Fed "non-motorized" money would have gone for the bike path improvements through the tunnel. Of course, a good bit of tunnel fixing was needed too but that probably did come at least in part (isn't SMART getting FTA money?) from local funds.

Tunnel was originally built for (though not used much if at all for) two tracks. So 25' wide is unlikely. 40' sounds too wide. 30' is the happy medium? NWP types who lurk around here probably have the right answer. You can't expect news writers (many of whom, for small local papers, aren't even in area) to get details like that right.

I've seen many bike path projects that don't come anywhere near their projected usage, at least initially. Then there are a few that blow right by. It usually has to do with connections and aesthetics - is it a pretty ride to bring out the recreational types, and does it connect well with other bike paths for the commuters and racers who run longer distance? At the moment (viewing in Google and past familiarity) the tunnel path doesn't appear to connect with much else other than some streets, and riding through a tunnel with industrial on the north side and a shopping center to the south isn't very pretty. The new bridge might improve the connections at least a bit.