Berlin’s Bike Budget Cuts: How a Climate Capital Got Cold Feet

TL;DR;

• Berlin once branded itself a climate-forward, bike-friendly capital, but its new CDU–SPD government is cutting funding for cycling and pedestrian safety by more than half and rolling back car-free experiments.¹
• Budget austerity is hitting buses, trams, and cycle paths simultaneously, even as other European capitals double down on low-carbon transport.²
• High-profile corridors like Torstraße and Friedrichstraße have become flashpoints where “smooth car traffic” is now prioritized over continuous, protected bike space.
• The cuts run directly against evidence that protected cycling infrastructure can cut serious injuries by 40–75% and improve safety for everyone, not just people on bikes.³⁴
• Berlin’s U-turn is a warning: even strong climate and bike laws can be hollowed out if money, street space, and political narratives swing back toward cars.

“Urban progress is not a one-way street; if you stop defending it, it reverses.”
— Paraphrase of Berlin mobility advocates reacting to recent budget cuts¹

From “climate capital” to cold feet

For a while, Berlin looked like it was joining the “Dutch-ish” club. The city passed an ambitious Mobility Act (Mobilitätsgesetz) that explicitly elevated walking, cycling, and public transport, and it experimented with car-light projects like a pedestrianized section of Friedrichstraße and neighborhood “play streets.”¹²

But after the 2023 state election, a new CDU–SPD coalition led by Kai Wegner (CDU) came in with a very different narrative: the “car belongs to Berlin.” A recent investigation found that budgets for cycling infrastructure and pedestrian safety are being cut by more than half, while the city simultaneously moves ahead with highway expansion and raises speed limits on some key corridors from 30 km/h back to 50 km/h.¹⁵

At the same time, a separate austerity debate over Berlin’s budget has led to hundreds of millions of euros being stripped from buses, trams, and cycle paths, undermining the very climate and air-quality gains that earned Berlin a green reputation in the first place.²

In other words: the law still says “Verkehrswende” (mobility transition), but the money and day-to-day decisions are drifting back to the post-war, car-first model.

How Berlin’s rollback fits a bigger pattern

If you zoom out, Berlin’s story is not unique. Governments often:

1. Adopt bold climate and mobility laws.
2. Pilot visible projects like car-free streets or protected bike lanes.
3. Meet backlash from a vocal minority over parking, car access, or “war on motorists.”
4. Quietly dilute budgets and freeze projects instead of openly repealing the law.

Berlin is now in stage 4. Funding for bike infrastructure, neighborhood play streets, and even some tram projects has been targeted, while long-planned highway expansion (like the A100 extension) marches on.^{1 6}

For other cities that think they’ve “won” the safe-streets argument, Berlin is a reminder: there is no permanent victory. You have to keep the budget and the politics aligned with the law.

Street by street: where the cuts show up

Friedrichstraße: a car-free experiment reversed, then re-branded

Under the previous government, about 500 meters of Friedrichstraße in Mitte were closed to through-traffic, turned into a pedestrian-priority zone, and branded as a flagship of Berlin’s new mobility politics. The project drew strong criticism from some businesses and drivers, and it became a symbolic battleground in the 2023 election.⁷

After the CDU–SPD coalition took office, the car-free section was quickly reopened to motor traffic following a court ruling about the legal basis of the closure. The new government now promises a “comeback for Friedrichstraße” as a more conventional shopping boulevard: wider sidewalks, some new trees, but with car access and parking retained, framed primarily as an economic revitalization project rather than a mobility-transition project.⁷

It’s not that nothing good will happen there—more trees and benches are positive. But the original narrative of a bold, car-free spine in the historic center has been replaced by a softer, more car-accommodating vision.

Torstraße: a six-lane reminder of what’s at stake

Torstraße, cutting east–west through the inner city, is another flashpoint. A 2021 concept design imagined shrinking the car lanes, adding red, curb-protected bike tracks, and repurposing space for people, trees, and public transport.⁸

Instead, residents still describe it as a loud, crash-prone, multi-lane corridor with fragmented cycling space or none at all. The current government’s transport department has signaled that its priority is “maintaining traffic flow,” and the corridor has become a symbol of how ambitious reallocation of street space can stall when the political winds change.¹⁸

The irony is that Torstraße is exactly the kind of street where protected bike lanes and lower speeds would save the most lives and prevent serious injuries.

Kantstraße, Sonnenallee and the “fire truck” argument

Berlin also joins a growing list of cities where fire-truck access is used to justify undoing or thinning out bike lanes. On Kantstraße, the Senate decided to reorganize lanes so that the parking lane shields the bike path less, arguing it needs more room for aerial ladders.⁹

On corridors like Sonnenallee, planned extensions of bike lanes were delayed or downsized, and in some cases only partially reinstated after public pressure.⁶ Residents and advocacy groups see a pattern: safety upgrades for people outside cars are negotiable, while full-width motor lanes are treated as non-negotiable “critical infrastructure.”

