Seeing The Sky; And, The Privilege Of Bike Commuting

Having returned from a brief trip to a certain sprawling, soul-sucking city of the American Southwest ( not pictured) to which I periodically travel, the usual feelings of gratitude for the wonders of Portland (primarily drinkable tapwater, Spanish Coffees, and the civilizing effect of smoking cigarettes indoors) are less noticeable than on previous occasions. And after so much pondering of such things as "sprawl" and "density" over the past few months of Portland Gentrification writings, one might expect that one of these trips south, wherein I observe and am immersed in suburban sprawl of truly hideous dimensions, might result in an expansive spell of forgiveness on my part. Certain things might begin to re-suggest themselves...land-efficient multistory buildings might be felt as preferable to the spread-out single story vastness of hated, hated suburbia...car-centric planning, after really experiencing it in the wild, might shock one into recognition that there might be something to all this urbanist planning jazz after all...sidewalks....bike paths...really, a visit like this ought to make one distinctly less apt to complain about gentrification, and more inclined to count ones blessings that there is more to life here than enormous parking lots, shopping centers, and housing developments.

But being thankful is overrated, in my opinion. While driving around this dusty sprawltown I had to admit, in fact, that there is something sprawl-hate fails to take into account: it matters, how much sky you can see. Compactness and walkability get all the attention, but the feeling of elbow-room affects the quality of life as well.

A mere thought for this returning post, after my week on the many-laned boulevards that criss-cross under the giant sky of Whateverville USA. That, and my internet find of the moment,  one of the most succinct thoughts I've ever seen amid the comments on that Jack Bog blog, and one which mirrors my thinking exactly when the bikes-vs-cars discussions start careening this way and that, never acknowledging this unfortunate truth:

Commuting by bike is an extremely privileged opportunity available to a very few who most likely have no families (kids), no tools of a trade (Laptop at most?), no appointments to make outside of a mile radius, no shopping on a realistic scale, no emergencies, no extended family or friends to care for, no volunteering duties that require expediency or supplies, etc., etc., etc.
http://bojack.org/2008/05/sauvie_island_bridge_move_kill.html#comment-64960

I rarely agree with comments on that blog - the tone is normally shaped by anti-tax outrage, from what I can see. But it seems to me that those who, for whatever reasons (personal, ecological, political), want to promote the bicycle and discourage the automobile would do well to view this statement as the first problem to be addressed. Commuting by bike has everything to do with the economic freedom and mobility of a class that can determine where work and home are located, and how permanently. That it is in many ways a privilege, mostly denied to the working class, is too rarely admitted. To change how people get to work from where they live, without seeing that we need massive changes in what work people can do and where they can manage to live, is in my view folly in the truest sense of the word.

**Updated: even more convo on this topic is over here, for those interested:
http://bikeportland.org/2008/05/12/gentrification-labels-and-the-privilege-of-bike-commuting/

E.g., this guy, who isn't missing the point, and makes a good one as well:

I can understand where the article comes from. Living inside of town, near many of the best employers, is not an option for many people. As for myself, I've been priced out of the housing market inside of the urban growth boundary, and currently have to traverse the entire metro area, in order to get to work.
http://bikeportland.org/2008/05/12...comment-831546

Or this right-on comment:

I would argue that people drive so much because they are compelled to do so: the entire urban environment was constructed to make it the main form of transportation, plus public transportation in this country was purposefuly made inefficient and shitty in order to boost the number of cars and the profit of those who make it. Then, given this situation, the SOCIAL DYNAMIC (as opposed to personal choice) is so that people must drive if they want to compete for jobs and what not...I believe this idea of personal choice and freedom, when applied to such scenarios, simply reflect certain MYTHS spread out in this country - the myths of democracy and the idea of freedom, which, in practice is no more than freedom of consumption - which is no freedom at all since the choices are actually put out by the powers to be.
http://bikeportland.org/2008/05/12/...#comment-832701

Comments

[BridgetownPeddler]

I completely agree with that statement that bike commuting is a privilege accessible only to those who meet certain criteria. I commute by bike part time during fair weather months (April to October). I do it solely for the reason that I enjoy it and love the way I feel when I get to work in the mornings after a cool crisp ride.

