Regional trails push is still a good idea

Two years ago, brand new Cedar Rapids Mayor Ron Corbett floated an interesting idea: What if the Corridor Metropolitan Planning Organization, instead of scattering small scoops of its annual funding to big-dollar road projects, plowed a big share of its dollars into finishing a long-planned network of recreational trails?

It seemed a far-fetched slice of sky pie. But last week, a clear majority of MPO board members from local cities and the county voted in favor of the idea. I thought it was a good idea in 2010, and still do.

For one thing, I'm intrigued by the novelty of it. Imagine actually finishing a long-term plan - taking a three-ring binder down from a high shelf in that proverbial warehouse of nifty, but dusty, government plans and completing it. That would really be something, although I'm a little afraid that such a preposterous move might rip a hole in the time-space continuum. I say we find out.

The metro-wide trails plan has been sitting around for years. It comes with a really nice, colorful map, with trails linking metro communities, connecting tens of thousands of people with popular recreation areas and even their workplaces. But that map is disconnected from reality, just like most trails are disconnected from others.

Under the plan approved by the MPO, for the next few years, most of any unspent bucks from previously planned road projects would go for trails and bike lanes on existing roads. In fiscal year 2016, trails would get an 80 percent chunk of the MPO's roughly $3.2 million in annual funds. Over time, that could add up to a finished trail system.

Of course, this doesn't sit well with everyone. Some see it only as an idea that takes money away from roads.

Critics say trails can wait, but how long? At what point is all the road work done? When exactly is that ceremony where we pour the golden slurry seal into the last pothole? The answer, obviously, is never. The MPO has been spending its funding on roads for 20 years, so I think trails backers have been fairly patient.

We can't cancel every other sort of infrastructure project because of bad roads. And this funding shift isn't going to cancel any road projects. But the truth is this really shouldn't be framed as roads vs. trails.

It's about refocusing scattered regional resources on actually accomplishing something for the region, building a public asset with considerable benefits for multiple communities. I'm not much of a cyclist, but I can understand the high value of a trails system to people who live here and those who might want to live here.

And, hey, one less plan on the shelf to dust.