Bike Lanes as a Symbol of Gentrification

In this recent article from the Washington Post, Perry Stein discusses the role of bike infrastructure as as a symbol of gentrification through the lens of a specific episode in Washington D.C.  The central thesis of the article gets at the way in which bicycle use intersects with race and class - and how infrastructure improvements create the conditions gentrification.

“Adonia Lugo, a Los Angeles-based anthropologist who studies cycling advocacy, says the root of it can be traced to a time before bike lanes entered the common U.S. city planning vernacular. For one, she says, car ownership holds a different value for different people, particularly along generational and socioeconomic lines.

At the D.C. meeting last month, cycling advocates suggested that churchgoers take the Metro if parking is so scarce.

“Access to driving is seen as a very important status symbol. There is a reality that for a lot of people in the U.S. that they had to work really hard to access money to buy cars,” Lugo said. “Sometimes people feel threatened when they feel a project will reduce their access to driving.”

When bikes were invented in the 19th century, they were expensive and a transportation mode that only the rich used. They became widespread in the 20th century, but lost their cachet as cars became more prevalent.

“People either believe cycling is elitist or for [low-income people], and people don’t want to associate themselves with either of those, especially in a country where we all believe we are middle class,” Lugo said.

There are plenty of black cyclists in the country, but it is still perceived as an activity more common among whites. Minority riders are a fast-growing part of the cycling population, but Capital Bikeshare ridership data, for instance, show that its users are generally younger and much whiter than the region’s overall population.

Lugo also said some bike lane opponents are concerned that such lanes translate to economic growth, and thus displacement.”

Here is the link to the full article:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2015/11/12/why-are-bike-lanes-such-heated-symbols-of-gentrification/

As the urban form is redesigned in pursuit of the outcomes we have spent so much time in our program trying to understand, the issues raised by this article force an abrupt reconsideration of ideas that otherwise seem settled.  How can a bike lane not be an improvement?  Who could argue with a bike lane other than an impatient motorist? As the article illuminates, issues beyond mobility and accessibility must be considered. My own prejudices and privilege in place, I have never thought of bicycle use as connected to race and class.

Recently, I was having dinner with a former student (I used to be a high school teacher) who now attends the U of A as an undergrad. He is struggling with making his finances work out, doesn't have a car, and has been buying most of his food at the convenience store at the student union. I have an extra bike and offered it to him if it would be helpful to get to a grocery store. As we talked about biking, he admitted that he never learned how to ride a bike. His parents, when he was young, put forward the message that bicycling "was for rich people." I eventually persuaded him to accept the bike, and he is in the process of getting comfortable with it, but notable for me in the experience was how different he viewed bikes from me. 

In the case of the story from Washington D.C., while other economic and political forces are at play, the response to the proposed bike lanes seems like something we should make sure to understand.  The pursuit of improved accessibility and social justice demands that we do.