More funding for bike paths would have been great, but what would you have cut to get it? I kind of like things like water I can drink and bridges that don't fall down. This bill was hard enough to pass as it is. Trying to add funding for bike paths would have been difficult because (a) right-of-way issues tend to make them hideously expensive relative to the constituencies they serve and (b) that constituency tends to be more liberal than the fence-sitters were. Even those who aren't in the pocket of the fossil-fuel industry like Manchin still had to satisfy their own constituents who are more oriented toward giant pickups and SUVs than bikes. Proponents needed to attract votes, not drive them away.

Yes, it's a missed opportunity, but no bill at all would have been an even bigger one.

I'm going to make a wild guess that there are more pork eaters than cyclists in America. Bike lanes are compicated issues but everyone has to eat. Politicians are always going to make these calculated decisions. I have also observed that the quickest way to fire up an angry mob is to say something perceived to be critical of cyclists.

Pork doesn't mean literal pork- in fact, as far as I know the infrastructure bill doesn't spend a cent on subsidies to pig, or any other, farming, though it does include improvements to rural roads, water supplies and broadband which will help farmers.

Pork, short for "pork-barrel politics", is a US term originating in the 19th century which refers to the practice of spending money in a legislator's district to get their support.