Originally Posted by
Leisesturm
One day, all, non essential vehicle traffic will be gone from the streets of cities like D.C., NYC, Philadelphia, Chicago and other metro areas with five figure population densities. As I understand it, the entire European Union plans to be (urban) car free by 2050. In America it will not take longer than that, but the fight will be bloodier. America's baby boomers are just as stubborn in their car addiction as they believe the cyclist community to be in their car free advocacy. At least the cyclist community does not have the destruction of the biome as a consequence of its existence.
Bike lanes actually work toward this goal in a way that some people seem not to recognize. They take away parking spots. The best way to get people to take public transportation from the suburbs into the city is to make it difficult and expensive to park in the city. The Washington Post writer is clearly aware of this, but he's trying to subvert it by conjuring up images of elderly people on their way to church as the consumers of on-street parking. If that wasn't his implicit objective, his attempt to cast bike lanes going past churches as a negative image would be even more ridiculous than it already is. ("Bikes near churches! Who wants to live like that?! ... I mean, aside from Latter Day Saints.")