

They think of it as a zero-sum game
But it’s not.
The reason you need more lanes is because of a growing population using a fixed set of roadways. As you add protected bike lanes, more and more people opt for using a bicycle. This means fewer people on the road, negating the need for the extra roadway.
If you spend limited tax dollars on bike infrastructure, driving infrastructure will not receive necessary maintenance.
I’m not sure what you personally believe, but this is not true at all.


Oh I see. Most of Australian cities are actually suburban and have had wider footpaths than necessary, as well as parking buffers. It’s trivially easy to just convert one side into a protected bike lane.
I still argue that in a lot of urban areas where the road has swelled to its natural limit, depending on the road, it can be good to reduce the road by one lane and add a protected bike lane. But this is situational. Not every road needs a bike lane. But there should be bike lanes every so often, so people can safely get close to their destination without bothering motorists.
Fair enough. I agree that reducing a road by a lane can improve congestion, it isn’t always the case, and isn’t a simple sell.