Report: In Chicago, Bike Amenities Correlate With Gentrication

joseph-blog-photo-by-john-greenfield-gridchicago
The Division Street bike lanes in Humboldt Park. Photo: John Greenfield

The idea that new bike infrastructure is linked to of gentrification is nothing new in Chicago. Leaders of Humboldt Park’s Puerto Rican community originally opposed bike lanes on the neighborhood’s Division Street business strip because they believed the city was installing the lanes mostly for the benefit of new, wealthier residents. And while the recently opened Bloomingdale Trail elevated greenway has attracted an economically and ethnically diverse crowd of users, many longtime residents are worried that a real estate boom around the trail will displace low-income and working-class families.

Researchers at McGill University and the University of Quebec in Montreal wanted to lend credibility to the claims that cycling infrastructure and gentrification are related. In a study presented this week at the Transportation Research Board’s annual meeting, Elizabeth Flanagan, Ahmed El-Geneidy and Ugo Lachapelle found a correlation between bike infrastructure and socioeconomic indicators related to gentrification in Chicago and Portland.

For the report, titled “Riding tandem: Does cycling infrastructure investment mirror gentrification and privilege in Portland, OR and Chicago, IL?,” the researchers looked changes in the rates of home ownership, home values, college education, age, employment, and race in neighborhoods between 1990 and 2010. Then they mapped these demographic changes alongside the locations of bike lanes, bike rack, and, in Chicago, Divvy stations.

While they found that dense neighborhoods and areas close to downtown tended to have infrastructure, they also found that demographic characteristics were a big factor. In Portland, changes in home ownership and education level had the largest influence. However, in Chicago, probably because our city is more diverse, race and home value also played a large role.

The study found that Chicago neighborhoods where more than 40 percent of residents are people of color are less likely to gentrify and have bike infrastructure. Interestingly, however, it also found that, in neighborhoods where 60 percent or more residents are white, a higher percentage of people of color corresponds with more bike infrastructure.

I haven’t had a chance to fully digest the report yet, but it appears that, unlike a recent League of American Bicyclists study that incorrectly claimed that Chicago’s Streets for Cycling Plan 2020 is inequitable, the Montreal researchers used accurate bike infrastructure data. It probably helped that Flanagan worked as a transportation planning intern at Bronzeville Bikes in the summer of 2014, which included discussing transportation equity issues with Chicago Department of Transportation and Divvy staffers.

16-1l493
Parts of Chicago with a higher rate of gentrification were more likely to have bike infrastructure.

However, I noticed one statement about the bike-share system in the Montreal report that seems like a jump to conclusions. “Examining Divvy Bike’s 2013 ridership data, it was found that there are in fact so few stations in the South Side that the average trip length of rides originating or terminating in the South Side is over half an hour.”

While the greater distance between stations on the South Side compared to downtown and dense, more affluent North Side areas makes the system less convenient to use, which discourages ridership, it’s not necessarily the reason for longer trips. Less awareness of Divvy’s fee structure, or more interest in taking longer recreational rides may also be factors in why South Side trips tend to be longer.

But the report seems to be valuable for quantifying what we already knew to be the case, that wealthier, whiter parts of Chicago, and areas that have been moving in that direction, have historically gotten a disproportionate amount of bike infrastructure. In recent years, that trend has been reversing somewhat. According to CDOT, 60 percent of bike lane mileage installed under the Emanuel administration has gone to the South and West Sides. Still, many have argued that the decision to concentrate the majority of the first 300 Divvy stations in dense, i.e. affluent, parts of town made the system less equitable.

While the report notes the correlation between gentrified neighborhoods and cycling infrastructure, it doesn’t take a stand on whether the presence of bike lanes, racks, and bike-share are a cause of gentrification, or rather a symptom of it. Instead, the researchers argue that the existing link between infrastructure and privilege suggests we need to change the way that bike amenities are distributed.

“Low-income and communities of color, who would benefit most from increased cycling infrastructure for the economic, health and safety benefits, have been less likely to receive municipal or private investment,” the report concludes. “Mitigating these disparities in the future will be challenging and require rethinking assumptions about cycling culture and planning processes.”

Thanks to Streetsblog USA’s Angie Schmitt for providing an interview with Flanagan that informed this article.

Update 1/16/16: On closer inspection, it looks like there may be some issues with the Chicago bike infrastructure data in the new report. On the Chicago map shown above, the white lines are labeled “Bicycle lanes 1991.” However, there were virtually no bike lanes in Chicago in 1991 — the city didn’t begin installing bike lanes on a regular basis until CDOT hired its first bike coordinator in 1996. Many of the bikeways shown in white on the map were installed much more recently.

The bike lane data in the Montreal report was taken from the city of Chicago’s data portal. A misinterpretation of a bike route GIS layer from the city’s data portal was responsible for the errors in the League of American Bicyclists equity study. It’s possible that a similar misunderstanding occurred with the new report. In any case, it appears that more review of the Montreal study is needed.

Update 1/81/16: I reached out to the Montreal team about the map issue. It turns out that the white lines on the above map labeled “Bicycle lanes 1991” were taken from an old city of Chicago bicycling map published in 1991, showing off-street paths and recommended bike routes, but few or no existing bike lanes. I’ve suggested to the team that they contact CDOT to get accurate bike lane data.

donate button
Did you appreciate this post? Streetsblog Chicago is currently funded until April 2016. Consider making a donation through our PublicGood site to help ensure we can continue to publish.

