Biking phenomenon in New York City

Bicycles are one of the most common means of transportation in the contemporary times. The history of bicycle dates back to 1818 when Karl Drais came up with the design of steerable bicycle which was then known as Laufmaschine(America on The Move). Devoid of pedals, this vehicle was known as the “running machine”. It required the rider to push the ground off with his/her feet to set the vehicle in motion. Following that, the design of bicycle underwent several iterations of improvement — pedals, brake, lever, chain and gears were added over the years (America on The Move). Designers also came up with bicycles containing different sized front and back wheels. However, it was the emergence of safety bicycle in 1890s, that marked a major change in the popularity of bicycles. Unlike its predecessor model Penny Farthing, safety bicycles were equipped with same-sized wheels and seat height down to waist level which made cycling much more safe, comfortable and easy. As bikes became safe and easy to ride, not just the young athletes but women and men of age began riding bicycles (Tobin).
People soon began drifting towards bikes from the other transportation options at that time — namely horse ride, horse carriage and simple walk. According to the data provided by “America on The Move”, the number of bicycles being used in the US rose as production increased from 200,000 bicycles in 1889 to 1,000,000 in 1899. The numbers however veil the polarized representation of society amongst the bike riders. Tobin argues that even though the bicycle boom was huge, bicycle market was majorly concentrated with upper and middle class people. However as the bicycle cost declined from $100 in 1895 to $13 in 1899, biking became more commonplace. The bicycle riders now also included large volumes of people from working class — laboring men, clerks working in city offices etc (“Cycles of Fashion”, Narratively). This led the middle class to cut off themselves from biking fad in fear of being identified as a “lower caste” and cycling craze eventually began to drop. In the twentieth century, things in New York City began to move in favor of cars and other automobiles with the advent of Robert Moses, an urban city planner. Nonko in “New York City’s subway crisis started with Robert Moses” writes that Moses prioritized cars and roadways over subways and buses. His projects were focused to accommodate more cars and automobiles by extensive bridge, highway and roadway construction. More so, most of these newly constructed roads lacked biking lanes and the city transit system bears the brunt of his car centered policies to date. In fact, until 2007, New York City streets had only 220 miles of bike lanes (Khan, Janette). Today, however, bicycles are pushing their way back on the modern busy city roads through the bike lanes. In the last ten years, New York City has undergone construction of more than 400 miles of new bike lanes (Bliss) with the increase in popularity of bikes due to the severe environmental hazards of automobiles and current situation of global warming. However, even though bike infrastructure has been continually expanding over the last few years, access to good bike lanes continues to remain a luxury for most. The appearance of bicycle lanes has also been perceived by different sections of the society in different ways. The natural process of gentrification along with the expansion of bike infrastructure has further complicated the matter.
Gentrification, which alludes to the change in socioeconomic factors over time, has been a crucial part of the city’s transformation over the years. That’s the broader picture, but the process of gentrification affects different people in different ways. It’s looked as a doorway to better life quality by people who can afford to live in the gentrifying neighborhoods but it’s devastating for those who have to move out, from places they may have been living since decades, due to the soaring prices. Today, when bikes are being embraced as a healthy and comfortable means of travel, introduction of new and safe bike lane adds to the value of neighborhoods. Installment of new bicycle infrastructure has thus sparked gentrification-related displacement debates. Samuel Stein, an Urban Studies instructor at Hunter College, claims that city’s current implementation of bicycle network has brought deep resentment, fear and upset amongst “middle class” who perceive the Department of Transportation’s’ (DOT) efforts to be centered around the needs of mainly two classes of people — “people who are richer than them (white yuppies in spandex, white-collar workers on folding bikes)” or “people who are poorer than them (working cyclists, immigrants, people of color, punks)” (Stein, 35). DOT’s efforts of installation of new bike infrastructure has been received by them with fear of losing their neighborhood to the former and disappointment due to the impression of having been taken less care of in comparison to the latter. Many of the middle class people living outside Manhattan, mainly in Queens and Brooklyn (Rosenberg), rely on other means of public transit and automobiles than bicycles. These people are flustered due to a sense of “alienation” and lack of individual benefits from the DOT’s recent investments in installing biking lanes (Stein). They believe that the needs of service class and people of people are being prioritized over theirs and they look at bike lanes as a sign of unequal treatment by DOT. With the bike lanes being added on the streets of New York City and ultimately taking away space from the cars and buses running on the roads, there’s deep anguish brimming amongst people travelling from outer boroughs.
