My agitation comes from the fact that our federal highway dollars are funneled into paying for paved bike trails as whole lanes on busy roads are being converted into bike lanes.
You don't like federal highway dollars being used to accommodate non-motorists? Ok, I don't like commuter sewers destroying pleasant residential neighborhoods, arterial highways with few crossings and no sidewalks or bike lanes that create impassible barriers to anyone not in a car, and the use of eminent domain to wreck neighborhoods in the interest of shaving a few minutes off suburban commuter times. So we're even. And we have to strike a reasonable balance.
Roads in metro areas (and heavily travelled suburban areas) should be built with sidewalks, generous shoulders, and/or bike lanes. A friend who works for the Sierra Club calls these "complete roads," and I have to say this is one of the few things political about which we agree.
Roads that cannot accommodate pedestrians and bike traffic are barriers to anyone not in a car. I try not to be prejudiced against commuters, but I am keenly aware that most suburbanites view neighborhoods like mine as obstacles to their daily grind and would happily pave us over to shave five minutes off their commutes. Yes, we need a good highway system to get people around, but cars should not be allowed to monopolize the rights of way. Not all of us regard everthing between our own drivewayss and the office or mall parking lot as "drive through" territory. We actually live here, and we like being able to get around the neighborhood without getting in our cars for every trip.
So if you want cyclists and pedestrians out of your way, build adequate sidewalks and bike lanes, and bike trails in the 'burbs. "Complete roads" is a pretty good term. This would not be very expensive if it were simply designed in from the start, so I'd begin there and retrofit older streets bit by bit as major maintenance is done.