I like the
non sequitur:
...Unfortunately, the needs are greater than the financial resources. Public safety is very important to the Commissioner and our roadways are designed with safety in mind.
I can understand his sediment though. Road widening is a high cost thing, regardless of a bike lane stripe. WOL advocates say money is wasted on paint, but the paint is peanuts compared to the cost of widening the road by 4 to 6 feet.
Rural roads around here (in the Portland area) don't usually have bike lanes, or even shoulders. Oregon law requires that new road development must include bike lanes or some other bike facility as a percentage of its budget, but rural roads are rarely torn out and replaced, and completely new ones are rarely built. They are mearly resurfaced with chip seal. Thus they continue to be very narrow, despite the increase in traffic due to development.
On a side note, when I commute, 3/4 of my commute is along rural highways with no shoulders. This carries an increased risk when you throw in rush hour traffic. Today I drove, and on the radio I heard that a section of the road was closed due to a head on collision. That got me thinking about the increased risk to drivers as well. I came to the conclusion that these rural roads with narrow lanes carry increased risk for anyone who rides or drives them, regardless of vehicle. Wider lanes could help drivers as well as cyclists.