Trump Administration Cancels Funding for Bicycle and Sidewalk Projects, Criticizing for Being “Anti-Car

September 23, 2025

Washington D.C. – A series of recent decisions by the Federal Department of Transportation has ignited controversy, as funding has been revoked from projects designed to enhance pedestrian safety and promote alternative transportation options across the United States. The common thread linking these cancelled grants? Officials stated the projects were “not designed for automobiles.”

Projects Targeted Across the Nation

The cuts, totaling $1.2 million, impact initiatives in multiple states. In Fairfield, Alabama, plans to create sidewalk trails by repurposing existing vehicle lanes were halted. transportation officials claimed this redesign was “contrary to the Department’s policy” and prioritized car traffic flow. Similar setbacks occurred in Boston, Massachusetts, where a grant earmarked for pedestrian, cycling, and public transit improvements in the Mattapan Square district was also withdrawn.

According to the department, these improvements would “change the current road structure that is mainly automobiles.” A separate grant intended for safety upgrades at Boston intersections was also rescinded,ostensibly as it could “impair vehicle traffic capacity and speed.”

Transportation officials in New Mexico are contending with the shifting federal priorities. Photographer: Susan Montoya Bryan/AP Photo

A Reversal of Prior policies

This shift represents a notable departure from the policies of the previous administration. President Trump has consistently signaled his intention to roll back initiatives related to electric vehicles and clean energy, and these recent funding decisions are seen as an extension of that agenda. Critics argue that this prioritization of automobile traffic undermines local efforts to diversify transportation options and address growing safety concerns. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), pedestrian fatalities reached a 40-year high in 2022, increasing by 76% as 2012.

Discretionary Grants Under Scrutiny

The cancelled funding is largely drawn from “discretionary grants,” wich state and local governments apply for. Kevin Mills, vice chairman of policy for the nonprofit Rails to trails Conservancy, pointed out the irony of this situation. He noted that demand for pedestrian and cycling infrastructure is increasing even in traditionally republican areas, such as Florida, which is actively developing extensive mixed-use trails.

“There’s a misconception that non-automotive infrastructure is solely a liberal priority, but that’s simply not the case at the local level,” Mills stated. He further explained that alternative transportation projects are increasingly recognized as a means to reduce congestion, often proving more effective than expanding roadways.

Location	Project Type	Funding Revoked	Reason Cited
Fairfield, Alabama	Sidewalk Trails	$1.2 million	“Contrary to Department policy prioritizing vehicle traffic”
Boston, Massachusetts	Pedestrian/Cycling/Transit Improvements	Undisclosed	“Changing current automobile-focused road structure”
Boston, Massachusetts	Intersection Safety Upgrades	Undisclosed	“Impair vehicle traffic capacity and speed”

Did You Know? The United States currently lags behind many developed nations in terms of pedestrian and cyclist safety, with significantly higher rates of fatalities per capita.

Local Officials Express Disappointment

City officials in Boston have expressed their frustration, stating that the federal revocation disregards the intent of Congress and is considering appropriate responses. In albuquerque, New Mexico, Terry Brunner, an official overseeing railway construction, acknowledged delays in finalizing grant agreements as the administration change, coupled with reductions in federal staffing, were contributing factors. He also commented that they will focus on finding alternative funding sources.

Pro Tip: Local governments can mitigate the risk of federal funding uncertainty by diversifying their funding sources, including exploring state and private partnerships.

As the debate unfolds,the future of pedestrian and cycling infrastructure in the United States remains uncertain.

The Growing Importance of Multi-Modal Transportation

The shift away from prioritizing automobile infrastructure underscores a broader, global trend toward multi-modal transportation systems.Cities worldwide are increasingly recognizing the benefits of integrating walking, cycling, and public transit to reduce congestion, improve air quality, and enhance quality of life. Investment in pedestrian and cycling infrastructure not only promotes public health but also supports economic development by creating vibrant, walkable communities. According to a report by the Brookings Institution, cities with robust public transit systems consistently experience higher economic growth rates and increased property values.

Frequently asked Questions

• What is a “road diet”? A road diet involves reconfiguring existing roadways to reduce the number of travel lanes, frequently enough to accommodate bicycle lanes, pedestrian walkways, or wider sidewalks.
• Why are pedestrian and cycling projects considered important? They promote public health, reduce traffic congestion, improve air quality, and create more livable communities.
• How does this federal policy change affect local governments? It forces them to seek alternative funding sources and possibly scale back planned improvements.
• What is a discretionary grant? A discretionary grant is funding provided by a government entity for a specific project, typically awarded thru a competitive application process.
• What is the role of the Department of Transportation in funding infrastructure projects? The Department of Transportation oversees the distribution of federal funds for transportation infrastructure, setting priorities and approving grant applications.