But there is no way my father or brother in the construction trades could ever commute by bike. They have large trucks and they need and use them. My ability to commute by bike is definitely something I consider a benefit of my line of work. But it is not for everyone.

[D.J.]

I think you're missing some of the benefits of bike commuting.

Nobody is arguing that bike commuting is for everyone, or that cars should go away. Clearly there are many activities where cars are far superior to bikes (construction as mentioned above, commercial delivery, emergency medical vehicles, etc.) But for many people bike commuting IS possible. If those people commute by bike, the roads are more roomier for those people who depend on cars.

If the percentage of Portland commuters who bike doubled (from 7% to 14%), there would be less traffic on the roads, the roads would have less wear and tear, and those who need to drive could get where they are going quicker. It's for these reasons that I think all Portlanders should support additional bike funding.

[PDX Dilettante]

The benefits of bike-commuting are not in dispute.

What *is* in dispute is the type of person who is able to enjoy the "good life" of being able to bike to work and enjoy a walkable city with numerous culture activities.

Demographics and wealth disparities are feeding urban in-migrations. Wealth has flowed to the top 5% of the U.S. families, and these folks tend to enjoy the "good life" not the poor, working poor, working class, or middle class.

[PDX Dilettante]

In sum, urbanist planning benefits the affluent urban dweller who is able to afford the priveledge.

[John Peterson]

Some people do not have the privilege of car commuting. Maintaining a car (initial cost, insurance, gas, repairs, etc...)is far more expensive than a bike. Think about it. You are saying it is somehow bourgeois to ride a bike???
John

[John Peterson]

Oh, and riding the bus is a privilege too?

[PG]

The comment I quoted doesn't say bike-commuting is "somehow" bourgois -- it uses clear, specific examples. The commenter, seems to me, is the one "thinking about it."

The privilege is being able to determine where you live in relation to where you work or vice versa. And since you bring it up, using public transpo is a privilege if you consider that it's reserved for those who don't have to travel to or from work between midnight and 5 am. Or who have the kind of job where they won't fire you because the bus was late.

[Annie]

There's a HUGE difference between using bikes and buses because you like them, vs. because you can't afford a car. When my husband was out of work, he would spend (waste) 4-6 hrs on a buses picking up applications, and going to interviews and job programs. He spent MORE EFFORT on finding LOWER-PAYING work in the LIMITED RADIUS of our part of town. If he we would have been too broke to even get a bus pass, he would have been limited to the most common businesses within 5 miles of our house: gas stations, convenience stores, and grocery stores.
As a side note, I think employers are bias against people who have to ride the bus and see them as unreliable and unsuccessful. His interviews often when much better when I could show up in our nice, clean Honda.

[PG]

Annie, that is exactly how it is!

[McLovin]

So why don't you people get higher paying jobs instead of whining? Or go back to school to learn something useful that people will pay you more money to do?

That's what I did...and it worked!

[PG]

So you had to go *back* to school to learn anything useful? What went wrong the first time, were they trying to teach you evolution or something?

[McLovin]

LOL! Nope, got a master's degree...and doubled my salary. Plus, I got married to a fellow master's degree holder...which basically, quadrupled my household income! That move alone makes it easier to afford all the things this blog whines about not being able to afford.

Try it, see how you do!

[george]

I used to work as a paralegal at a law firm in SF. The people with the least reliable transportation were attorneys with their BMWs and reserved parking spots. Car troubles and traffic caused the most serious delays. It was normal for my bosses to be 2-3 hours late for work.

Suburbanites taking public transport were the second least reliable. They had some serious distance to cover, and usually depended on a single bus line/train line with no backup option.

