Great news. Bike lanes are simply the future. There is no getting around urban congestion problems other than gradual but necessary mode shifting. You cannot build more roads anymore to alleviate congestion. The only way is to get the margins out of their cars. Improved bike infrastructure that promotes all ages and abilities should do that over the medium term.
To those bemoaning whether they're used or not. This is the long-game. Ridership almost certainly will be underwhelming the first couple of years, this is gradual behaviour change that takes up to 20 years. What's critical is to recognize the real limitations of use. That's in connectivity and the network. The more dispersed and functional the bike network becomes the more likely it will be used. The lesson is kind of the reverse of what many people would take away: "oh the bike lane isn't being used so lets not build anymore" should be more like "the bike lane isn't being used because it doesn't really work as a route, we need more bike lanes to make bike transit a viable alternative." It's basic network effect.
To those complaining about the cost there's a pretty good argument that investments in cycling infrastructure offer huge net savings to municipalities.
Look at pages 50-51
http://www.vtpi.org/nmt-tdm.pdf
Shifting modes by 1 percentage point in a small communities of 20,000 commuting trips a day saves $645,000 under very conservative assumptions.
Total costs per km cycled are about $0.60 while for vehicles there's 6x higher at $3.74. Those are costs that are borne by all not just the vehicle operators.
Shifting 1000 miles from automobiles to bikes saves $14,300 under very conservative assumptions.
Basically, if you're a fiscal conservative there are very arguments for how you would be against infrastructure to shift modes toward more cycling. I was at a transport conference in the States and one of the speakers said that Portland's entire cycle network cost as much as one mile of 8 lane freeway in the city.