"More Than Paint on Concrete": The Winding Path toward Bike Equity

Abstract

Bike equity refers to the notion that traditionally marginalized populations face disproportionate barriers to being able to bicycle safely in the communities in which they live. Notably, low-income US residents comprise the majority of bike commuters, and yet have less access to adequate bicycling infrastructure than their middleand high-income peers. This has resulted in disparate health, employment, and education outcomes and created an additional impediment to achieving neighborhood wellness. Through a literature review and participant observation this article argues that bike equity should become a central tenet of urban sustainability, and discusses the limited empirical evidence of the best practices for promoting bicycling within marginalized communities. This review also suggests that bike equity is an area for future community psychology practice and research. In academic literature, three broad categories of bicycling scholarship seem to have emerged. The first category evidences the conflict between cyclists and motorists, and exposes the vulnerability of cyclists in cardependent metropolitan areas. Articles belonging to this category focus on the bikephobia of many cities, and the lack of institutional support to keep cyclists safe (Blickstein, 2010; Willis, Manaugh, & ElGeneidy, 2015). They capture a vision that bleeds directly into a second form of bike scholarship, highlighting the convergence of cycling and activism during the large group bike rides known as critical mass. In critical mass, cyclists flood into city streets to reclaim public-serving space, and protest the aggression and inanity of automobile culture (Blickstein, 2010; Strauss, 2014). Finally, a third branch of cycling literature within the field of public health, where cycling is touted as form of active transportation with clear salutary benefits (Götschi, Tainio, Maizlish, Schwanen, Goodman, & Woodcock, 2015). Regrettably, the people who comprise the majority of cyclist commuters are invisible in this literature. These cyclist commuters do not ride on two wheels as a political statement; nor are they necessarily riding purely for the health benefits. And while they may bemoan the lack of cycling infrastructure, they also face myriad other obstacles to being able to use the bicycle as a safe method of commuting. Most bicycle riders are actually transit takers who use cycling and walking as means to get to transit (Kramer, Lieberman, Sadler, & Zimmerman, 2015). Recent joint reports funded by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the American Public Health Association show that people with low incomes actually “have the highest rates of bicycling and walking,” with the largest percentage being concentrated in populations where individuals make less than $10,000 per year (Kramer, et al., 2015, p. 7). Moreover, cyclists are also concentrated in immigrant communities and communities of color. A report published by the Sierra Club and the League of American Bicyclists cites data indicating that twice as many immigrants commute by bicycle than U.S.-born individuals (League of American Bicyclists, Sierra Club, 2015). Similarly, AfricanAmericans and Asian-Americans are the fastest growing population of cyclists: from 2001 to 2009, the number of bike trips doubled in the African-American community, and increased by 80% for Asian Americans (League of American Bicyclists, Sierra Club, 2015). These statistics remind us that, though the bicycle can be a tool for sustainability, Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice Volume 7, Issue 3 September 2016 Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/ Page 3 public health, and political action, it is first and foremost a low-cost mode of transportation. The CDC estimates that the yearly operating cost for a bicycle is $308, compared with $8,220 for a car. Additionally, because riding does not require a license in many jurisdictions, it remains accessible to wider range of people (Lieberman & Zimmerman, 2015). Consequently, teenagers, immigrants, day laborers, low-income, and homeless populations actually comprise the cycling (and walking) majority (Lieberman & Zimmerman, 2015). Given the composition of the cycling and walking majority, public-serving space and biking/walking infrastructure is most severely needed in low-income communities, and, paradoxically, they are least likely to exist in these communities. The lack of sidewalks, stop signs, stop lights, bike lanes, bike routes, and bike parking in low-income neighborhoods creates additional barriers for the people who have no choice but to use human powered modes of transportation (Kramer, et al., 2015). Prompted by both climate change and perpetually congested traffic, cities across the country have begun to reinvest in cycling and pedestrian infrastructure, but such investment has been selective and concentrated in areas away from the actual cycling