For those that lived inside the city, the WORST that would happen is that they would be a half hour late. BART breaks down, take a bus. Bus breaks down, hoof it the rest of the way.

Point is: as a city grows, close-in residential housing and multiple transit options becomes more and more important. Both for quality of life and for business efficiency.

Its still pretty easy to get downtown in a car here in Portland, but I wouldn't count on that being true in the long run...

[John Peterson]

You and the bojack commenter are implying that bicycle advocates are elitist and do not care about the poor. You are saying it's folly to advocate for bicycle infrastructure and saftey until we fix economic inequality. You are mixing bicyclists in with the developers and politicians behind the Pearl and SoWa. Clearly you and the commenter are not familiar with the diversity of Portland bikers.
The majority of bikers I know are making less than 30,000 a year, rent, and are hardly privileged.
I can see how bikers might get lumped in with density developers and Sam Adams given the 405 bridge news. But there are bikers out there who opposed or were wary about this project. There are a lot of bikers who are not happy with the gentrification of close in neighborhoods.

[PG]

^^The quote, to me, doesn't invite us to characterize those who can and do bike to work. It's about those who can't. I think that to discuss car-alternative commuting it's more important to ask who has no alternative to car-commute, and why. The answer is partly to do with gentrification, pushing people out of the central neighborhoods, forcing too many low-wage earners into jobs and housing of low proximity to one another.

It isn't bicycle advocates themselves that I'm critical of; it's the development industry that so easily capitalizes on close-in Portland's "bike-friendly" character to upgrade and price out people below a certain advantaged income level, e.g., your (and my) 30K and under friends.

I support bike and ped infrastructure, but I allege that it reduces neither rush hour traffic jams nor air pollution even a tiny fraction as well as it provides the development profiteers with a high-value selling point.

[Charlie]

You actually can carry a lot on a bike, including groceries, and if you need more space you can attach a bike trailer for hauling additional cargo. As far as jobs which require a truck, etc., yes it's not really possible in that case for people to bike.

With regards to the larger issue of being within biking distance of places, that is true for a lot of people whose place of employment is not near their home, but it should still be possible to bike around one's own town/neighborhood for local needs.

The bigger problem that you allude to is that the development of our land has been focused on moving outward, in very car-centric ways, as opposed to upward and inward, in people-centric ways. More people actually could be closer to jobs, but it requires that we build up, not out.

[Pete]

Annie is right about perceptions - you should see my clients when I show up for meetings with CEOs and VPs on a bike! We cyclists are indeed a privileged few who make the effort to adapt our lifestyles to ride. Many of us can afford to because we don't spend so much money on cars (though I admit to owning two). Some of us don't ride far, but do have to manage logistics of carrying shopping and clothes, finding showers, and towing the kids to and from their activities. Others, like myself, aren't intimidated by weather or distances (or hills - love em!), but only have to carry a laptop like mentioned.

Sure I earn a six figure salary, but I'm 'privileged' enough to just be given it because my employer likes me ;), not because I worked my own way through college and continue to work to pay off the two houses I already own and the third I'm going to buy soon (near a bike lane, of course). I clearly fall into the "privileged" class described above, and was recently accused of being "rich" by a bike commuter on a bikeportland because I drive an Audi. (Does "rich" mean I don't have to work anymore? Cool!).

I love this "privileged" generalization, but fear the majority of my cycling peers don't fit this economic profile. At least that's not what I see and hear, and I daresay I spend a good deal of time with bicycle commuters. I've been entertained by the bridge saga and range of comments, especially by the cycling elitists (yes, there are many - I get chastised by them when I drive and by motorists when I ride, so I'm double-damned), but am most entertained when "pro-bike" and "anti-car" are lumped together. The folks who say bicycling should entirely take the place of owning and driving a car are entitled to their opinion, but represent only a few.

