> I truly do not understand why this sub hates cars so much.

Some people will always drive, but we really should act to reduce cars and encourage people to take transit as much as possible. Because cars simply cost a lot in healthcare costs, infrastructure costs, congestion and pollution.

There have been recent posts about cars killing people, like this one or this one. So I imagine that contributes to the dislike of cars. Because less cars means less accidents.

"Although I do drive sometimes, I also acknowledge that cars are the source of a lot of problems in our cities."

Also, the very fact of the matter is that owning a car is expensive (loans, insurance, gas, repairs) so if we're talking about less well-off residents, we should be encouraging them to not use cars and we should do our best to make public transit better. Yes, sometimes transit takes longer, but if you want that convenience then you pay a high premium for that.

You probably got downvoted because you are making disingenuous arguments that are easily debunked and clearly grasping for excuses to justify your own unwillingness to give up one of your 6 car lanes for safety.

First of all, there will still be plenty of car lanes on Connecticut, 2 in each direction. No one is stopping anyone from driving. But let’s pretend they are and take a look at the “concerns” about gentrification. Over 50% of pedestrian fatalities are in just wards 7 and 8. Poor and minority residents are the ones most in need of safe infrastructure. It’s also simply incorrect to pretend that bikes are for rich people and cars are for poor people. Of all commute mode types, driving is done by people with the highest income. Car ownership is correlated with income, with most households making above average income owning a car in DC, and half of lower income households owning one.

There’s is absolutely no evidence to suggest that creating bike lanes results in the displacement of brown and black people. This is just the standard concern trolling that people find annoying.

The people who are advocating for better public transportation, bike lanes, and walkability are advocating for better accessibility for everyone, not just the city center. Countries like the Netherlands demonstrate how this works.

Furthermore, with your last paragraph, we have arrived at the standard talking points about gram gram, families having to make giant shopping trips. The first and most obvious rebuttal is that the overwhelming majority of drivers aren’t on the road for those reasons, they are on the road being they just kinda feel like it.

There are a number of great studies that I can link that delve specifically into why people actually get into their cars, which I can link if you are interested.

Finally, pretty much every city that has banned cars in major parts of their city has built in exceptions for people making deliveries, moving, emergency vehicles, etc so in the rare case you are actually using your vehicle, you will be able to do so without having a bunch of other people slowing you down with their pointless car trips.

It also goes without saying that investment public transportation, bike lanes, and walkability makes those options a faster and more efficient than sitting in traffic for an hour.

P.S There is a certain irony of someone who is defending Americas car obsession calling other people “angry, loud, and entitled”.

>because the transplants were loud and white enough that the city listened to them and their needs

Sooo... the process worked? That is how a democratic government is supposed to work. Voters (of all races) elected politicians who share their priorities. It would be very odd if the gov based their decisions on the electorate of 20yrs ago rather than the electorate of today.

> Meanwhile black residents who have continued to be pushed further and further away from the city center, many of whom have cars were never given the same consideration or benefits

The biggest cause for delays in constructing bike lanes for decades has been churchgoers from "Ward 9," and their influence has only diminished in the last 3 years. Wtf are you even talking about?

Well said - there is a very loud group that openly believes that the city (and suburbs, which is particularly hilarious) needs to convert as many auto lanes to bike lanes as possible, as soon as possible. I follow the need for some amount of better bike infrastructure but it needs to be additive to auto / mass transit capacity, not simply a reallocation- only the former will make it easier to get around for everyone. Telling people "you need to buy a bike and start pedaling, or sit in worse traffic" is absurd, and it really does reek of privilege.

And this isn't really a huge deal in the broader picture - it's no secret that reddit is an echo chamber incubator that amplifies extremist views just because they're loudest - but it is disappointing that the /r/washingtondc moderators have allowed this circlejerk to become such a large part of this sub, especially when there is a specific subreddit that already exists for bikes + DC.