This debate will sound familiar to anyone who has followed fire-department fights over traffic calming in North America. It’s the same script: wide turning radii and high operating speeds are preserved “for safety,” even when the net effect is more crashes and more severe injuries overall.

What the science says about cutting bike infrastructure

The political story might be messy, but the safety evidence is not.

Across multiple cities and countries, studies find that:

• Protected bike lanes dramatically cut crash risk. A Canadian case-crossover study found that cycle tracks had about one-ninth the injury risk of mixed-traffic reference routes.⁵ Another meta-analysis of US cities found that adding protected bike lanes was associated with around 44% fewer deaths and 50% fewer serious injuries compared to similar cities without them.³⁴¹⁰

• They help people walking, not just cycling. New York City’s evaluation of protected bike lanes found total injuries along those corridors dropped by about 20%, with pedestrian injuries down ~22% even as bike volumes increased.¹¹

• More cycling cities are safer for everyone. Cross-city comparisons show that places with higher cycling mode share tend to have lower overall road fatality rates, consistent with a “safety in numbers” and lower-speed, more compact urban form.¹²

• Cycling is a health and climate win on its own. Regular cycling is associated with reduced all-cause mortality and lower incidence of cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes, while walking and cycling produce near-zero operational emissions.¹³¹⁴

Taken together, these findings make Berlin’s decision to cut cycling and walking budgets look less like fiscal prudence and more like a long-term own goal: slightly smoother car traffic today in exchange for more crashes, higher health costs, and slower climate progress tomorrow.

Berlin vs. cities that doubled down instead

One of the most useful ways to understand Berlin is by contrast.

Berlin does still have bright spots—some protected lanes remain, and there are ongoing plans to make Friedrichstraße nicer for people on foot—but the overall vector is backward while others move forward.¹⁷

What this means for people biking in Berlin (and everywhere)

1. Law without funding is fragile

The Mobilitätsgesetz showed that you can write walking and cycling into law. Berlin’s current reality shows that without protected budgets and binding implementation timelines, those laws can be starved from within.¹²

For other cities, the lesson is clear: don’t just pass a “bike plan”; lock in revenue streams, minimum build-out rates, and design standards that are hard to reverse.

2. Street design beats slogans

Even as Berlin’s leaders talk about “modernizing” the city, the on-the-ground design of places like Torstraße and Sonnenallee keeps people on bikes in the blast zone of faster traffic.¹⁸

Evidence suggests that lowering speed limits and adding high-quality protected lanes is one of the most reliable ways to reduce severe crashes. Raising speed limits back to 50 km/h on multi-lane arterials—precisely where bikes most need protection—pulls in the opposite direction.³¹⁵

3. Individual safety tools are helpful, but they’re not a substitute

When cities fail to deliver safe infrastructure, people start improvising: brighter lights, reflective gear, and, increasingly, loud horns that sound like car horns so drivers actually react. Real-world reviews from cyclists in similar high-traffic environments highlight how tools like the Loud Mini horn can literally “save my life multiple times” amid inattentive drivers and heavy congestion.¹⁶

These devices are worth having if you ride in traffic—but they are symptoms of a system problem, not the solution. The long-term fix is still safe, separated infrastructure and slower, less dominant car traffic.

4. Progress on bikes is reversible—but so is backsliding

The final lesson from Berlin is both sobering and hopeful:

• Sobering, because gains can be undone quickly when a new coalition takes office with a car-first identity and the budgets to match.
• Hopeful, because the same mechanisms—coalitions, budgets, and narrative—can flip back the other way when residents, business owners, and civil society insist on a different story for their streets.

As Berliners push back against cuts and demand the city live up to its own climate and safety goals, they’re writing a second chapter. Other cities should be watching closely—not just to shake their heads, but to inoculate themselves against the same kind of rollback.

FAQ

Q1. Is Berlin completely abandoning its cycling ambitions? No. The Mobility Act still exists, and some projects and protected lanes remain, but deep budget cuts and project slowdowns mean the city’s cycling ambitions are now out of sync with its laws and climate targets.¹²

Q2. Why are budget cuts to cycling and walking such a big deal if roads still get funded? Because every euro not spent on safe, separated infrastructure is effectively spent on preserving higher speeds and car capacity—exactly the conditions that produce more severe crashes and deter everyday cycling.³⁴

Q3. Are business concerns on streets like Friedrichstraße and Torstraße valid? Local businesses do have real worries about access and turnover, but evidence from many cities suggests that calmer, people-oriented streets with good bike access usually increase foot traffic and retail sales rather than harming them.³¹¹

Q4. What can Berliners do right now if they feel less safe? In the short term, people can choose calmer routes where possible, ride in groups, and use strong lights and audible warnings. In the long term, pushing for protected bike networks and lower speeds is the only sustainable way to make streets safer for everyone.

Q5. What’s the main takeaway for other “climate capitals”? Don’t assume progress is locked in. Tie your climate and safety goals to specific, protected budgets, strong laws, and concrete street designs—so that a single election can’t quietly undo years of work.

References