> Well given the fact that traffic has successfully diverted around the bridge for a year with really no huge increases in traffic, it would suggest that the lanes aren’t necessarily necessary.

Kindly link to the statistically valid survey of residents of that area that leads you to that conclusion

> And a traffic bottleneck isn’t necessarily being caused by the lanes of the bridge, it is the intersection just past it on the Point Breeze side that limits flow, and causes traffic to cue on the bridge.

It's "Queue", not "cue". Cues are read from cards, people wait in queues.

Having lived in this area, added lanes definitely help as you're not forcing all vehicles into a single lane to wait their turn to either access S Braddock going either direction or go straight through. Your proposal would back traffic into Squirrel Hill.

As for that stretch of roadway being treated like a highway: you're either ignorant, obtuse, or you've never lived in that area. It's not Fernhollow Bridge that's taken at high speed, it's the long straight bit of road between South Dallas and South Braddock. Restricting the bridge lane traffic would do jack shit to help with that.

The traffic lights at South Braddock restrict the practically non-existent speeding on the bridge. If you weren't completely full of shit and actually cared about speeding and safety on that stretch of road you'd be talking about traffic control between South Dallas and South Braddock.

The bridge is not the issue, it's the long stretch of read with no traffic enforcement and no traffic control.

Again, why make it so easy? You're taking positions that anyone who has lived in that area will know to be bullshit. Bike lanes are good for cities overall. The Fernhollow/South Braddock intersection is a place where a bike lane would only fuck things up more.