[cyberax]

No, bicycles are more of a symptom. They are not the sole cause, of course.

The actual root cause is over-centralization, where the only jobs worth having are concentrated in downtowns of a dwindling number of cities. These downtowns are always congested, and bike lanes are one way to make it more tolerable. But if you can afford an apartment, of course.

Bike lanes near Wall Street are an iconic example. If you're using them, then it's highly likely that you're a multi-millionaire. Or maybe you inherited a rent-controlled apartment.

Cars historically were a great equalizer. Sure, your CEO was likely driving a better car, and living in a better house. But they were stuck in the same traffic along with you. And this _was_ a factor when deciding on the next office location: "Hm. I really hate the commute, perhaps our next office should be in a bit less congested location?"

And this is reflected in actual research: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4938093/ - "For the USA, we observe an exponent βUSA ≈ 0 indicating that the density of jobs is independent from the skill level in the USA. For the UK and Denmark, we observe a non-zero exponent with βUK ≈ 1/2 for the UK and a larger value for Denmark βDK ≈ 0.8. These results indicate that the density of jobs decreases with the skill level, more in Denmark than in the UK."

[kfarr]

Ok most of what you're saying makes sense, but having gone to bike lanes in lower manhattan it seems like it's a lot of food delivery people 24/7 with the normal new yorkers you'd see on the subway during commuting hours. From a humanistic perspective it seems like it's a good thing to ensure that delivery drivers aren't killed by motor vehicles and have the ability to not conflict with sidewalk pedestrians? As a driver I would prefer they're not in my lane.

> Cars historically were a great equalizer.

I suppose we'll agree to disagree on this one, there's like a bajillion books that assert the opposite so I will let those and the intertubes do the talking.

As it relates to the study, I'm a little confused how it relates to the above discussion. Is this a good or bad thing to have density of jobs relate to skill level? Wouldn't the historic development of these cities with thousands of years of human civilization in Europe vs. relatively recently developed US cities be a confounding factor in exploring land use patterns?

[cyberax]

> Ok most of what you're saying make sense, but having gone to bike lanes in lower manhattan it seems like it's a lot of food delivery people

Yes, I should have mentioned that I specifically meant people using bike lanes for commutes. Bike lanes for work or for recreation are a totally different story, and I have nothing against them.

However, in this case it still reinforces my point: delivery by bike is a luxury good. It still is something that makes living in an utterly unaffordable area more bearable for people who have money.

> I suppose we'll agree to disagree on this one, there's like a bajillion books that assert the opposite so I will let those and the intertubes do the talking.

I'm actually not saying anything that is not an accepted fact in urbanism.

> As it relates to the study, I'm a little confused how it relates to the above discussion. Is this a good or bad thing to have density of jobs relate to skill level?

No, it's not good. This means that good jobs force people to move closer to the centers of their concentration. This automatically reduces opportunities for other people.