This does jack squat for getting across San Francisco or from corner to corner of Phoenix.
Getting from outer sunset to market by bike daily isn't really practical, especially during Weather.,
I though this too until I looked at the true dollar costs or carbon impact per passenger mile. That doesn't even account for the externalities of particulate pollution and road wear. The buses in my city are also filthy diesel, belching thick, noxious, clouds of soot as they accelerate away from the stop, right at crowds of people who just got off the bus. Heavy buses also require special concrete pads at every stop and still do heavy damage to the road surface: rutting and exacerbating potholes.
still do heavy damage to the road surface: rutting and exacerbating potholes.
Sure, the wear goes up exponentially with the weight (and axle loading). OTOH you need significantly more cars than buses to move people around. Investing in mixed-use development and better pedestrian infrastructure means that fewer people need to use mechanized transport.Look at lord Elno's autonomous vehicle tunnel – individual vehicles simply don't scale.
Unleaded gasoline will leave a nasty residue on your exhaust but that's about as bad as it (should) get. Alcohol and gas will burn cleaner but come with their own drawbacks. Trolley buses, of course, don't have tailpipe emissions but not everyone is willing to put up with the overhead infrastructure.
And hey, battery EV buses are starting to become a thing too (e.g. SF is trialing ones from a few different manufacturers).
Bike lanes don't appreciable increase the percentage of trips by bike, they dis-proportionally slow down car traffic, and the bike commutes themselves are probably the worst transit mode in the US.
Heck, bike lanes almost never even _replace_ the amount of traffic that they displace.
All bike lanes do, is cater to a bike lobby that tries to force their hobby on everybody else, at the expense of practicality.