The new bicycle friendly setups have nevertheless been very advantageous and fruitful when it comes to attracting new talent and global firms to the central city. These spaces have become extremely attractive for investors and have in turn become a selling point for the existing building owners and developers. With the DOT’s installation of Pedestrian Plaza, Times Square experienced a rent hike of 71% (Stein). Similarly, Hudson River Park Trust observed a rise in property values with the newly extended bike lanes (Stein). Thus, Stein highlights that these bike infrastructure installation can cater the needs of elite class, however he doesn’t consider it to be a sole or certain reason as he points out that Bedford Avenue, which has received a lot of attention from DOT’s bicycle program, hasn’t experienced significant gentrification effects in the neighborhood areas of South Brooklyn. This was only until 2010. After 2010, DOT has laid down more bike lanes in this area including the ones on Lafayette Avenue (an important corridor for commute from downtown Brooklyn to Bedford-Stuyvesant) in 2012 and Bicycle route project in Kent Avenue(near Williamsburg bridge) in 2013 (NYC DOT — Current Projects). The Bedford Avenue and neighborhood areas have, in fact, also experienced an average rent hikes of 30–40% from 2010 to 2014 (Warerkar). According to “NeighborhoodScout”, areas around Bedford Avenue are more expensive than “83.8% of the neighborhoods in New York and 94.8% of the neighborhoods in the U.S.”. These areas thus seemed to have experienced gentrification effects mirrored with the improvement in biking infrastructure. This reckons with the upset of people who look at bicycles as “rich things”, marking their exit from the neighborhoods in which they have been living for years as well as an indicator of income equality.
People living in the low income neighborhoods, on the other hand, continue to struggle with the unsafe and poor bike infrastructure. This highlights the disparity in the biking infrastructure expansion in different areas. Now, DOT’s bike infrastructure projects are concentrated in downtown Manhattan and northwestern Brooklyn which are city’s two most gentrified areas (Stein). DOT has its projects rolling in these areas as they are one of the strongest employment centers, inhabit cycling-friendly community and provide plethora of transit interconnections. The New York young professionals who are usually liberal minded towards environment and who can’t afford car and gasoline expenses have helped encourage and establish the cycling culture in the city(Stein). These are also the section of people who are most often identified with gentrification. Focusing on these specific neighborhoods makes the effect of expanding biking infrastructure on gentrification look more pronounced than it actually is. It also leads people to believe that there’s a causal relationship between bike infrastructure expansion and gentrification, which might not be necessarily true as the targeted areas under DOT’s projects were already highly gentrified in the first place. This kind of specific targeting defeats the purpose of providing safe and high quality biking infrastructure in low infrastructure high-cycling communities like Bronx and Queens. In 2016, less than 40% of the bike lane projects(NYC DOT — Current Projects) were concentrated in low income areas of Queens and Bronx, which are in dire need of better cycling infrastructure. Thus, DOT’s siting choices have failed to extend the cycling infrastructure benefits to a large number of active cycling communities who are still struggling with inadequate and unsafe bicycle infrastructure. The DOT’s streetscape improvements, which have failed to meet the needs of people who are in the most “need” of cycling infrastructure facilities, thus gives a cue to DOT to reframe its policies in a way that the new policies focus upon “need-based-cycling-infrastructure” and inclusion of the active cyclist communities, who have long been marginalised from the DOT’s cycling program investments.