I will say that as someone who pays a good deal of (gas, income, and property) taxes, I expect bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure spending to be on par with that for roads. I don't have an opinion on this bridge, but I'll tell you that if Portland spends BILLIONS of dollars on an interstate bridge there damned well better not be complaints over $30M alternative transportation infrastructure. At least not from you folks who claim to represent the underprivileged, who ironically will be the ones leaning on that infrastructure.

Oh, and to those who argue the frequent "my gas taxes shouldn't pay for your bike lanes": I don't have kids (as generalized above), but let's compare the dollar amount of my property taxes that put your children through school (and pay our teachers, many of whom, coincidentally, commute to school by bike - several because they can't afford to drive on the "privilege" of a teacher's low salary).

Bridgetown Peddler said it best - the privilege is about having and/or obtaining the criteria that allows you to bike commute. It is not for everyone, but I vehemently disagree it is only for some perceived gentrified class.

[The Green Redneck]

We are all, no matter how we work or how we travel, living in the last days of cheap car travel in the US.
Bigger changes than many want (although some of us are gonna do backflips over them) are going to hit us like a ton of bricks in the very near future. I'm blue collar, not an "elitist" (whatever that is) and believe that people who disparage bike commuting and/or mass transit are a bunch of AMERICA HATING, S*ND-NI***R LOVING, FILTHY ROTTEN NO GOOD TRAITORS WHO'D GIVE BIN LADEN HEAD IF HE ASKED. [sorry for the *'s GR but that word is offensive - those folks invented math ya know! - PG]

[JayS.]

I have two kids and my daughter is in public school four miles from our home. Her brother is in pre school two miles from home pretty much between daughter's school and home. We do at least 70% of our trips to school/preschool and back by bike. We are a single income family. My wife's family arrived here on the Oregon Trail. We walk or ride for most of our groceries. We have a car and use it much more in the winter than the summer. Our costs per year to maintain our mid level bikes that we ride much more than our car is much less. No insurance or gas. Maintinance is minimal and I do most of it myself. The time difference between driving to my regular destinations and riding is never more than five minutes. A used bike can be purchased for under a hundred dollars. I pass homeless folks and business people on bikes every day. If you think a bike is transportation limited to the folks with money your cracked in the head.

[Jason]

First of all, I strongly agree with your unspoken sentiment that modern cities, even greatly lauded Portland, appear to require many people to employ a single-occupant motor vehicle in order for them to conduct their business.

This is an indictment of urban planning policies that put people, services, and jobs at a distance from one another. (Yet another reason why I think Wal-Mart, for instance is evil. But I digress.)

Second, I don't want to outlaw motor vehicles. I *like* the available of essential services (police, fire, ambulance, commercial deliveries) and motor vehicles are a godsend here.

What concerns me about this post is that approximately 96% of the vehicle miles in the Greater Portland area are *not* characterized as essential services.

Are you a banker or a lawyer who requires a monkey suit to look "successful"? Figure out a way to put on your costume when you get to work. You have 20 or 30 pounds worth of papers or other items you need to bring home with you? Use a bike! *I* do!

The characterization of one mile is also an exaggeration. I live outside of the Evil Suburb to the west, and my daily errands (work, gym, doctor, grocery store, and so forth) typically take me two or three miles. My longest trip is to the retail store that I own, about six miles away.

My trips take at most ten minutes longer than they do by car. I've figured out how to transport clothing, goods, and equipment when I need to, and I'm saving a huge amount of money.

I am concerned that your readers will take your comments as justification for using a motor vehicle, when fewer than six percent of them really have valid reasons for not choosing alternate transport.

[Paul Souders]

I've been commuting by bike since ... college? 15 years or more anyway. I commuted by bike when I worked the graveyard shift at $8/hr. and continued to do so as my job/life situation changed, from single to married, poor to middle-class, childless to kid-on-the-way. I commuted by bike in harsh climates (Nebraska, Montana), tiny towns (rural Kansas and North Dakota), and even L.A. I did this when my job was manual labor (warehouse work, assembly, archaeology fieldwork), service (Kinko's, restaurants), and now white-collar.