What are your thoughts on these funding cuts? Do you believe prioritizing automobile traffic is the best approach for the future of transportation? Share your opinions in the comments below!

How does the administration justify the cancellation of funding for bicycle and pedestrian projects?

Trump Administration Cancels funding for Bicycle and Sidewalk Projects, Labeling Them “Anti-car”

The Shift in Transportation priorities

In a move sparking widespread controversy, the Trump administration has announced the cancellation of federal funding for numerous bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure projects across the United States. The justification, as stated by administration officials, is that these projects represent an “anti-car” agenda and prioritize option transportation methods over the needs of American drivers. This decision impacts grants allocated through programs like the Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) and the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ),traditionally used for sidewalk construction,bike lane advancement,and pedestrian safety improvements.

Funding cuts: A State-by-State Breakdown

The impact of these cuts varies significantly by state.Initial reports indicate:

* California: Over $50 million in planned bicycle and pedestrian projects have been halted. This includes crucial segments of the California High-Speed Rail project’s active transportation connections.

* New York: Approximately $25 million earmarked for sidewalk repairs and bike lane expansions in New York city and surrounding areas has been rescinded.

* Texas: Funding for several planned pedestrian bridges and crosswalk improvements in major metropolitan areas has been withdrawn.

* Florida: Projects focused on enhancing pedestrian safety near schools and parks are facing important setbacks.

* Illinois: Several bike path extensions and pedestrian trail developments have been put on indefinite hold.

These are just a few examples, and a complete assessment of the financial repercussions is ongoing. The Department of Transportation has released a statement emphasizing a renewed focus on highway expansion and vehicle-centric infrastructure.

The “Anti-Car” Narrative: A Closer Look

The administration’s claim of an “anti-car” bias stems from a perceived emphasis on reducing vehicle traffic and promoting alternative modes of transportation. Critics argue this is a mischaracterization, pointing out that bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure often complements existing roadways by:

* Reducing Congestion: encouraging cycling and walking for short trips can alleviate traffic on busy roads.

* Improving Air Quality: Fewer cars on the road translate to lower emissions and improved public health.

* Enhancing Safety: Dedicated bike lanes and pedestrian walkways separate vulnerable road users from vehicular traffic.

* Boosting Local Economies: Walkable and bikeable communities attract businesses and increase property values.

The Role of Lobbying and Industry Influence

Several transportation analysts suggest that lobbying efforts from the automotive industry and highway construction companies played a role in influencing the administration’s decision. These groups have historically advocated for prioritizing road construction and vehicle-related infrastructure. The American Automobile Association (AAA) has publicly supported the administration’s stance, arguing that focusing on highway improvements is essential for economic growth.

Impact on Public Health and Safety

The cancellation of these projects raises serious concerns about public health and safety.

* Pedestrian Fatalities: The US has seen a concerning rise in pedestrian fatalities in recent years. Reduced investment in pedestrian infrastructure could exacerbate this trend.

* Obesity Rates: Promoting active transportation, such as walking and cycling, is a key strategy for combating obesity and improving overall health.

* Accessibility for Vulnerable Populations: Sidewalks and bike lanes provide essential transportation options for individuals who cannot or choose not to drive, including seniors, people with disabilities, and low-income communities.

Legal Challenges and Potential Reversal

Several cities and states are exploring legal options to challenge the administration’s decision. Lawsuits are expected to argue that the funding cuts violate the intent of the original transportation legislation and discriminate against alternative transportation modes.

The EU-US Trade Agreement and Pharmaceutical Implications

While seemingly unrelated, the recent Zollvereinbarung (customs agreement) between the EU and the USA, as reported by Ärzteblatt, highlights a broader trend of the administration prioritizing trade deals and potentially leveraging them for political gain. This could influence future transportation funding decisions, potentially tying infrastructure investments to specific trade agreements or industry concessions. The agreement’s focus on reducing dependencies and preparing for future conflicts suggests a more protectionist approach to policy-making.

Alternatives and Local Solutions

Despite the federal funding cuts, some communities are exploring alternative funding sources and innovative solutions to continue investing in bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure:

* Local bond Measures: cities and counties can issue bonds to finance transportation projects.

* Public-Private Partnerships: Collaborating with private companies to fund and build infrastructure.

* Grant Applications: Seeking funding from philanthropic organizations and foundations.

* Complete Streets Policies: Adopting policies that prioritize the needs of all road users, not just drivers.