and walking majority. This majority remains as invisible in public planning and policy as it is in academic literature. Inequity and Bike Equity To understand the notion of bike equity means to actively unpack what the neglect of the true cycling population has entailed. It also requires unravelling the layers of other systemic inequities that have become so entangled within the fabric of urban life that only truly ecological approaches can loosen the knots. This article begins this task of unpacking and unraveling, and seeks to increase visibility for the concept of bike equity. Most of the findings discussed in this article are based on secondary sources, and extrapolated from reports generated by the CDC, the American Public Health Association (APHA), the Sierra Club, and the League of American Cyclists. However, the evidence presented in these reports was also complemented by participant observation in the bike movement in Los Angeles. Inequities in Safety and Public Health To begin, it is important to elucidate the ways in which poor public planning and differential investment have rendered the roads less safe for cyclists, pedestrians, and motorists in lowincome communities. The CDC and APHA found that large artery roads with speed limits well above 25 mph were usually designed to slice through low-income neighborhoods, and only 9% of streets in these areas had sidewalks. This rate nearly doubled in affluent areas (as cited in Kramer et al., 2015). Another report revealed: . . . low-income neighborhoods had twice as many intersections with major thoroughfares, requiring residents on foot to navigate highspeed, high-traffic zones. In addition, poorer neighborhoods had more fourway intersections, which lead to more injuries of people walking and driving due to the greater number of points of conflict. (as cited in Kramer, et al., 2015, p. 17) The consequences of this planning have been fatal: a study of the 10 deadliest intersections in New York City showed that 9 of the 10 were near public housing. Additionally, pedestrians in low-income communities were more than twice as likely to be hit in collisions with automobiles than their higher income peers (Kramer et al., 2015). Compounding inequities in built environments, racial bias is also a consideration. A recent study cited by the CDC suggested that drivers may have different reactions to pedestrians based on race; in this research, twice as many cars stopped for whites pedestrians in crosswalks Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice Volume 7, Issue 3 September 2016 Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/ Page 4 as stopped for African-American pedestrians (Lieberman & Zimmerman, 2015). The public health implications of lack of bikeability and walkability are tremendous. First, when infrastructure planning privileges automobiles, the air quality worsens. Multiple studies have shown a correlation between poor air quality and both income as well as ethnicity. Asthma, the most common respiratory disease resulting from pollution, was shown to negatively impact mental health and cause anxiety and depression (Tibbets, 2015). Second, a lack of publicserving infrastructure discourages active transportation, and, coincidentally, the obesity and diabetes crises have worsened. The most deleterious effects occurred, unsurprisingly, in low-income communities and communities of color (as cited in Kramer et al., 2015). The rates of obesity reached almost 40% for both Latino and AfricanAmerican youth, and were actually 50% for Latina and African-American girls (Kramer et al., 2015). Inequities also arise in terms of safety and the risk of community violence. Though twice as many low-income children walk to school as middle-income children, the risk that lowincome children will be exposed to violence is much higher. The CDC/ APHA report: A 2010 study showed that African American youth were more than twice as likely to be victims of serious violence as were white or Latino youth and were at least 30 percent more likely to be victims of assault. The homicide rate for AfricanAmerican youth was 14 times higher than the rate for white youth. (Lieberman & Zimmerman, 2015, pg. 7) Though research has often focused on gangs as the source of community violence, police harassment remains a problem as well. In Los Angeles, day laborers report being stopped and ticketed for violations that do not actually exist in the law, such as not having registered their bikes or riding without a tail light (statute only requires a front light; A. Mannos, personal communication, July 28, 2015). Also in Los Angeles, the law regarding riding on the sidewalk is phrased vaguely, allowing police to ticket cyclists both for riding and not riding on the sidewalk (A. Mannos, personal communicaton, July 28, 2015). Finally, bike theft plagues cyclists in every city, and can morph into violent crime. A history of gang robberies on bikeways once left large segments of trails unused in Los Angeles (Moilan