The future of cycling infrastructure in the United States is facing a critical test. A coalition of major bike brands, advocacy organizations, and industry groups is sounding the alarm over potential deep cuts to federal funding for bike lanes, trails, and road safety programs as Congress negotiates a new national transportation bill.
The stakes are high: the programs under threat have been responsible for building thousands of miles of protected bike lanes and multi-use trails across the country over the past decade, and their reduction or elimination could stall the momentum that has made cycling safer and more accessible in cities nationwide.
What’s at Risk
At the center of the debate is the Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP), which has been the primary federal funding mechanism for bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure since it was established in 1991. TAP provides grants to states and local governments for projects including protected bike lanes, shared-use paths, safe routes to school, and traffic calming measures.
Industry sources have indicated that proposals being discussed in Congress could significantly reduce or restructure TAP funding, redirecting dollars toward highway expansion and vehicle-centric infrastructure. Additional safety programs that benefit cyclists, including the Safe Streets and Roads for All grant program, may also face cuts.
Industry Pushes Back
The response from the cycling industry has been swift and unified. Major manufacturers including SRAM, Shimano, and Trek have joined advocacy organizations in lobbying Congress to preserve cycling infrastructure funding. Their argument goes beyond cycling advocacy — they contend that bike infrastructure is a cost-effective investment that reduces traffic congestion, improves public health, and supports local economies.
The economic case is particularly compelling. Studies have consistently shown that protected bike lane projects generate significant returns on investment through increased retail spending, reduced healthcare costs, and decreased road maintenance expenses. Cities that have invested heavily in cycling infrastructure, from Portland to Minneapolis to New York, have seen measurable economic benefits in the neighborhoods where bike lanes have been built.
Global Context: Where Infrastructure Works
The funding debate comes at a time when cities around the world are demonstrating the transformative power of cycling infrastructure investment. London saw bike share rates surge in 2025, driven largely by the expansion of its cycling network. A recent global campaign added over 1,200 miles of bike lanes across participating cities, with measurable increases in cycling mode share wherever protected infrastructure was installed.
The pattern is clear and well-documented: where safe cycling infrastructure exists, people ride. Where it does not, they drive. The question facing American policymakers is whether to continue building the infrastructure that encourages cycling or to reverse course at a moment when global momentum is clearly moving in the opposite direction.
Local Bright Spots
Despite the federal uncertainty, some cities are pressing ahead with significant cycling infrastructure projects. In Los Angeles, the Chandler Bike Connection project is upgrading existing bicycle lanes to protected lanes with bollards and curb stops, closing a three-mile gap to create a continuous safe route from Burbank to the Sepulveda Basin.
In New York, a City Council member has called for a protected bike lane on the 72nd Street Transverse through Central Park, arguing it would reduce bike traffic on congested park paths and encourage more people to cycle. In Seattle, the city is converting a car lane on Highland Park Way to cycling infrastructure in what officials describe as a safety project rather than a bike project.
These local initiatives demonstrate continued demand for cycling infrastructure at the community level, even as federal support faces headwinds.
What Cyclists Can Do
Cycling advocacy organizations are urging riders to contact their congressional representatives and make the case for preserving infrastructure funding. The argument is straightforward: cycling infrastructure saves lives, reduces healthcare costs, eases congestion, and supports local businesses.
For everyday cyclists, the outcome of this funding debate will have tangible, real-world consequences. The protected bike lane on your commute, the trail your family rides on weekends, the safe route your child takes to school — these all exist because of the federal programs now under threat. Whether they continue to expand, or begin to shrink, may depend on the choices Congress makes in the months ahead.
