Sprawl lobby wants to have it both ways

A recent video on the Reason Magazine website criticized Washington, DC's bikeshare program, on the ground that the program's primary beneficiaries are well-off whites.

But when (as in most southern and western cities) the transit system primarily serves the transit-dependent poor, are people who are generally critical of public transit any more supportive?  Not in my experience.  Instead, they are even more eager to reduce public transit, arguing that low ridership means that transit doesn't reduce congestion or is uneconomic (among other arguments). 

In other words, the sprawl/highway lobby raises a "heads I win, tails you lose" argument: if well-off people ride transit, that means transit is a subsidy to the upper class.  If poor people ride transit, that means transit is just welfare for the undeserving poor.  They have created an argument which Tis simply immune to falsification.