(The opinions and views expressed in the commentaries and letters to the Editor of The Somerville Times belong solely to the authors and do not reflect the views or opinions of The Somerville Times, its staff or publishers.)

By Matthew McLaughlin

When people use the phrase “identity politics” transportation policy does not come to mind. Yet if you examine the debate over bike lanes, there are undertones of a cultural divide that mirrors national politics.

Bike lanes straddle the line between basic infrastructure improvements and cultural lightning rod. They are seen as an attack on the American way of life to some, and treated as a progressive litmus test to others.

As with many issues of identity politics I often find myself caught between two worlds.  I’m a working class man who is also a self identified progressive and avid cyclist. Bikes were a practical choice for a poor kid who couldn’t even afford train fare. Cycling was never a cultural identifier to me; it was just a way to get around.

Being from two worlds gives me insights into the cultural divide over bike lanes.  When people I know criticize cyclists they say “you’re not like them,” when the only difference is how my identity is perceived. Anger towards cyclists is just a symptom of a greater loss of identity. It is another symbol of changes people have no control over and aren’t meant to help them.

These cultural divides are reflected in the national political scene, and recently trickled down into local politics. I recently received hundreds of emails from bike activists when they learned renovation of Washington Street would not include bike lanes. This is partly because many federal funding programs are reserved exclusively for car-centric infrastructure. National political differences almost prevented us from attaining local Vision Zero goals. Fortunately we were able to resolve this issue.

Conservative lawmakers view any attempt to increase bike lanes as an attack on American identity. The best example of this is the Agenda 21 conspiracy theory that claims the United Nations is trying to take our cars away and make everyone ride bikes. In this instance bike lanes are treated as an attack on identity much like gun control, immigration and the Green New Deal.

A local example of identity politics trumping reality is the City Council’s recent decision to prohibit on street parking permits for new development.  We did this in response to countless development meetings where residents raised parking as a concern. Yet some of the very people this change was meant to appease are furious. Ward 5 Councilor Mark Niedergang, who is not from Somerville, was severely chastised, while Councilor at Large Mary Jo Rossetti and I, both Somerville natives, were not criticized, even though we were the originators of this concept.

The demands to both reduce traffic while allowing unfettered car use is not realistic. Since 2014 the Greater Boston region saw an increase of 300,000 new cars. There is nothing we can do to be more car friendly, and any attempt to do so will only create more cars, more traffic and more pollution.

On the other side some bike advocates treat bike lane opponents like a basket full of deplorables that need to be overcome instead of won over. This is not true of all bike advocates, but much like their opponents there is a vocal social media presence that stokes resentment.

Nothing exemplifies this more than the controversy over proposed bike lanes near the Dorothy Funeral Home. Some activists dismissed the need for funeral parking and went so far as to say the last funeral home in the city should move and “grandma can get dropped off at the door.”  They are surely unaware of the significance of this landmark to many residents. I’ve attended countless wakes there for friends who were victims to the opioid epidemic. When people treated the funeral home like an afterthought many locals felt like they were being personally attacked.

Bike lanes need to be treated as practical infrastructure improvements and not an identity war. We need to emphasize to opponents that these changes benefit them as well. Bike lanes will take bikes off the road and sidewalk.  Not everyone needs to ride a bike, but if more people did it would reduce traffic and parking issues.

Cyclists in turn need to understand that Grandma can’t strap on a helmet and peddle to the funeral home. Not everyone has the option to bike to work. We need to emphasize that cycling is not an elitist sport but an egalitarian form of transportation that benefits even non cyclists. Activists will never win over everyone, but it is important to broaden the conversation so change feels like a win for everyone. We need to expand bike lanes, especially in underserved areas, make cities more pedestrian friendly, and move away from the car as a lifestyle choice.  But we must do this as one community and not two.