have you not seen what we have seen? the efficient four lane streets are being repaved in towns and cities across the country with federal dollars. each one is finished into three traffic lanes, a lane in each direction, a left turn lane, striped so you can not pass, and ten foot wide bicycle lanes on the outsides to the curb. why are they doing this? i hope the majority of us won't end up on bicycles out of necessity.

why is this a federal concern/expense when it should be state or locals deciding if and where bicycle paths should be "built".

this is just the type of non-story coverage i'd expect from a "progressive" website that poses as an ideologically neutral one. reminds of the columbia journalism review — only with a feigned focus on government malfeasance, and authors who aren't so obviously marxist. (btw, you left out dailykos, salon, and mother jones from your footnoted story-links.) keep up the "good" work!

so, rand, unless you drive a car how do you cross the ohio rivers? this could be quite important if you to go from louisville to new albany and you didn't have or chose not to use an automobile. bicycle and pedestrian lanes on bridges in general are a minor cost when you compare it to the road itself. the cost of a bike and pedestrian lanes cost is effectively paint, and signs. in addition, walking and cycling is an activity that in general provides a means to ensure a healthy lifestyle that has been demonstrated to reduce medical expenses. so rand, if one were to perform a cost benefit analysis on the costs to providing access to cycling and pedestrian lanes on federal roads that includes the medical benefits, the inclusion of these highway expenses of signs and paint would be a cost savings. rap

well, considering that the federal government has a 15,000,000,000,000 deficit and that many more people travel via car than bike perhaps it makes sense to try to restrict the use of federal monies to "biggest bang" types of projects?