I read this article in my local paper, too. I'm glad to read in Ranger's quote that the emphasis will be on transportational, and not recreational, trails, because that's not the impression I got from the original article. In particular:
Like most paths, the trails are just as likely to be used by joggers, walkers or parents pushing baby strollers, which is why advocates are flat out giddy about the new bill.
I would guess this paragraph was not written with transportational cyclists in mind, because why would we be giddy about riding to work on a path filled with joggers, walkers, and baby strollers? Language like this, by failing to distinguish between recreational and transportational cycling, does not help to promote cycling as a serious mode of transportation. I hope that the main point of the legislation
is more transportational than this paragraph implies, and that the paragraph in question was simply the result of the story writer's failure to appreciate the difference between a recreational MUP and a bicycle commuting artery.