Jett Marks: We can't assume that because I ride a bike for most trips that I do not pay the expenses of maintaining a car. I'm contributing the same share of taxes for the car as anyone else who owns a car. The main difference is, I don't spend as much on fuel or oil. Just as there are motorists who have bikes, there are lots of cyclists who have cars. The cost of a bike lane is really low. This is done when re-surfacing occurs, so what you're doing is painting the lines in a different spot. Compared to the cost of re-surfacing, the cost of providing a lane for cyclists is tiny. A large portion of Atlanta's cycling infrastructure is paid for out of private funds and/or grants from federal agencies. I encourage everyone to find out how these public works projects are funded and the proportion of dollars for roads versus cycling infrastructure. The key point is that motorists do not pull their own weight and are heavily subsidized. The wear on the roadway (requiring re-surfacing, for example) is negligible for bicycles. If we wanted to go after road users who do not pay their fair share, the trucking industry would be a good target. I think we'd all be happier if there were fewer tractor-trailers to contend with.
Sawb: Having traveled to other cities, it is easy to see how bicycles can be an integral part of the overall transportation process. However, I've also seen several places around metro Atlanta where limited tax dollars were used to create bike lanes which are seldom, if ever, used. At the end of the day, we have limited resources, and the amount allocated to bike lanes should be proportional to the percentage of citizens actually utilizing the resource.