US Federal Highway Administration Reverses Stance on Bike Lanes and Safety Measures

The U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has controversially removed protected bike lanes, road diets, and speed cameras from its list of “Proven Safety Countermeasures.” This decision, made between June 30 and July 10, marks a significant departure from the agency’s previous stance and has drawn sharp criticism from urban planning and cycling advocates.

A Shift in Federal Policy

Previously, the FHWA actively promoted these measures as effective means to enhance road safety. Archived versions of the agency’s “Proven Safety Countermeasures” web page described protected bike lanes as capable of mitigating conflicts between cyclists and motor vehicles, potentially reducing crashes by up to 53 percent. Similarly, road diets, which involve reducing the number of traffic lanes to accommodate other users or improve flow, were noted for their potential to improve safety, calm traffic, and enhance mobility for all road users, promising a 19 to 47 percent reduction in crashes. Speed cameras were also lauded, with the agency previously stating they could reduce crashes by as much as 54 percent.

The recent change, however, reflects a new administration’s priorities, which appear to favour car-centric infrastructure and express skepticism towards measures perceived as hindering vehicular traffic. Federal Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy has previously labelled bike lanes as “DEI” activism, and the administration has shown a pattern of criticising or cancelling grants for projects deemed “hostile to cars.”

Advocates Condemn the Reversal

Urbanism and cycling advocates have voiced strong opposition to the FHWA’s decision, arguing that the effectiveness of these safety measures has not changed. Ken McLeod, policy director at the League of American Bicyclists, stated that “absolutely nothing has changed about their effectiveness or the data that led them to be placed on the Proven Safety Countermeasures list in the first place.”

Jon Orcutt, a former top official with the New York City Department of Transportation, described the FHWA’s action as an “intentional infusion of stupidity into US DOT policy.” He added that the removal from the agency’s safety list is particularly concerning because it could embolden officials in areas where the efficacy of bike lanes or road diets is already contested. Orcutt suggested that agencies in cities that have already implemented such measures, like those in the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), would likely ignore the FHWA’s new guidance. He also advised agencies to consider legal action if the FHWA attempts to interfere with specific projects.

FHWA’s Justification

In response to inquiries, an FHWA spokesperson stated that the agency is conducting an “ongoing administrative review of its ‘Proven Safety Countermeasures’ to ensure they align with US DOT policies and the Administration’s priorities.” The spokesperson added, “The Department is taking action to reverse the last administration’s policies that decreased lane capacity and increased congestion. Drivers paying taxes and vehicle fees expect their dollars to be reinvested into our roads, not social initiatives that burden their commutes.” The statement concluded by asserting that under Secretary Duffy, the Department is “getting back to basics and putting safety first.” However, the agency did not directly address the question of whether bike lanes and road diets are now considered unsafe.

Legal Precedents and Ongoing Debates

The FHWA’s previous stance was also reflected in legal proceedings. Earlier this year, in a ruling against the Trump administration’s attempt to remove a bike lane in Washington D.C., a court noted that the government did not present data contradicting the plaintiff’s contention that dedicated bike lanes reduce collisions. The court cited the acknowledgement from the defendants’ counsel that “there is information in the record that says as a general principle, protected bike lanes prevent collision.” This suggests that even prior to the current reversal, the administration faced challenges in arguing against the safety benefits of bike lanes in formal settings.

The implications of this policy shift extend beyond the United States, as international urbanism discussions often reference American transportation planning trends. London, like many global cities, is continually evaluating its approach to street design, active travel infrastructure, and traffic management. The FHWA’s decision raises questions about the future of federal support for such initiatives and could influence policy debates in other jurisdictions.

Key facts

The reversal by the FHWA signals a potential shift in federal transportation policy, moving away from a comprehensive safety approach that includes dedicated infrastructure for vulnerable road users. The emphasis on car-centric priorities and the classification of safety measures as “social initiatives” could have far-reaching consequences for urban planning and transportation safety across the United States.

Source: Streetsblog USA – ‘Big Brother’ At U.S. DOT: Bike Lanes Aren’t Just ‘DEI,’ They’re Also Unsafe – https://usa.streetsblog.org/2026/07/17/trump-dei-bike-lanes-sean-duffy-fhwa-road-diets-speed-cameras