I guess it depends on demand. If bikes are 100-to-1 then make a bike lane, if the other way around maybe not. Need to remember that tax-payers actually fund this stuff so can't just force random stuff on them.

▲

lukan 6 days ago | parent [-]

That is true, but the thing is, without bike lanes, people won't switch to bikes in certain traffic conditions. Cyclists pay taxes btw. too and a bicycle with its low weight is magnitudes cheaper for the roads, then the SUV tanks.

▲

osigurdson 6 days ago | parent [-]

I guess it is reasonable to run some experiments, set up some bike lanes for a period of time. If they are used, keep them, if not maybe consider removing them.

Good point regarding the costs. The other advantage of dedicated / purpose-built bike paths is they likely don't have to be built to the same spec as ones designed for vehicle use (I assume - not a civil engineer).

	▲	ryukafalz 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		Careful, this often ends up with cities and towns building isolated pilot bike lanes that go nowhere and then ripping them out when nobody uses them. The value of a bike lane isn't in the lane in isolation, in the same way that the value of a street isn't in that street alone. It's in the ability of that lane/street to get you where you need or want to go.