffic calming solutions to reverse the conditions on the many dangerous roads on Long Island. This includes not just bicycle lanes and lower speed limits, but also roundabouts, rumble strips, lighting, and walkways.
In my opinion, the FHWA's decision to remove these safety measures is a step backwards. It prioritizes short-term gains over long-term sustainability and public health. What this really suggests is that we need to reevaluate our approach to transportation planning and prioritize the needs of all road users, not just drivers. By doing so, we can create safer, more livable communities for everyone.