I've occasionally owned cars but never commuted in them. I don't consider keeping my home and workplace near one another a "privilege" of any kind, I consider it "common sense." The boost in rent or mortgage is more than offset by the savings from having fewer cars in the family.

I agree that many people often have fewer choices about the proximity of work and home. I consider this a widespread failure of our cities, not of the individual choices made by any one commuter (regardless of mode of transport). Expanding transit options slowly reshapes cities into something friendlier to everyone, poor or working-class alike.

A final story: when I lived in Southern California I was fortunate enough to live about 3 miles away from my job. My neighbor wasn't so lucky. She worked in Santa Monica but lived in San Bernadino co. where she could afford rent. She had to make a 90 minute commute EACH WAY five days a week. If her car broke down -- which it often did, because it was an ancient jalopy -- she had to string together a zillion bus rides across the entire width of the Southland, which usually took more than 2 hours and probably made her late for work. (And if you've ever ridden the bus in LA you know how degrading it can be as an experience.) I find it laughable that a car-centric urban space is somehow less "insulting" to working-class commuters than the alternative.

[PDX Dilettante]

@ Pete...

I'm having trouble determining the point of your post; was it to comment on the priveledge of bike commuting or to talk about how rich and successful you are?

Can't tell...

[Larrs]

I can understand the premise here, or at least where the perception comes from. Of course it's not going to be practical for everyone to start commuting via bike - our society has been structured around the automobile for too long.

But in my case I made a conscious decision several years ago to steer my career towards being able to ride a bike to work. After commuting from East Portland to Hood River for over two years, I was finally able to move my family a little closer into town and land a job in SE. I made bike commuting one of my long-term lifestyle goals, just like other folks might make owning a diesel truck with a lift kit one of their lifestyle goals. Bike commuting may not be a decision everyone feels free to make, but I believe the decision, at least as an eventual goal, is available to everyone.

Oh yeah, and I'm married with three kids on a single income and plenty of debt. Thanks.

[Matt]

The problem is that your definition of "working class" contains criteria unrelated to class, and apparently designed to exclude from consideration any individuals for whom bike commuting is practical. So yes, obviously, people who have to a have a car may not be able to commute by bike. But those people do not by any means comprise the whole of "the working class."

[Pete]

PDX Dilletante - you got both points dead on. Good job.

But to summarize: "Commuting by bike has *everything* to do with the economic freedom and mobility of a class that can determine where work and home are located...".

Wrong. Commuting by bike has less to do with economic freedom as it does with the logistical ability to ride a bike to and from work, errands, etc. Many people do it daily with little money, with kids, with groceries, in bad weather, with one arm, across long distances, etc. Saying it's available only to people with a select amount of wealth, and therefore those who can't afford to live near their jobs are excluded, is biased and incomplete.

Bike commuters are not a social class. They're a diverse segment of a minority population that is growing as the cost of driving a car increases.

[John Peterson]

more talk, hey it's cheep.....
http://bikeportland.org/2008/05/12/gentrification-labels-and-the-privilege-of-bike-commuting/

[Antonio Gramsci]

We all have choices. It so happens that our choices are guided and to some extent coerced by the existing economic system, the power of advertising and media, etc.

The one truth that this business of "privilege of bike commuting" most brings home for me is that people will look for no end of excuses to believe that they don't have choices, and that those who do are somehow "privileged."

Psychologist Erich Fromm referred to this as "escape from freedom." Being free is an enormous responsibility. If you are free, no one can dictate to you how to live, but that means you have to take on the burden of making those decisions for yourself.

Also, the more that people think anyone is "preaching" to them, the more they will be inclined to latch onto any and all such pretexts, often out of resentment. That's why I have no interest in preaching or evangelizing anything to anyone. I just want to live my own life.

[Antonio Gramsci]

I'd like to also point out the following: Bringing in the class dimension complicates things enormously because, even if people don't realize it, they have choices about how they operate within the class structure. There are a variety of options (many of which do require an awareness or class consciousness that most Americans lack).

