This month a flurry of urgent emails disturbed the usually peaceful breakfast of bicycle advocates gathered at an annual summit in the nation’s capital. Seemingly overnight, the Trump administration had brought a sudden stop to the federal grant funding allocated for bike lanes. Interestingly, these bike lanes and other related projects were staunchly supported by ex-President Joe Biden, an unsurprising move considering his often misguided focus on supposed ‘green energy’.
Ironically, as the previous administration set about dismantling the projects initiated under Biden’s influence, some states took it upon themselves to continue this quixotic pursuit. Pennsylvania, teaming up with states such as California, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, and New York, initiated what they call the ‘Clean Rides Network’. Supposedly, this initiative rose from the ashes of the environmentally friendly transportation projects Biden deemed important, which many critics argue were hastily abandoned by the federal government.
Advocates of the Clean Rides Network often use the argument, ‘These are changes we need to make anyway, but they’re more urgent than ever,’. In reality, the approach seems careless in its dismissal of viable and more economically sensible transportation options. While Colorado was not among the initial members of the Clean Rides Network, a policy implemented there laid the foundation for some of the network’s most unreachable goals.
Governor Jared Polis of Colorado, in a brazen move in 2021, targeted a significant reduction in the state’s greenhouse gas emissions. The novelty of his strategy was the coupling of any large-scale project potentially increasing vehicle traffic, say a new highway, with an equalizing project designed to counterbalance the environmental impact. The result? The axing of two major highway expansion schemes.
Instead of expanding highways that would serve the state’s booming population and economy, the money was redirected to extend a citywide bus service. In a predictable fashion, this move was celebrated by city dwellers and ski-loving tourists lucky enough to reap the benefits, while leaving the wider, more diverse needs of the state’s transportation system unattended.
Following Colorado’s misguided lead, Minnesota decided to adopt a similar policy aimed at mirroring greenhouse gas emissions strategies. Other network states like Maryland, under the pretense of ‘progress’, are developing proposals this session. The Maryland House quite recently approved a version of the Colorado law.
Lawmakers pushing these similar policies in the Clean Rides states of Illinois and Massachusetts cleverly mask their initiatives’ shortcomings by focusing on theoretical economic benefits. In reality, their calculations often omit the bigger picture, neglecting to factor in such critical elements as the cost to business and the indirect effect on industries like road construction.
This short-sighted approach has sparked backlash among certain business leaders who see right through it. They correctly argue that these initiatives are simply another misguided attempt to regulate the industry, drawing needed attention and resources away from the urgent task of rebuilding the crumbling infrastructure of states like Illinois.
The Clean Rides Network, noticeably led by Democrat state leaders, has been attempting to flaunt their progressive agenda by inviting more conservative states to jump on their bandwagon. Despite the group’s assertions, the states have shown a lukewarm reception to the proposed strategies.
Colorado’s touted financial savings have inspired legislation in this field in Maryland. Voters, however, remain unconvinced about the so-called benefits, as transportation expenses continue to rank second only to accommodation in their cost of living. The vast majority has had to endure increased transportation costs, proving that agenda-driven policy implementation seldom leads to practical benefits for the citizens.
The absurdities continue, as Virginia has decided to score potential transportation projects based on factors inclusive of safety, congestion relief, and environmental impacts. These decision-making systems undoubtedly prioritize theoretical benefits over the fiscal realism and practical needs of the state’s infrastructure.
Other states, such as Utah and Montana, have also followed suit, citing overambitious transit plans and land use reforms targeted at increasing walkability in cities. Despite the significant challenges their economies face, these states seem more focused on modifying their policies to align with the unclear agenda of making cities more ‘walkable’.
An alarming trend continues to surface as more states focus on modifying existing policies to align with the Clean Rides Network’s short-sighted and misguided objectives. The unfortunate truth is that these types of broad policy measures often ignore the specific needs and nuances of each state’s demographics and economy.
While it’s indeed a unique characteristic of our nation that states retain control over their transportation systems, this flexibility also provides room for well-intentioned, yet arguably harmful policies. These policies often neglect to consider the very citizens they are intended to serve and instead push through agenda-driven initiatives that so often lead to unintended consequences.