I can’t figure this out. When I read the article, it seemed to say that bikes and pedestrians would be accommodated in roadway design. This sounds reasonable to me, since I pay taxes for the roads(state and federal income tax, sales tax, property tax, and yes, even gas taxes, vehicle registration, etc.) and I want to be able to walk and bike safely. However, I find that many roads were not designed with safe walking and biking in mind, even though by law cyclists and pedestrians are allowed to use nearly all roads except for limited access highways.
When I read some of the comments, though, it was almost as if many people had read a different article. I don’t know what that one said, but apparently it was about banning motorized vehicles, or closing roads to motorized vehicles. I went back and read the article, and there is just nothing in it that suggests anything like that.
There is a quote from a lobbyist that this new approach would be an economic disaster. It almost sounded like he was responding to a different proposal than the one in the article, too. Apparently, he thought that trucks would be banned from using the road system. I usually don’t pay too much attention to lobbyists in general, though, because they tend to whine and exagerate whenever they feel threatened.
So this is all very strange. Maybe someone can explain why the article I saw didn’t say any of those negative things about getting rid of cars. I follow these issues, and I’ve never heard anyone propose or support such a thing.