People in cities increasingly face the challenge of finding a way to get to the public transport transit from the place of origin and to get back from there to home. Bike share is a potential solution to deal with this “last mile problem” by facilitating the one-way travel — users can pick up and drop off bicycles at self-serving docking stations — only if docking stations and bike lanes are equally accessible citywide. However, [Transportation Alternatives] in their study of Citi bike share in New York City, indicate that the pace and the overall expansion of bike sharing is concerning. Most parts of Upper Manhattan, Brooklyn and Queens do not have bike share access and Bronx and Long Island still have no stations at all (Transportation Alternatives). In the entire country, New York’s bike sharing system is the only one that’s completely devoid of public funding and works solely on the basis of private and user funding(Transportation Alternatives). Since private bike share systems are mainly driven by profit strategies, a change in the mode of funding, i.e. government funding, and government intervention can facilitate a more equitable distribution of bike sharing system across the city. 2015 marks the success of one such attempt. Bedford Stuyvesant, which is one of the city’s poorest neighborhoods, saw a 56% increase in bike-share membership when the Citi Bike stations in the neighborhood were increased from 10 to 36 (“An Emerging Bike-Share Success Story in Bed-Stuy” Streetsblog New York City). This became possible only with the collective efforts of Bed-Stuy Restoration, DOT and Department of Health with Citi Bike (“An Emerging Bike-Share Success Story in Bed-Stuy” Streetsblog New York City). Beyond increasing the bike share access, these initiatives can also change the gentrification related perception of people towards bicycles and promote biking as a sustainable and healthy means of travel. As noted above, Bed-Stuy was being severely gentrified during the same time. However, bike-membership and the people began biking more irregardless. This indicates that inclusion of low income neighborhoods by taking care of their needs can normalize the notions of biking and gentrification to some extent. If the roads and public transportation are viewed as “public goods”, then steps like these must be taken to extend the bike share facilities beyond the rich neighborhoods of the city. To promote equitable access to the bike share facility, which is integrated with the public transit, bike sharing network should be increased irregardless of the resulting profit. As we step in the 21st century, it’s important that all citizens have equal access to this fast, convenient and sustainable means of transport to easen their daily commutes and in turn, improve their life quality.
Biking phenomenon has seen a boom not just in New York City, but countrywide. It has been recognised as an independent, healthy and sustainable means of transport and thus it is important to have an “integrated” and “complete” network of bike lanes for bicycles to used like other means of transport. In other words, installation of bike lanes and docking stations in different areas of a city is not sufficient by itself; we need to strengthen the bicycle network by connecting different areas within every city which are individually equipped with biking infrastructure. Bridges, which play an important part in connecting various parts of any city and provide access to various emergency and essential services, thus need to be equipped with safe and proper biking lanes (Cohn). Lack of safe cycling lanes or complete absence of cycling facilities on bridges could force detours and thus discourage the use of bicycles (Cohn). It also increases the risk of accidents and crashes for those who cycle on bridges without proper facilities. According to the 2013 Status of the Nation’s Highways, Bridges, and Transit: Conditions and Performance report, “11.7 percent of bridges in the US were classified as structurally deficient in 2010, and 14.2 percent were classified as functionally obsolete”. Jesse Cohn and Elliot Sperling, in their study of Improving Bicycle and Pedestrian Connectivity During Rehabilitation of Existing Bridges, suggest that bridge rehabilitation projects should be used as opportunities to strengthen the existing bicycle connectivity and should be used as a platform to ensure inclusivity of active bicyclists and promote cycling, in general. They point out that in the past introduction and investment on cycling lanes and pedestrian paths in bridge rehabilitation projects have relaxed the traffic congestion and also encouraged the use of bikes. Ithaca Historic Bridge, which was revamped in 2006 with an introduction of 10-foot sidewalk and 5-foot wide bicycle lane, no longer finds itself struggling with traffic congestion and today has a smooth traffic flow and serves more than 34,000 students, faculty, and staff at Cornell University. Similarly, Madison Street bridge and Richmond-San Rafael bridges have also benefited with inclusion of bike lanes. Thus, consideration of bike lane and pedestrian elements during planning of the bridge rehabilitation projects can ensure that upgraded facilities meet the needs of both motorised and non-motorised users. Having more bridges supporting safe and comfortable bicycle travel helps strengthen the connectivity of bike networks and does more justice to the bicycle, as an independent means of transport.
