No, Bike Lanes Don’t Cause Gentrification. Let’s Clear Up This Common Misconception.
A few months ago, my neighborhood got a new protected bike lane.
I was happy. Protected bike lanes mean I (and others) get to not die when I ride a bike.
In the wake, so many of my neighbors commented, “Look, they’re gentrifying this place. We’re getting new bike lanes.” Some said this with disdain, others with a matter-of-fact neutrality. Whatever the intent, bike lanes and “gentrification” have developed a link in New York City culture, not just among academics.
I suspect this is a nationwide phenomenon.
So let’s talk about it.
While in real life I’ve heard the link over and over, online I’ve seen redditors, TikTok commenters, and even the occasional blogger make the argument that bike lanes will accelerate gentrification, and that therefore bike lanes are bad.
It’s a powerful talking point.
I think the word “gentrification” strikes people with understandable fear that they’re going to get priced out of their neighborhood.
But to have a productive conversation, we have to clarify what exactly we mean.
If you define gentrification as “places getting safer streets and more green infrastructure,” then yes, bike lanes are part of that story.
But if what you’re really worried about is rising housing costs and the displacement that often follows, blaming bike lanes is a mistake.
Perceiving bike lanes as a driver of gentrification is a classic case of confusing correlation with causation.
Confusing Correlation for Causation
Yes, installing bike lanes is correlated with new development and skyrocketing housing costs. But bike lanes don’t cause these.
Wealthier Neighborhoods Tend to Have Better Transit, and Therefore More Demand for Bike Lanes
First, wealthier neighborhoods in major U.S. cities like New York typically have more bike infrastructure. I think of lower Manhattan or parts of western Brooklyn. These places are both disproportionately white, wealthy, and crisscrossed with bike lanes.
As a result, whiter and wealthier people in New York are often more likely to use cycling as a valid transportation option.
But the bike lanes didn’t cause the “gentrification,” rising prices, or displacement.
They can get built in these neighborhoods for many reasons.
One reason is that those neighborhoods have some of the best public transit access and the lowest car ownership rates. That means they’re neighborhoods with high demand for good cycling infrastructure.
The good transit is what makes it expensive and desirable, and what also makes it a natural place where city planners look to install protected bike lanes.
Wealthier Neighborhoods Have Been First In Line for Street Upgrades Because They’re… Wealthier
Cities’ transportation departments often build bike lanes in those neighborhoods first because those neighborhoods get prioritized for street improvements. We know that things like pedestrian islands, protected bike lanes, and other “traffic calming” features make streets safer.
Who gets these improvements first? The wealthy areas with the political will and power to do it.
Ironically, undeserved neighborhoods should be asking city transportation departments to put bike lanes and other traffic calming features in.
Every city neighborhood deserves safe streets for pedestrians and cycling as a viable transportation method.
The Need For Green Infrastructure Has Coincided With Skyrocketing Costs of Living
There’s another layer of confusing correlation with causation here. In New York, the city department of transportation has installed more and more protected bike lanes for two decades now.
Why? Protected bike lanes help…
- Take cars off the road to improve safety and reduce pollution.
- Replace concrete with green space (a result of taking cars off the road.)
- Give more New Yorkers a safe, viable option to cycle if they want to.
- Encourage building of more housing units for less money by reducing the need for cars and parking, which reduces construction costs.
In the past twenty years, the nation and cities have begun to grapple more with climate change, the problems of car-dependency, and gentrification (wealthier people moving back into cities from the suburbs) at the same time.
Bike Lanes Come When New Development Comes
When places get new development and therefore new residents, it’s the job of transportation professionals and urban planners to figure out how those people will get around.
In cities, the car is the least efficient transportation option. (They take up too much space.)
So if thousands of new housing units are getting built on empty lots in Eastern Brooklyn or the South Bronx, then it’s likely they’re planning on adding bike lanes. That way, it provides another option for these new residents.
The housing comes first, the bike lanes follow.
Say what you want about the housing, but from a transportation perspective, the housing is or will be there. Their job is to build the transportation options.
In fact, often funding for bike lanes and other street improvements is something community boards ask for. “Gentrifying” neighborhoods have long histories of disinvestment.
- Poor or crumbling sidewalks
- Little to no bike infrastructure
- Less green space
- Worse public transit
When new development happens in these areas, the community boards give conditions to the development to add or fund public improvements. This could be wider sidewalks, a new plaza, or yes, a bike lane. These amenities are often conditions set by community boards or city agencies, not the original cause of development pressure.
Blaming the bike lane for displacement is like blaming the sidewalk trees for a luxury condo. The bike lane is often an aftereffect or parallel investment, not the root driver.
Cycling is “a White People Thing”
This isn’t wrong, but again, it confuses correlation with causation.
White people in U.S. cities tend to be wealthier than people of color. That means they tend to live in more walkable, transit-rich, bike-friendly areas.
White people bike as transportation because white people live where it’s a viable option.
Who Bikes? (And Who Could Bike?)
Another common argument is that people in these communities “don’t bike” and “don’t want bike lanes.”
Of course, many people don’t bike right now. The streets aren’t designed for it, and they don’t feel safe. Do not judge the value of a bridge by how many people swim across the river.’
When cities make biking safe, affordable, and accessible, people across race and class use it. They use it because it becomes a good way to get around.
New York City’s $5-per-month Citi Bike membership for NYCHA residents (public housing) and SNAP recipients (food stamps) is proof.
It has given more residents the option to bike. When price, access, and safety make sense, people bike.
In this sense, bike lanes can actually be an anti-gentrification tool. By providing an affordable transportation option, the combat the cost-of-living crisis.
The Flawed Logic of Avoiding Improvements
There is one point which I agree with: bike lanes do make neighborhoods more desirable, which leads to real estate speculation and increasing prices.
In this sense, they do play a role in displacement.
If you take this logic to its endpoint, however, you get to a troubling conclusion: that working-class communities should avoid improving their neighborhoods in order to keep them undesirable to wealthier people.
In real life, I’ve never heard this logic. But online, I have seen comments like “We should make the streets more dangerous again,” as if that’s a solution to displacement. It isn’t. Neglect isn’t justice.
Rents were very low in New York in the 70s in neighborhoods like Bushwick, the Lower East Side, East New York, and the South Bronx. Crime was at an all-time high. Trash wasn’t picked up (as the Young Lords made famous in East Harlem). They had few services that they deserved.
The Real Issue Isn’t the Bike Lane
Real concerns about gentrification and displacement are valid, but bike lanes aren’t the villain. The forces driving rising rents are much larger.
If we care about preventing gentrification’s harms, the real fight is for stronger tenant protections, more affordable housing, and improved education for well-paying job opportunities, not against safer streets.
Blaming bike lanes for gentrification risks leaving working-class communities of color stuck with dangerous streets, fewer transportation options, deteriorating air quality, and other trappings of car-dependency.
Bike lanes are not the problem. They can be part of the solution.
One Comment