Entry tags:
Bicycling and low-income neighborhoods - speculation
Over on the Extraordinary Observations blog, Rob Pitingolo comments on the fact that bicycling seems to be mainly a practice of people from the middle to upper income brackets. He speculates that the primary reason low-income people fail to use the new bike paths is due to culture. In my time in low-income neighborhoods, I've also observed a low usage of bicycles among the citizenry. I agree that culture may be considered, bnut that an overbroad explanation for behavior that may have some practical roots. There's a couple of factors in bicycle use that could preclude it from being a common transportation mode in low-income areas, ones that well-to-do bikers might not consider.
First of all road infrastructure should be mentioned- not only in terms of repair, but the function of the roads. Bicyclists tend to come from areas that have roads with relatively low traffic, that are designed to accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians as well as cars. Many low-income residents on the other hand tend to live in mixed-use areas, with heavy commuter, freight and other traffic, making bicycling actively dangerous. For an example, my residential neighborhood is separated from San Jose proper by an industrial section, and several very busy streets that cross the freeway and that include on and off-ramps. Between the trucks, service vehicles, students going to the university, and harried commuters, crossing into downtown is moderately hazardous for cars and pedestrians. It would be dangerous to commute to the city proper on a bike. However, outside of taking a several mile detour, there is no direct bike-accessible route between South San Jose and the downtown. It's likely that even if a bike route across the freeway was established, the surrounding area would be considered dangerous enough
Secondly, there is the capital outlay that needs to be considered. Bicycles are nearly always secondary for the wealthy, however, low income people can generally only afford only one vehicle- and the price for a decent bike and a car that can be "made runnable" isn't as different as it may seem. Given a choice between a vehicle that has limited cargo and passenger capacity and foul-weather use, a car is a more practical choice.
Bicycles require a degree of mechanical knowledge to keep in good shape, mechanical knowledge that generally isn't as available in low-income communities. While nearly everyone knows someone who has mechanical knowledge, and who can teach the basics of keeping a car maintained, unless there's a pre-established culture of bicyclists in a community, learning how to maintain a bicycle may be difficult.
Finally, there is the problem in establishing a bicycling culture in the first place; generally before bicycles are thought of as commuter vehicles, they are thought of as toys for children.; In low-income families, a bicycle for a child may be considered a major expense. Combined with neighborhoods that are perceived as not generally considered safe for bicyclists, then a culture of seeing a bicycle as a practical vehicle will have difficulty in arising. In my time in low-income neighborhoods, I've rarely seen children riding bicycles anywhere except in the safety of parking lots, under the watchful eyes of parents.
This isn't to say that these are the only, or even primary reasons that bicycle use isn't common in low income areas. I've done no formal survey; these are merely my impressions from living in low-income areas.
First of all road infrastructure should be mentioned- not only in terms of repair, but the function of the roads. Bicyclists tend to come from areas that have roads with relatively low traffic, that are designed to accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians as well as cars. Many low-income residents on the other hand tend to live in mixed-use areas, with heavy commuter, freight and other traffic, making bicycling actively dangerous. For an example, my residential neighborhood is separated from San Jose proper by an industrial section, and several very busy streets that cross the freeway and that include on and off-ramps. Between the trucks, service vehicles, students going to the university, and harried commuters, crossing into downtown is moderately hazardous for cars and pedestrians. It would be dangerous to commute to the city proper on a bike. However, outside of taking a several mile detour, there is no direct bike-accessible route between South San Jose and the downtown. It's likely that even if a bike route across the freeway was established, the surrounding area would be considered dangerous enough
Secondly, there is the capital outlay that needs to be considered. Bicycles are nearly always secondary for the wealthy, however, low income people can generally only afford only one vehicle- and the price for a decent bike and a car that can be "made runnable" isn't as different as it may seem. Given a choice between a vehicle that has limited cargo and passenger capacity and foul-weather use, a car is a more practical choice.
Bicycles require a degree of mechanical knowledge to keep in good shape, mechanical knowledge that generally isn't as available in low-income communities. While nearly everyone knows someone who has mechanical knowledge, and who can teach the basics of keeping a car maintained, unless there's a pre-established culture of bicyclists in a community, learning how to maintain a bicycle may be difficult.
Finally, there is the problem in establishing a bicycling culture in the first place; generally before bicycles are thought of as commuter vehicles, they are thought of as toys for children.; In low-income families, a bicycle for a child may be considered a major expense. Combined with neighborhoods that are perceived as not generally considered safe for bicyclists, then a culture of seeing a bicycle as a practical vehicle will have difficulty in arising. In my time in low-income neighborhoods, I've rarely seen children riding bicycles anywhere except in the safety of parking lots, under the watchful eyes of parents.
This isn't to say that these are the only, or even primary reasons that bicycle use isn't common in low income areas. I've done no formal survey; these are merely my impressions from living in low-income areas.