I think he's got a point actually - 1 mil a year to promote bicycle use won't do jack **** for our energy situation. It's just pretending to give a ****. The money could be used better in planning more effective mass transit options thus making driving less attractive, or sponsoring promising new technologies. Modernizing our ancient nuclear power plants and building new ones. If this is part of some well funded mass education campaign for alternative transportation that would be different. Instead it's tossing a pittance in the general direction of the issue.

Hell, just using the money to subsidize public transport would have a much greater effect. For example - I work in Mountain View, but live in San Francisco. I could either drive to work (45 min each way), or take the Caltrain/bike (1 - 1.5 h each way). Not only is there a time penalty it's actually more expensive for me to take the train. If it was free, that would go a long way in making the train far more appealing.

That said I'm going back to the caltrain because I can use the extra time for my side venture. When I used to have someone waiting for me at home time was #1 priority, but since my long term relationship fell apart a few months ago that's not such a big deal anymore. For anyone who has a family speed of public transport is something to consider as well. Caltrain is sloooooow.