=v= Actually, that's one stretch of a bike lane that works
much better south of there, as do the bike lanes to the
east and west.
Can you explain exactly how they work better than the same
total lane width without the paint stripe? That's always
the question.

=v= A quintupling of bicyclists in New York City comes to mind.

=v= Mandatory bike lane use does *not* apply in NYC (and you
can thank my lawyer for reminding the courts of that), so the
streets can still accommodate fast riders. Now, though, they
also accommodate slow riders, children, and cargo bikers.

=v= My own experience in NYC (usually fast, sometimes laden
with cargo) is that pedestrian encroachment is a problem in
that bike lane and in another around Times Square, and on
parts of the Hudson River Greenway, but otherwise they've
been a boon.

the opposite accusation could be thrown at many bike facility
advocates - that they'll cherrypick one acceptable stretch,
then say "Any bike facility is a good bike facility."

=v= Scripting words for straw dolls is not a valid argument.
I referred only to your own actual words, generalizing from
this one stretch of one lane to "what happens in real life"
in a plurality of bike lanes.

=v= "Any bike facility is a good bike facility" may be what
advocacy groups and local governments convey when they describe
progress only in terms of the miles of bike lanes, but I have
never actually heard anyone say those words. Indeed I find
it blitheringly obvious (except perhaps to the anti-facilities
jihad) that the quality of bike facilities is wildly variable
_Jym_