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.)

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.

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.

Just FYI, I'm pretty sure that's not an appropriate use of "libre". "Libre" is more along the lines of "liberty" or "freedom", not "available" or "unused".

>There's absolutely no justification for an increase in bike lanes when they're currently underutilized, as Cassidy argues

This is incorrect. Aside from the network effect, the (under)utilization of an existing bike lane is not necessarily indicative of the expected usage pattern of a new bike lane. Imagine applying this argument to bus routes. Just because the 32 from Manhattan to the Bronx is underutilized, does that mean that a new route 44 from Manhattan to Long Island would also be underutilized? (Obviously my examples here are made up.)

As for your support of the network effect, it's not the government's position, by executive decree, to encourage change. They are representatives of the people, and to that end should cater to the majority, with the judiciary acting in its role to protect the rights of the minority.

Considering your bus example, I admittedly have no understanding on how bus routes (or for that matter, bike routes) work. Certainly there's empirical research suggesting that the route would be used, but the trade off is that adding a new bus route does not result in taking away something else (aside from resources, but resource allocation is entirely different).

Did you mean "gratis"?

> A viable argument could be made that decreasing parking spaces infringes on an individual's liberty by pushing them more into private parking. It's admittedly weak, but it's something to consider.

That's not just weak. There is no right or freedom that entitles one to public parking. There's nothing "libre" about public parking.

> As for your support of the network effect, it's not the government's position, by executive decree, to encourage change. They are representatives of the people, and to that end should cater to the majority, with the judiciary acting in its role to protect the rights of the minority.

It most certainly is the government's job to encourage change. The role of the government is not simply to be the enforcer for the masses. A large part of the government's job is to maintain a prosperous nation. Sometimes that requires change that the majority doesn't necessarily support. There are probably relatively few meaningful things that the government does with the support of >50% of the population. Rather, there are a lot of things that please some significant minority of the population. e.g. Bob gets a new connection between two major roads, Joe gets a new bike lane, Sue gets lower taxes on groceries, and Mallory gets a Hybrid car subsidy.

> Considering your bus example, I admittedly have no understanding on how bus routes (or for that matter, bike routes) work. Certainly there's empirical research suggesting that the route would be used, but the trade off is that adding a new bus route does not result in taking away something else (aside from resources, but resource allocation is entirely different).

Public land use is an exercise in resource allocation. The idea that parking should take priority over bike lanes is an opinion. It comes down to estimating what will be best for the city, both short and long-term.

A viable argument could be made that governments which don't provide free helicopter rides infringe on an individual's liberty by pushing them more into private helicopter services.

And I defy anyone to spend time on a major non-recreational cycling route (Sands Street, 8th Avenue, the Williamsburg Bridge, Prospect Park West) when the weather is pleasant and state that the infrastructure is underutilized. Were it the ghost town that Cassidy and Weinshall claim, the DOT would not be putting in pedestrian safeguards (bollards, the wall at the bottom of the Williamsburg Bridge).

This debate has raged for the better part of this year, and the notion of Prospect Park West residents sitting with golf clickers counting cyclists in the dead of winter and claiming the paths are underutilized is ridiculous.

Secondly, as far as increasing while they're currently under-utilized, I'd say that there's an argument for increasing to the point where there's a solid network over most of the city (which we're about at now). It's hard to say oh we don't need a bike lane on the UES because the west side lane isn't always full of bikers. Additionally, during rush hour those lanes certainly are utilized, I'm never the only one on a bike on a given block's length of bikelane during rush hour.

However, there's a massive distinction that we have to realize: garages are privately-owned, whereas parking is municipally-regulated. The city is switching out public parking for public bicycle paths, and I don't necessarily know if this a net positive economically.

It's funny, neither article nor any comment mentions the subways in NYC, which are excellent. That would seem like the no-brainer choice for navigating Manhattan; it certainly is when I visit. That this guy must visit Manhattan locales by cars is... I dunno, perhaps being too picky? Anyways, if people want to keep doing it, parking will surely pop up at prices the market can bear.

Double digit returns on a relatively low-risk investment aren't exactly bad.