The relation between bike lanes, bike network and connectivity, and gentrification is still palpable. Bike infrastructure might not be the sole causation of gentrification but both operate hand in hand. Stein’s research suggests that bike infrastructure is being increasingly installed in most gentrified areas. The indulgence of Transportation Alternatives’ study in the operational disparity of privately funded transportation facilities allows us to further address the problem of gentrification. Since private companies expand and invest in a way to maximise their profit, gentrified areas of the city are likely to be a potential target for these private companies. This leads to inequitable distribution of transport facilities along with the other disadvantages that follow as being gentrified. This makes people to look at bicycles as “white stripes of gentrification”. Public intervention in this case would easen and lighten the effects of gentrification by expanding and extending the bike share network to lower income neighborhoods. This would provide fair access to bicycles, which are a fast and convenient means of transport, to citizens of all economic brackets. Similarly equipping bridges with safe and comfortable biking infrastructure would strengthen the bike connectivity, thus providing relief to people who are increasingly finding themselves displaced or gentrified from areas rich in biking infrastructure. This would thus enable all sections of the society to have access to fine cycling infrastructure and cope up with the demons of gentrification.
References:
America on the Move | The Development of the Bicycle,
amhistory.si.edu/onthemove/themes/story_69_2.html.
Tobin, Gary. “The Bicycle Boom of the 1890’s: The Development of Private Transportation and the birth of the Modern Tourist”, The Atlantic.
Goodyear, Sarah, et al. “The Secret History of Cars Begins With Bicycles.” CityLab, 1 Dec. 2014, www.citylab.com/transportation/2014/12/the-secret-history-of-cars-begins-with-bicycles/383254/.
Stein, Samuel. “Bike Lanes and Gentrification: New York City’s Shades of Green.”, Planners
Network
“Cycles of Fashion.” Narratively, 20 June 2016.
narrative.ly/cycles-of-fashion/.
Nonko, Emily. “New York City’s Subway Crisis Started with Robert Moses.” Curbed NY, Curbed NY, 27 July 2017, ny.curbed.com/2017/7/27/15985648/nyc-subway-robert-moses-power-broker.
Khan, Janette. “The Bike Wars Are Over, and the Bikes Won.” Daily Intelligencer, nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/03/bike-wars-are-over-and-the-bikes-won.html.
Bliss, Laura, and CityLab. “New York City’s Bike Lanes Were Terrible 15 Years Ago.” CityLab, 2 Feb. 2017, www.citylab.com/transportation/2017/02/heres-how-godawful-nyc-bike-lanes-used-to-be/515457/.
Rosenberg, Zoe. “Where Do Middle-Class New Yorkers Live?” Curbed NY, Curbed NY, 9 Aug. 2017, ny.curbed.com/2017/8/9/16119400/income-distribution-nyc-map.
“Current Projects.” NYC DOT — Current Projects, www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/about/current-projects.shtml.
Warerkar, Tanay. “Behold, NYC’s 15 Most Rapidly Gentrifying Neighborhoods.” Curbed NY, Curbed NY, 9 May 2016, ny.curbed.com/2016/5/9/11641588/nyc-top-15-gentrifying-neighborhoods-williamsburg-harlem-bushwick.
“An Emerging Bike-Share Success Story in Bed-Stuy.” Streetsblog New York City, 3 Apr. 2017, nyc.streetsblog.org/2017/03/31/an-emerging-bike-share-success-story-in-bed-stuy/.
“The Present and Future of Citi Bike in NYC.” The Present and Future of Citi Bike in NYC |
Transportation Alternatives, www.transalt.org/news/testimony/9804
Cohn, Jesse. “Improving Pedestrian and Bicycle Connectivity During Rehabilitation of Existing Bridges”, White Paper Series, November 2016.
http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/cms/downloads/PBIC_WhitePaper_Bridges.pdf