Here are examples of a few options that most people in our society are unaware of or uninterested in:

1) Practice solidarity based on mutual aid. By cooperating with others who share similar class interests, working class people can find ways to survive and prosper much more effectively. Mutual aid can range anywhere from sharing resources, such as ride sharing, to joining other workers at picket lines to demand better wages and working conditions.

2) Live more simply. By reducing one's consumption and finding more satisfactory means of attaining happiness than buying stuff, one can make progress on multiple fronts simultaneously.

3) Develop inner serenity. One can develop a certain inner poise through various spiritual and psychological practices that increases one's fortitude in coping with setbacks and disappointments, as well as one's flexibility and interest in cooperating with others. (See item 1 above)

These are just a few basic examples of the kinds of things that people can do to break out of the external, class-based and internally, psychologically based straitjackets that often limit them.

Naturally, with all such things, there is always both an individual and a social element. It helps when people have real life role models to emulate. But freedom also means that one never has legitimate excuses for not personally undertaking whatever efforts one can to direct one's life in a positive way.

[mabsf]

A good commuting bike with kid seat, panniers, trailer and good rain clothes can be bought for under $2500.00 with no monthly maintenance fees... much less than a car, insurance etc.
So how is bicycle commuting elitist?

[Jim Labbe]

I don't think we yet live in a region where the opportunity to ride a bike as your primary mode of transportation can be called a privilege, but I hope we never do. Take a tour through SW Portland, Lake Oswego, Happy Valley, or West Linn. These are affluent communities where biking and walking are not safe options even for affluent and physically healthy adults. In much of the region driving still correlates positively with income as it does in much of the United States. But the truth in this post is that recent trends in housing and transportation costs might be changing things.

Clearly the ignoring trends that would make biking and walking the exclusive choice of the affluent OR indulging in guilt about this potentiality are luxuries none of us can afford.

The solution is to continue to increase people's transportation choices and to implement a land-use strategy in this region that allows for thrifty proximity rather than forcing costly mobility on people. That and eliminating the wealth and income barriers to where people can choose to live (more affordable housing throughout the Portland Metro-region) will be critical to fostering a more affordable, sustainable, and livable region.

Fortunately we have a broad coalition of public interest groups in the Portland-Vancouver region working toward these types of solutions:

http://www.clfuture.org/

Jim

[J]

Wow, this is funny.
I am a union journeyman working on the South Waterfront projects. I leave my tools on the job site and ride from 65th and hawthorne every morning at 6 am. Do you think that is privileged? I do it because its cheaper, and I love the ride. Even in the rain. So I do it as a choice, but I can tell you that maybe 30% off the guys I have worked with over the last 10 years building all these high rises around town, are riding bikes to work every day. But they dont fit your mold, they ride bikes because of a DUI.
Can you tell me how they would be elitist?

[editors note: between 60th and 72nd there isn't a Hawthorne. But the DUI part has the ring of truth so I say we let it slide]

[Jim Labbe]

The 2006 American Community Survey (ACS) has some interesting data on the income and race of people who report different modes of primary transport to and from work (compiled below). While income is not necessarily an indicator of wealth and the data is not super precise in terms of transportation mode the results are interesting nonetheless:

Based on the 2006 ACS data the estimated median fulltime earnings in Multnomah County are 41K for men and 35K for women.

Of those Multnomah County residents who regularly drive alone to work 57% make less than 35K in wages while 43% make more than 35K.

Of those Multnomah County residents who regularly take a taxicab, motorcycle, bicycle, or walk to work 71% make less that 35K and 29% make more than 35K in earnings. These numbers are about the same for transit users.

Note that other disaggregated ACS Data estimated 1% of Multnomah County residents commuted by “taxi cab, motorcycle and other means” and another 3% commuted by bicycle. The percentage of cyclists in Portland are higher (4%) but lower than indicated in the City Auditor’s 2007 survey. I have read that those that argue the American Community Survey underestimates bicycling.

