Could you introduce yourself and your work at Pro Velo?
I’m Yvonne. I’ve been working for Pro Velo for about ten years now. I currently lead the regional organisation in Canton Zurich and also serve on the national board. In addition, I’m part of the Women in Cycling Switzerland network, which we co-founded two years ago. My main focus is cycling infrastructure and planning. That means I review projects from a cyclist’s perspective, looking at whether they are safe, coherent, and practical. I often engage with public authorities, comment on plans, or write formal feedback. Essentially, my job is to make sure cyclists’ needs are considered in political and planning processes.

How did you become involved in the Zurich tunnel project? And what makes this project so special?
What is really special about this case is that it shows the shift in urban planning priorities. The tunnel was once intended for cars and highway traffic, planned in the 1960s. That highway was never fully realised due to strong public opposition in the 1970s. While construction continued over decades beneath the main train station, leaving behind a large underground structure, they weren’t sure whether the highway would ever come or not. Pro Velo later saw an opportunity: Zurich had a serious shortage of bicycle parking around the station, so why not reuse this space as a cycling connection and parking facility? So what was once designed as a highway tunnel, got transformed into a bicycle tunnel. The city really would have looked different if that highway would have been built. It shows the change in what we want our cities to look like now and then, reflecting how long-term infrastructure projects evolve with society’s values.

What role did public criticism and activism play?
The thing with highway planning is that it is often handled at higher governmental levels, which can make it harder for local voices to influence decisions directly. In this case, there were protests from citizens, students, and urban planners already in the 1970s, which contributed to the tunnel never being finished. Later, Pro Velo became involved and helped channel public interest into concrete advocacy. We launched a petition that gathered around 3,000 signatures supporting the idea of turning the underground structure into a cycling space. Only then did the city authorities get active too. The petition gave political visibility to an idea that authorities eventually took seriously. Without that momentum, who knows, the project might never have moved forward.

What were the main challenges in implementing the project?
Although Pro Velo wasn’t as involved anymore in the implementation phase, it was definitely challenging. One of the biggest challenges was coordination. Multiple levels of government and organisations were involved: the federal level (which still owned parts of the highway mandate), the canton, the city of Zurich, and the railway operator. These actors do not always share the same priorities or timelines. What was initially estimated as a three-year process eventually took around 14 years. There were also design conflicts. For example, debates arose about whether motorised vehicles like motorcycles should be allowed, or whether the space should be strictly for bicycles. Another issue was whether bicycle parking would remain free, which Pro Velo strongly defended as part of the original vision. Technical constraints also played a role. The tunnel sits next to a river and beneath a major railway station, making construction and planning more complex than usual.

Was public funding or voting involved?
Yes. The project required a public vote in Zurich because of its construction cost: around 38 million Swiss francs. Citizens approved the funding with 74% support, which was a really strong political signal.

Very impressive. What does this level of approval say about the cycling culture in Zurich?
The vote reflects how relevant cycling has become in the city. Even though the cycling modal split isn’t that high, there is widespread recognition that infrastructure needs improvement, particularly around safety and accessibility. Zurich has held several public votes on cycling topics, and every vote that has a bike in it, usually gets accepted. It shows that cycling is increasingly seen as a mainstream mobility solution rather than a niche activity. However, cycling still faces resistance in some areas, especially when it involves reducing car parking space. There is also a perception among some groups that existing improvements are “enough,” even though demand for safe cycling routes continues to grow. 

For Pro Velo, the tunnel is also symbolic. Cycling development usually takes a long time, and this is one of the first projects where our advocacy work directly translated into a tangible, high-quality infrastructure outcome that people can use daily.

What challenges does cycling planning face today in Zurich?
The biggest challenge is speed. Even relatively simple measures, such as reallocating road space for cycle lanes, can take years due to consultation processes, legal appeals, and multi-level governance. Switzerland’s participatory system is strong, but it can slow down implementation. In addition, there is some bikelash from groups concerned about parking removal or traffic changes. There are also environmental and spatial constraints. Building new large-scale infrastructure is becoming more difficult due to limited space, environmental protection rules, and competing urban priorities. Finally, conflicts sometimes arise between city and canton levels, where more progressive city policies can be blocked at higher levels. For example, we had a cantonal vote on 30 km speed limits, where the canton overruled the city's interests for lower speed on main roads.

You’re also part of Women in Cycling. How have you seen cycling advocacy change to include more diverse voices?
Through Women in Cycling Switzerland, we aim to broaden perspectives in transport planning. Historically, cycling infrastructure has often been designed with a narrow user profile in mind: typically fast, confident, young male cyclists. This “default user” approach does not reflect the diversity of people who cycle or could cycle. Many people such as children, older adults, and caregivers have different needs, especially regarding safety and comfort.

In my own work, I’ve also noticed how my arguments have changed. When discussing projects, I often ask whether infrastructure works for families, older people, or less experienced cyclists. This shift helps reframe cycling as a mode for everyone, not just a specific group. We are also encouraging more women to participate in planning and decision-making processes so that these perspectives are embedded earlier in project development.

What are you looking forward to at Velo-city?
What I appreciate most is the energy. Being surrounded by so many people working on similar issues is motivating. It creates a sense of shared purpose that is sometimes missing in day-to-day advocacy work. I also enjoy the diversity of sessions and the challenge of choosing between them. And the informal networking is valuable. I’ve met colleagues from across Switzerland whom I wouldn’t otherwise have encountered.

Meet Yvonne in session 1.4 Women in Cycling - Good vibes: Championing an inclusive transition through WiC networks and session 2.3 Citizens as a force for transformation: Engagement and co-design.