Originally Posted by N_C
For one in my area BL's or MUP's do not reduce the amount of bicycle traffic on the roadways. In our area the BL's are not marked by a painted line it is a wider roadway with more of a shoulder then anywthing. The existing established bike routes are marked as shared roadways. The BL's offer an alternative if people want to use them. If people want to ride legally on the roadways they can. In fact there are more non-cycling traffic on the MUP's then those on bikes. But the amount of MUP's or roadways with wide enough shoulders to allow both a car & a cyclist abreast with enough room between the 2 for safe passing has nothing to do with a reduction of cyclists on the other roadways.
I'm sorry, NC, but I have no idea what you are talking about or trying to prove with this post. In your second sentence, you show a lack of understanding about what a bike lane is. A bike lane is not a shoulder or a road with a wide lane. A bike route marked as a shared roadway (as redundant as that is) is not a bike lane either. Furthermore, as HH has already chimed in to say, he has never claimed that bike lanes or MUPs reduce cycling. His claim, along with JF's, is that they do not significantly increase cycling, at least not on their own. By the way, non-cycling traffic on the MUP's has nothing to do with cycling. I'm glad that people use the MUP's in your area. That's why they are there. But walkers on a MUP are certainly not evidence that MUP's do not decrease cycling (this last statement is completely ridiculous but after reading NC's post, I feel like it needs to be said as it appears that is the conclusion he is coming to).
By the way, how much has cycling increased due to that new door zone bike lane they installed downtown?