The bridges on Paseo de la Victoria were necessary. According to whom? By Carlos Montoya. In Ciudad Juarez, there's a profoundly misguided idea about what it means to improve urban mobility. Every time someone proposes a bridge and overpass or more lanes, speeches about modernity and traffic efficiency automatically emerge, as if making cars move faster were the city's primary objective. But the real question is never answered. According to whom were those bridges necessary? Because according to virtually any methodology for sustainable urban planning, a city's priority should not be increasing the speed of private vehicles. It should be improving people's quality of life. Organizations such as the Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure, ISI, the U.S. Green Building Council, USGBC, the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy, ITDP, and the United Nations itself through the New Urban Agenda have been establishing the same principle for years. Cities must prioritize people first and then cars. There is something called the urban mobility hierarchy, a basic concept that any authority, urban planner, or engineer involved in infrastructure should know. First comes the pedestrian, then the bicycle, then public transport, and finally the private car. Here it seems we decided to do the exact opposite. We continue to design cities around the car, even though all international evidence shows that this model generates more traffic, more uncontrolled urban sprawl, more pollution, and more road accidents. The private car remains the mode of transport that causes the most deaths in cities, which is why modern trends seek to reduce urban vehicle speeds and create more walkable and safer environments. But here we are still obsessed with cars not lining up. And the problem isn't just technical, it's also cultural and intellectual. It is worrying that in the information age, where any official or academic could access international urban mobility methodologies in minutes, it seems that the Internet is used more to position the image of politicians than to investigate how modern cities really work. All that information exists and is publicly available, yet, here we continue to defend projects like the Paseo de la Victoria bridges as if they were inevitable symbols of progress. In reality, they are infrastructure based on an obsolete urban logic, sacrificing the city to increase vehicular speed. And the problem is so deep that it is already reflected in certain local academic sectors. A perfect example is the pedestrian bridge built in front of the UACJ University Language Center on the Pronaf Ring Road. According to the supposed experts, they conducted studies that detected high pedestrian traffic between a parking lot and the university facilities on Henry Dunat Avenue. And the solution they found was to build a pedestrian bridge to cross just two lanes. It is truly surprising that, instead of even Googling real methodologies for prioritizing urban infrastructure or international criteria for sustainable mobility, they decided to spend millions of pesos forcing pedestrians to go up and down stairs just to prevent private vehicles from slowing down for a few seconds. Instead of designing a safer, more accessible, and more people-friendly environment, they decided to prioritize vehicular flow. That example reveals something deeply worrying. Here, future engineers and architects are still being taught that the priority of a city is cars and not people. Because ultimately, what do these kinds of projects actually create? They simply shift traffic from one point to another. The missing traffic light ends up causing congestion further down the road, but they also create more hostile, noisier, and less walkable environments. The world's most attractive cities understood long ago that a pleasant city isn't built by filling it with overpasses. In London, Barcelona, Madrid, or New York, the most valuable areas are precisely those where pedestrians dominate the urban space. True urban development isn't about making cars travel faster through the city, but about making people want to live there. And if those making these decisions continue to believe that modernizing Juarez means filling its urban corridors with bridges and concrete to speed up private vehicles, then the problem is no longer technical, but one of judgment. An authority that doesn't prioritize quality of life, pedestrian safety, and smart urban development should hardly continue defining the city's future. And if these people hold such urbanization criteria, then they shouldn't be the ones making the decisions.