ndbiker

"The secretary added that projects like bike paths and trails "are really not transportation"

Paths and trails as a rule are recreational. Few use them to get from location to location. Most cyclists, runners, walkers, hikers etc. will drive to a trail or a path travel so far along it then turn around and return to their car then drive home. Logic can dictate that if we are using gas tax dollars to facilitate transportation (getting from place to place), investing in paths and trails is not a wise choice especially if the we have other aspects of our transportation infrastructure that need funding. However, if we are investing these dollars in parks or recreation then that is exactly what the money would be spent for when we're investing in paths and trails. I guess the question is should we be including MUP in our "transportation bills" or should they be funded through parks and recreation bills?

Having said that, designing roads which are friendly for cyclists, walkers, etc. should be a part of any transportation bill. I am going to wade into it big time and suggest licensing for cyclists. Recreational cyclists (those riding on residential streets, MUP etc. would not need a license. Those riding on main roads would need to pass a test, have their cycles inspected for safety items etc. This would "help" insure that those on the road would understand the rules, have safe bicycles (ie. headlamps and tail lights if riding in the dusk or dark) and would legitimize bicyles as vehicles (anyone gives you flack just show them your license). It would also validate demands for more cycling friendly streets (if we have license we should have safer and better access). No, I haven't thought this through beyond what I've posted, but if we want to have the rights to the roads then we should be able to prove we are responsible.