That tiny increase is actually barely out of the error of the measurement by the U.S. Census American Community Survey, so even that small increase may be only noise without signal. Also, there was this little event, variously referred to as the Great Recession or the Lesser Depression, that led to increases in cycling in many cities across the nation at that time. As the epicenter of that fiasco, NYC was far from immune from its consequences.
Regarding modal share targets, until a city gets over ten percent bike modal share, it's basically the same experience as any other city: a car-dominated landscape. Around ten percent things start getting interesting. I guess you could call that the critical mass.
A couple of years ago, Elly wrote up an article for Grist about her first attempt to ride 100 km. I find it odd for someone who has never attempted to ride even 100 km to be considered an experienced cyclist. One really can't get very far if one restricts one's riding to distances shorter than that. Little wonder the trip around the country she refers to in the OP is by motor vehicle. Her only riding experience is short trips around town, mostly in one city. That is not the pedigree of an experienced cyclist.
If you would like to read some writings from the perspective of an experienced cyclist, try Jan Heine.
http://janheine.wordpress.com/2013/1...-and-fearless/ Of course, as noted by others, people like Jan are routinely shouted down and marginalized by folks who just don't have the knowledge and experience to understand what works and what does not work. If you don't believe me, try attending a public meeting on a road project here in the PNW. It gets old to see things go in that are horrific, but resemble something someone saw in a video from a different culture and then to read about the first fatality that resulted from it.
To be honest, those of us from the old guard welcomed the new people who began cycling this past decade with open arms. We weren't surprised when many of them found great enthusiasm and wanted to make big changes; we even supported many of their proposals. However, as the focus, (mis)led by people like Elly and Mia Birk, has become one of an unrelenting quest to relegate cyclists to sidepaths (world-class sidewalks), we highly experienced riders are beginning to push back. One way we are doing this is by educating people on how to ride, as is done by these folks:
http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/ Please don't confuse this education effort with an attempt to say there is only one way to ride; we're not saying that. If someone is not confident in his/her ability to competently make a "normal" left turn, we have no problem with such a person taking the turn in two steps. However, we do not want the roadway built in such a way as to preclude competent cyclists from making a normal left turn, which is what the side-path movement is trying to do to us.
Much of the friction between people like Elly and people like me seems to have its origins in how we assess the relative dangers of intersections and overtaking traffic. Elly and her ilk have enhanced fears of overtaking traffic, to the point of irrationality, IMO. However, they think nothing of intersection configurations that place cyclists to the right of right-turning motorists as well as placing us outside of the normal sight-lines of conflicting left-turning motorists. Frankly, very few cyclists are injured or killed by overtaking motor vehicles unless they are first "doored". The real dangers are at intersections and the best way to minimize those risks is to be to the left of right-turning traffic and in the normal scan region for conflicting left-turning motorists. That means we don't want to be shoved into the gutter or onto a sidewalk/sidepath.
P.S. Roody, I think you will enjoy Jan's blog and the magazine it is attached to, Bicycling Quarterly. It takes a fairly rigorous approach to examining the performance of various aspects of our machines and reaches some surprising conclusions at times. Even ILTB might appreciate their honesty on the limitations of their experiments.