I think it most certainly is about "getting us out of cars" altogether. They want us huddled together, living on top of one another in the cities, where we're dependent on government-provided mass transit to go anywhere.
It would be great if there were nice bike paths going here and there--it's great exercise in my opinion, but not when it's mandated. Not when a city one the eastern seaboard has to trade bikepaths for roads. Not when you have to buy your groceries by the bagful, because you can't carry more than two bags on a bike.
Most of all, providing all these new transportation options should come as cities and counties have the budgets for them. Local governments should decide, not the feds.
I certainly agree with that. Local taxes should provide the funds to do what local people want.
However, local governments accept Federal money all the time. This, IMO, lets the pony out of the barn for all sorts of proposals that the Feds (ie all taxpayers) should fund local things.
I don't see why I should help fund a park or an piece of art or a women's shelter in some far off city ... but we do this all the time (it's called pork barrel politics). The precedent has been set.
An argument to reverse that precedent has more integrity than just saying "I don't want the Feds to fund bike paths, trains, etc. ... only roads."