Mildly Infuriating

It's a well-known fallacy in urbanism that bike lanes "see almost zero use." Bikes have much less visual weight than a car, so one driver in a lane will look like a lane being used while one bicyclist in a lane will look like the same lane being "half-used." In addition, bike lanes are much more efficient at keeping travelers moving at a constant rate so that they don't bunch up, meaning that a busy road with backed-up traffic will look like it's getting more use than an adjacent bike lane, when what's actually happening is that the bike lane is just moving travelers more efficiently.

Furthermore, the "induced demand" phenomenon means that adding capacity actually doesn't reduce traffic, at least not in the long term. We have decades of data proving it. The amount of cars that the lane can accommodate will invariably be taken up by people taking that route who had previously taken a different route. The only way to reduce traffic for a given route is to either create more routes or remove traffic from the road. Bike lanes do both.

In reality, for most routes, if you compare the number of people being moved on the bike lane, you'll often find that it equals or even exceeds the number of people being moved on the car lane immediately adjacent to it. More importantly, they also tend to reduce the number of drivers on the same route and nearby routes as they encourage travelers who would ordinarily be afraid of biking to ditch the car.

I can't speak to that specific bike lane, of course, but in general the argument that "it's not doing anything!" is a fallacy, and replacing the bike lane with a motor vehicle travel lane would almost certainly result in worse traffic, not better.