You know, from that perspective (the first/last mile thing), I think it makes WAY more sense!

That's the type of thing I think is most useful from something like this, much more so than a trail across Cockeysville.

I'm not so against it. I just want people to have some perspective on stuff like this.

Then drive.

It is. But the entire purpose of it is to link two trails that already exist for recreational purposes.

No, I agree it's not binary. But in a world of finite funding, I cannot help but think the state could be using it in ways that would improve more peoples lives.

I'm not talking about things like "lets fix poverty!", but concrete expenses like the ones I've mentioned.

It's not like the opportunity for recreation doesn't already exist. And it's not like most people who would be using this trail extension don't already have the means to access either of the trails it's connecting. Sure, maybe a few, but is that number of people outweighed by the number who would benefit from some of the other things I talked about? I doubt it.

It's nice to have nice things, but my point is, we already have a lot of nice things. Maybe we should focus on having some more things that actually matter.

Ok, in that case... does it make sense to have funds restricted for bikeways existing, and if it does, does it make sense to use that money for something purely recreational?

Also, I am well aware of the RoW of the original NCR. I think the biggest challenge there is, as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, is going to be colocating it with the Light Rail's RoW. Much of that right of way was originally acquired in the 1840s so it's not nearly as generous as former railroad rights of way that came later (and had provisions for multiple tracks and access roads). It's a tight squeeze as it already is, and I'm not sure how pleasant of a ride it'll be with a chain link fence between riders and 50mph light rail trains.

In a region with such huge struggles, is funding recreation stuff like this really a smart priority?

How many more busses could the money for this buy?

How many bus shelters could be built?

How many more fare inspectors could be hired for the light rail?

How many more repair personnel could be hired for the school system?

I'd think those are all far more pressing and useful needs than linking some recreational trails up.

Don't get me wrong, it'd be a nice thing, but in the list of regional priorities, it just seems odd to focus on unless some compelling opportunity exists for it (like a rail line who's right of way would be needed for it is being abandoned).