https://www.facebook.com/urbanthoughts11/videos/570538686622524/
Where is there a street with 13 lanes in one direction? Show me one, please. Not even in Los Angeles. Problem is, no city could have enough parking to support the amount of traffic such a street would carry, and so such streets don’t get built. Some urban space taken by motor vehicles is arterials, but most is parking (not represented in the graphic), and the network of smaller streets which must reach all trip endpoints regardless of the amount of traffic. Mode shift would mostly affect the amount of space taken up by parking.
The problem with all these displays is not their unrealistic detail but goes much much deeper. They all make the case for more people riding bikes NOT for more bike lanes (though it is common for bike lane advocates to conflate the two).
It is obvious that people walking, riding in buses and (to a lesser extent) driving bikes use road space more efficiently than those in single -occupancy cars. We can argue how great or small this effect is, but it is clear that any car driver switching mode of transport is freeing up road space.
However, this does not make the case for subdividing roads into exclusive domains for each vehicle type. Unless those subdivisions happen to exactly match the actual usage of each of those types of vehicle on each stretch of road this is bound to reduce the efficiency of that road – with some lanes congested and some empty.
Those fundamental flaw with images is that it relies on the assumption that if you convert a 3 lane road into one lane for buses, one for cycles and one for cars then the next day two thirds of the drivers using that road will leave their cars at home and use a bus or a bike instead.