I don't much care for cycling; I did it for years when I was in school, had enough of it, now I prefer motorbikes. But it's a gross overstatement to say that there is no justification for an increase in bike lanes when they're currently being underutilized; you're completely ignoring network effects. If the cause of under-utilization is lack of cycle paths that cover enough of the journey (i.e. there would be too much navigation of hazardous traffic), it's self-evident that more cycle paths would be justified.
The question then becomes whether or not under-utilization is caused by lack of cycle route coverage. I think it's pretty reasonable to believe that many people used to car transport think cycling through the traffic to be dangerous, and would look more favourably on it if there were separated dedicated lanes.
(If parking is available for 30 USD, then it appears that parking is not actually difficult in NYC. It is expensive, not difficult.)
>(If parking is available for 30 USD, then it appears that parking is not actually difficult in NYC. It is expensive, not difficult.)
That's the key takeaway. When property is at a premium, parking is also at a premium, by necessity. As someone who lives in a city, I like cheap parking as much as anybody else. But cheap parking is just city-subsidized parking.
The distinction is that it's private parking for $30 USD per hour. Municipal parking is provided by the taxpayers, just as the bike lanes are. They're switching out municipal parking for bike lanes when the bike lanes are underutilized.
"Underutilized" is a pretty iffy measure when comparing parking to bike lanes. Let's say 10 drivers can park on one side of a city block. Their cars will be parked for an average of 2 hours, and will carry 1.5 passengers. The parking is heavily contended for 14 hours. Given these rough estimates, 105 people will benefit from the parking each day. How many cyclists need to use that same land per day to be considered properly utilized? 200? 500? The fact that a bike lane isn't congested doesn't mean it's underutilized relative to parking.
And let's not forget that bike lanes are a public good, while parking spaces can be (and are) provided by private businesses. For that matter, the city could provide public lots or garages that are off the road. Parking does not need to be curbside.
The point is that parking is something which can be provided privately, and which should, in theory (I know that, especially in economics, this doesn't necessarily mean in practice), cost approximately the same. Bike lanes, on the other hand, cannot be provided privately.
Isn't there some sort of city council that decides this sort of thing, rather than a sole executive? Most public works projects don't go through a referendum from what I've seen, which would be impractically unwieldy.
Parking is easy in NYC, from my limited experience, as long as you have a fat wallet. It's extremely difficult if you're trying to be cheap, but that's only to be expected.
The question then becomes whether or not under-utilization is caused by lack of cycle route coverage. I think it's pretty reasonable to believe that many people used to car transport think cycling through the traffic to be dangerous, and would look more favourably on it if there were separated dedicated lanes.
(If parking is available for 30 USD, then it appears that parking is not actually difficult in NYC. It is expensive, not difficult.)