This is probably true for marginal cases, but I expect it's not true on average.
Bikes, trains, buses and walkable neighborhoods all offer alternatives to cars. If a city only had the last three but not bikes, I expect more people would have cars.
Some people uses cases would be fully covers by the final three, but some might find it more difficult and drive.
For example, I live in Montreal. I walk, take metros, and bike. I don't like buses, and can't be bothered to figure out schedules.
Without bikes, I'd just walk and metro. But if I didn't live near a metro, and couldn't bike, I'd probably use the local short term car rental options more often.
All four options are complementary. Remove one, and you'll harm the ensemble.
Exactly my point. You wouldn't buy a car. People who live in Boston/Cambridge only use their car to get out of the city, not travel within it. For people outside of the city coming in, bikes are not a replacement (trains and buses are).
Now if the plan is to have fewer people coming into the city, then bike lanes are great for discouraging that, but I'm going to guess that is not what the cities want. For example, I have a new startup and since we mostly live outside of the city proper and are tired of commuting in (especially to the nightmare of Kendall Square), we're setting up shop in the suburbs where there is unfortunately no public transportation.
I feel you're quoting me out of context. I used to not live near a metro. If I hadn't had bikes then, and could have afforded a car, I would have driven.
My point was that all factors count. In cities without metros, some people still take transit and bike, but more people take cars. In cities with poor biking, some people still metro and bus. But the more non-car options you have, the easier it is the not have a car.
You're making the argument "since bikes are not required in most cases, they're not useful". But you could say the same about any of the other four factors I listed.
Commuting from out of town to Kendall Square is a great example of multi-modal, depending on where you live in the suburbs or surround towns. Since it's on the Red Line, if you're coming from Lexington/Concord, you could easily park your car at the massive Alewife garage, and take the 20 minute T ride to Kendall.
Or, I know this is a dramatic suggestion, you could move to Cambridge. You could encourage your employees to move to Cambridge. Then you'd be able to walk/ride to work. You'd probably have to give up your yard, and perhaps pay rent instead of a mortgage.
Bikes, trains, buses and walkable neighborhoods all offer alternatives to cars. If a city only had the last three but not bikes, I expect more people would have cars.
Some people uses cases would be fully covers by the final three, but some might find it more difficult and drive.
For example, I live in Montreal. I walk, take metros, and bike. I don't like buses, and can't be bothered to figure out schedules.
Without bikes, I'd just walk and metro. But if I didn't live near a metro, and couldn't bike, I'd probably use the local short term car rental options more often.
All four options are complementary. Remove one, and you'll harm the ensemble.