Based on these data it would seem that bicyclists tend to have lower wages than drivers. This is probably a function of age. The median age of those who drove alone was 43 but only 35 for walkers and 32 for those taking a “taxi cab, motorcycle, bicycle and other means.”

The mode choice data on race is interesting too.

Whites: 64% drive alone, 10% Carpool, 10% Transit, 5% Walk, 5% taxicab, motorcycle, bicycle, 5% worked at home.

Latinos/Hispanics: 54% drive alone, 20% Carpool, 15% Transit, 4% Walk, 3% taxicab, motorcycle, bicycle, 4% worked at home.

African Americans: 63% drive alone, 8% Carpool, 21% Transit, 5% Walk, 0% taxicab, motorcycle, bicycle, 3% worked at home.

You can do your own queries at:

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=ACS&_submenuId=&_lang=en&_ts=

Based on these data it does seem that cyclists tend to be more white but have lower earnings than drivers. This is kind of what you would expect. I bet the City Auditor’s office has more precise data based on their annual surveys of commuting choices.

Of course this also doesn’t tell us anything about what people would choose if they had more options. An analysis of the 2004 American Survey Data by Smart Growth America and the National Association of Realtors found that solid majorities of people favored more walkable communities with mixed uses, public transit and streets with sidewalks. African Americans are among the most critical of their communities with large majorities saying there is too few places to bike (67%) and walk (57%), and parks and playgrounds (56%) and shops or restaurants to walk to (53%). See:

http://www.commutesolutions-hou.com/resources/NAR-SGA%20Commuter%20Survey.pdf

[PG]

If anyone's still reading, I have to ask the "I bike and I'm no elite" commenters, will you please consider two very relevant factors: what happens if you lose your job, and what happens if your rent gets raised and you have to move? When it comes to finding a new job or getting a new place to live, many of us have to take what we can get first, and consider how we'll get from one to the other a distant second. I understand all these cyclists' protests but they more or less disregard the instability of work (job changes being more frequent, statistically, as time goes by) and of cheap enough housing.

As regards the earnings question, there is no comparison to be made between the earnings of people of different ages. Status isn't about how much you're earning now. For example, to scrape by at 20K a year at age 27 is, very possibly, to be doing a whole lot better than being 56 and making twice that. When I think about economic status it's about potential and about expectations. If you are educated and motivated and expect to be doing well 30 years down the line it's pretty much bullshit to talk yourself into the same class as working poor people in their 40s and 50s my friends. This isn't about you as an individual and your personal snapshot of how you get to your present job from your present home, multiple knee-jerk reactions in the comments above notwithstanding.

[just transpo]

For the first decade I lived in Portland I had to travel to work from near Division/82nd to Troutdale. On a bike. Not because I was elitist or well to do, but the opposite. I couldn't afford a car. My delima forced me to open my mind to the options, instead of rolling up the window and turning up the radio and the heater or A/C.

[John Peterson]

Basically what I hear you (PG) saying is that it has become more expensive to live close in to the city and poor folks are being forced out (beyond 82nd or so). I think most of us identifying as bicyclists would agree and also agree that it's a bad thing. But we (as in me) don't see how advocating for bikes brings on gentrification. And we don't like being called elitist even though some of us may be (not me, not me).
I think you could find many allies among us bicyclists for the cause of affordable housing. Especially close in affordable housing.

[PG]

"Elitist" was used by commenters, not by me, nor by the original thingy I quoted. My phrase was "in many ways a privilege." It doesn't extend to the bike-riding canners that get drunk on my porch. It extends to people who can't live close enough to work to avoid pouring money down their beater's gas tank.

Anti-gentrification bicyclists are welcome on this blog for sure, and I think the runaway trend of central, bikeable neighborhoods being priced out of reach should present anyone interested in bike/ped/public transportation issues with one of the most obvious foes we have. Bike infrastructure isn't going to do the poor, bikers included, any good if they can't live in it any more.