  • The reason that bike lanes and gentrification are often cozy bedfellows is because biking amenities in this country are few and far-between, their appearance raises value. The way to combat that is to spread more of them and quickly, not avoid them. I’d definitely caution disadvantaged communities against using this report as a good reason to block bike lanes as that is ultimately a great way to perpetuate the inequity.

  • what_eva

    but is that really the case? Do the bike lanes actually raise value or are they a symptom of raised values? ie, the more affluent come in and demand bike lanes?

    This study is pretty clearly showing correlation, but which direction is the causation?

  • Bike lanes are a symptom of bike riders wanting an equal relationship with automobiles. If your riding a bicycle, it’s safer in a bike lane regardless of skin color or net worth.

  • Obesa Adipose

    I just got 157 hits when I did a search on the word “Divvy” on Craigslist under Housing. These sellers and landlords consider having a Divvy station near by as an amenity and amenities add value.

  • what_eva

    It would be interesting to map those to see if it is seen as an amenity system-wide or does it correlate to older stations.

    We know that alderman ask for expansion and business districts are seeing the value (saw something recently about some 6 Corners group, maybe CoC wanting Divvy expanded in Jeff Park/Portage Park), but how quickly do landlords see the value?

  • what_eva

    You’re correct, but it doesn’t answer the question of causation. I’m not even sure which way is better.

    If bike lanes drive up property values, they can be sold to alderman, local businesses, etc as a way to improve your neighborhood, but then the groups in Humboldt Park may have been right to oppose bike lanes not wanting residents to be priced out.

    If bike lanes are instead a symptom of rising values, it reverses those two arguments.

  • JeffParkNIMBY

    The better question is, if we put bike infrastructure everywhere, will this correlation disappear?

    After all, the entire city can’t have property values raised at the same time. If bike infrastructure were everywhere, values would be based strictly on other factors.

  • I think it’s probably a mixture of both and really depends on the location. Although I haven’t studied it myself, there’s a fair body of research pointing to the economic benefits of bike lanes (and bike/multi-use trails too). I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that many people expect bike lanes to improve the financial situation of the area where they’re installed, especially those that are controversial with a local business community and/or have a high price tag. It needs to be at least have a neutral impact, but positive is obviously preferred. However, that economic increase can’t happen in a vacuum and eventually, rents are likely to rise.

    In other areas, it may very well be due to a new demographic that comes in that can afford to be more engaged in the community and spend the time going to dozens of meetings to provide input. In some areas, bike lanes are low on the list of concerns that the people have and especially since research keeps pointing to the gentrification possibility, may actually be something the community does not want to see. I will reiterate again how much of a losing strategy and self-fulfilling prophecy that line of logic ultimately is, but agencies do need to be careful that they aren’t trying to use bike lanes as a tool to force displacement.

    Finally, despite the higher ridership numbers among disadvantaged and minority communities, there are actually a lot of headwinds against biking there and people aren’t necessarily wanting to bike more, at least not for utilitarian purposes. Cars are definitely still a status symbol and many folks will do whatever it takes to get one ASAP. Furthermore, cars offer several advantages that aren’t apparent to the more affluent. To many, a car is protection because in some neighborhoods, one doesn’t just walk or bike down whatever street they want to. Doing so might bring them to harm and the last thing they want is a confrontation. A car allows them to feel safe on those streets. Additionally, a car is a last resort in times of housing instability. It’s much harder to live off a bike than out of a car.

    Also, many bicyclists in disadvantaged communities don’t have proper training in biking, so they are used to using the gutters and sidewalks as their bikeway–some don’t even know that bike lanes exist (or at least can be expanded). As a result, they’re not necessarily clamoring for them in the same way because they’re already riding out of necessity.

  • madopal

    This can’t be 100% correlation, as the south side lanes along Drexel and MLK are amazing, and that area has seen relatively little development.

  • Anne A

    I don’t recall when the lanes were installed on Drexel, but there has been a LOT of infill construction and rehab of older buildings over the last 15 years. The pace of improvements has accelerated noticeably since the lanes were installed.

    I’ve ridden Drexel between Oakwood and 55th/Garfield many times over those 15 years. There used to be a lot more vacant lots and vacant buildings than there are now.

  • Yes, this.

  • Flagged as a must-read by Whet Moser and seemed topical, “The Inequality of Sidewalks”:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/01/15/the-inequality-of-sidewalks/

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

Eyes on the Street: Deteriorating Safety Infrastructure in Humboldt Park

|
Pavement markings installed in 2012 in the Humboldt Park neighborhood to designate bike lanes and “Children’s Safety Zones” are quickly disappearing, less than six months after installation. The buffered bike lane on Division Street was installed in two phases. The first phase striped four westbound blocks and two eastbound blocks in May. Those are holding […]

Chicago Building Four Miles of Protected Bike Lanes This Year

|
The City of Chicago announced a new slate of bikeway projects today, outlining about 15 miles of new buffered bike lanes and a little more than four miles of protected lanes to be built in 2014. Under the plan for this year, protected bikeway construction in Chicago would continue to outpace every other American city except […]

CDOT Has a Full Plate of New and Upgraded Bike Lane Infrastructure

|
During last week’s Mayor’s Bicycle Advisory Council meeting Chicago Department of Transportation staffers shared a number of updates on the city’s bike network. At the event, CDOT planner Mike Amsden, who manages the department’s bikeways program, explained how funds from Blue Cross Blue Shield’s $12 million sponsorship of the Divvy bike-share system are helping to pay for bike […]