When everyone already drives cars (the US), there’s significant opposition to investment in other types of infrastructure/built in support for investments in car infrastructure. Whereas there are plenty of cities around the global where such constituencies exist for other modes.
But also bikes cause negligible damage to infrastructure and barely require any resources compared to cars, so the costs are usually much lower for bike infrastructure.
This is just BS/lies at the local level.
Moneyed PACs aren't fighting it out over councilor, selectman and planner positions for random suburbs.
Pretty much all the money these candidate dispense is either self raised or comes from an official political party who don't really doll out meaningful amounts to these elections
One would seem to win local elections by being the incumbent, and knocking on a lot of doors.
What about the state and federal subsidies for road infrastructure? A locality that wants to go a different (less car dependent) direction would be leaving that infrastructure money unspent, which isn't fair to the local voters who contributed tax money to the state/feds. They rigged it so that the locals paid for the roads via their tax money, their only choice is to take the money and build more roads, or kiss the money they sent to the state/feds goodbye.
Wouldn't the above kind of hamstring local politicians? Would it be safe to assume that the pro-car lobbyists at those higher level of government want to keep it this way?