[The Green Redneck]

And don't forget that the fewer total private cars that are on the road, the easier a time that people who "need" to drive will have getting around. Space for roads, despite the propaganda of the stupid and/or treasonons, faces finite limits. Cities like Portland, Seattle, San Diego, are geographically constrained--hills, canyons, water--and space that's easy to pave is a variation on the idea of "low hanging fruit." How, for instance, could more lanes be added to Sunset Highway to get up to Sylvan from downtown? Cut into canyon hillsides? Can you say "more mudslides?" Pull some eminent domain shit on wealthy SW Portland homeowners? Can you say "when pigs fly?"
There's many variations on this, but you should be getting the point by now--cars are OVER. Get fucking used to it.

[PG]

Cars aren't over - we had private transpo before the petroleum era and we'll have it after that era has passed. Get the "Who Killed The Electric Car" documentary - electrics were well on their way ten years ago, but killed by the auto/petro industry. Auto/petro has sat on God knows how much R&D that could move us toward an alternative. The solutions aren't to get the planet rid of the individual car - but to steadily reduce its necessity (particularly in the commute), its size and weight, and asap its source of power.

People talk about European bike transpo, and I've lived there man -- the reason cars and bikes coexist on their roads has a lot to do with the fact that their cars and bikes are so much closer to the same size!

[Annie]

Related to a comment I got in another thread about "go back to school and get a better job if you don't like how it is."
My hubby and I are both college educated. Part of the reason we're so strapped for cash is those stupid student loans! I don't know if I can't get a better job 'cause I just smell bad or what, but I honestly wish I never would have gone to college. Without those loans, we could even afford to by a house.
Going to college is a RISK, not money-in-the-bank. It may or may not pay-off depending on the suitability of your chosen carrier to your talents, job satisfaction, level of ambition... and whether you work for a non-profit. Perhaps, you say, I could have done better ($$$) by postponing marriage and baby till mid-30s and focusing exclusively on my career? If that's what it takes to make middle-class, I question the sanity of the culture that requires such a thing.

[PG]

^^Totally. Education = debt and it's a daunting gamble for many of us. My advice to the people here is, get laid off, get evicted, look for a job or an apartment, THEN come on Portland Gentrification and lay our your little theories about how easy it is to make it happen. NOT before.

[Peter]

This 'privilege' argument is a worthy topic - one that deserves long-running conversations.

My first point of contention would be that using a bicycle is not an all-or-nothing proposition.

Second point would be that we need to look at the problem from the consumption side. Lots of folks are working jobs they hate 40 minutes from home just to pay for their cars - and often failing. Why work at a job just to pay for a car? Don't do it anymore. Instead, work closer to home for less money, consume less of everything, live a different, better, more fulfilling lifestyle.

On the other hand, it seems obvious to me that cycling is still basically 'white' - whether we're talking about the sport or commuting. That has a lot to do with money and class, I suppose. A UK paper published an article about research indicating how rich people cycle more b/c they didn't care about the stigma of riding a bike (i.e. 'my other bike is a BMW').

On a semi-related note, I've been trying to think pure thoughts about how the bicycle could be used as a tool for social justice - because it seems to solve just about all the other problems of the world - why not inequality, too?

I haven't figured it out yet, and don't know that a solution exists, but I figure there are plenty of smart people out there who could help.

[Angel]

I'm actually a Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA), basically one of the lowest-paid positions in health care. I can't afford NOT to bike commute. By parking the car, I'm saving over $40 a week just in gas. That doesn't take into account all the maintenance, insurance, and other costs associated with a car.

As far as the other points, I do a week's worth or more of grocery shopping in one trip with my home made bicycle trailer and shopping baskets on the bike. I also volunteer at my church as a handyman, which requires tools and other materials, and I volunteer for Search and Rescue, mountain bike squad, which requires all my gear on short notice. I can get me and my gear to the station in under 30 minutes.

Just to show that bike commuting runs across all economic classes, not just the "elite."