They don’t exist, and never will, because outside of the feels cities in the world that are suited for cycling, people don’t actually want them. The cynic in me says that car drivers only support cycle way spending because they think it’ll clear up the roads for them. But the reality is that doesn’t happen. In LA less than 50% of the transit budget is spent on roads, despite them being the primary facilitator of transport.

Your position is based entirely upon a utopian fiction, where if only we could tear the whole city down and rebuild it from the ground up, then maybe people would want to bike to work.

Still waiting for a source on cities like SF having spent "many billions" on bike infrastructure. You really did just make that up, didn't you?

Look, if you want a serious discussion, maybe don't, like, lie?

> In LA less than 50% of the transit budget is spent on roads, despite them being the primary facilitator of transport.

1. What's the cumulative investment there? LA spent decades building out freeways, after all. It takes a while to turn that ship around.

2. LA is explicitly turning away from car-centric design and spending because it didn't work. They're the poster child for it, and traffic is the worst in the country. Maybe more transit and bike spending won't completely 'solve' traffic, but going by other cities' examples, they should be able to make it less bad.

I lived in a city that made a conscious effort to retrofit a bike network with many dedicated routes over the past decade and it has paid off with a massive increase in riders (mode share has passed 20%). There was a corresponding decline in people traveling by car, despite the city also expanding the road network by twice the amount at the same time (they didn't reduce funding).