Whether you're correct or not the bicycles will still be there and they'll still do the damage. The bike lane may result in more congestion when no bikes are present, but when bikes are present they should move motor traffic more quickly. The need to partially change lanes to pass is not present when the riders are in a bike lane, and lots of lane changes is worse than one fewer lane.

That said. You can't blame one road user for the affect he has on another road user. This is a failing of current auto designs: They're too wide and their visibility sucks. Narrower cars with better visibility have a better chance of sharing a lane with a bike.

Second, we can't move away from our dependence on motor vehicles by assuming there is no alternative and pandering to them. Less infrastructure for cars does mean less cars: People avoid inconvenient actions. You can see it happen in many cities by just comparing downtown (where parking, for cars, sucks) to their suburbs: You'll see dozens of bikes being ridden downtown and you probably won't see one in the suburbs. Bikes are convenient downtown, they're punished in the suburbs by a lack of side streets, 4 lane speedways, freeways they can't enter, extra distance between businesses, and a complete lack of standard parking.

Mr. Anderson is doing a very good job of thinking in the short term. He seems to hate bikes because so many riders try to share the sidewalk with him and so he fights bike lanes which should move some of those riders to the street. Trouble is, the fight he's fighting isn't going to get rid of any bikes on the sidewalk. Maybe he should spend his effort convincing police to enforce the law with regard to bicycles.