I didn't think they were making that analogy. I think they were highlighting the inefficiency of car-centric spaces. I can think of several other ways the author's thought experiment breaks down. For example many vehicles will be moving freight and goods, not just people and I don't know if the author has factored in anything like that. Then you could also say well what about the distance the cars are travelling compared to say how far people are likely to walk in comparison. All that said I still think it's a thought provoking way of highlighting how car-centric spaces just suck.

That idea is nowhere in the OP, you've literally made something up to be mad at

so the bridge should be closed for tourism?

a bridge is a tool for use by people wishing to cross an otherwise difficult to cross span… the purpose of that crossing - including things like recreation - shouldn’t dictate if their crossing should be allowed or not

Damn. I first saw this comment 3 hours ago when it was brand new, and I genuinely thought it was some actually quite clever satire.

But...refreshing the page and seeing all your other more recent comments in the thread... Nope. You just really are that stupid.

How is that an assumption at all? If you provide the same amount of infrastructure for bikes as for cars, then you still have half the infrastructure for cars, so people can use both / either.

And for those of us living in places where we don’t have bike friendly infrastructure, it’s useful to be able to point out that converting car infra to bike infra would have the capacity to reduce congestion, particularly if the area commits to making those changes more widely.