[tonymet]

That’s what it is . Remove capacity, increase travel times , increase driver frustration and in theory increase cycling and public transit. But the second part never happens . Travel times have been increasing for 40 years and cycling is still a fringe hobby

[Mawr]

Removing car capacity by 50% and adding 1000% bike capacity at 1% of the cost is good, actually. It's not really 1000% of course, it's infinity% — the average cyclist is not capable of cycling on the roadway, so a bike lane literally enables them to do the activity at all; the value is immeasurable.

That you think cycling is a hobby is exactly the issue. I don't get to work by bike as a hobby, I do it to get to work, and get all the benefits of cycling at the same time. Win-win.

It's also quite deluded to think the USA has been putting non-negligible effort towards improving cycling for the last 40 years, to the point that you'd notice any difference in car traffic. Hate to bring it to you, but the reason traffic's getting worse is there are more and more cars, but there's only so much space and cars scale horribly. Hence, bikes and public transportation. Those scale exceptionally well and are the perfect solution for 95% of all city trips.

The USA is in 99.9% designed for cars. You're essentially complaining that the most dominant mode of transport is getting mildly deprioritized and is on the path to being only 99% dominant. Cry me a river.

Oh, and the reason you drive a car and not say, use public transport, is that for the last 50+ years the USA has invested into car infrastructure instead of public transport. So the car is not a mode of transport that you have chosen, that you prefer, that you like, it's one that was forced upon you. That you can't see it is somewhat hilarious, but really — just sad.

Just ask yourself: Do you have any other real choice than to own a car and drive everywhere?