EJTK Technical Documentation

Environmental Justice Toolkit Technical Documentation

Phase II of the Baltimore Region Environmental Justice in Transportation Project

Prepared for

The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency in Conjunction with the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

Cooperative Agreement XA-83085801-3Contract DTF1161-06-P-00106

2008

2

Project Director

Glenn Robinson

Research Scientist, Morgan State University

Sponsor

Baltimore Metropolitan Council – Transportation Planning Division

Institutional Support

School of Engineering and Institute for Urban Research, Morgan State University

Greater Baltimore Urban League

Environmental Justice Partnership, Inc

Johns Hopkins Center in Urban Environmental Health

Ohio State University - School of Public Health

Community Support

Art Cohen, Morgan State University (Historian, Highway to Nowhere)

Shirley Folks, Cherry Hill Public Housing Tenants Association

Diane Jones, Assistant Professor - Institute of Architecture and Planning, Morgan State University

Ruth Pitts, Cherry Hill Public Housing Tenants Association

Leon Purnell, Executive Director – The Men’s Center

Zelda Robinson, President - Westside Baltimore Coalition

Angela Wilkins, Graduate Research Assistant, Planning, Morgan State University (Cherry Hill)

Oversight Committee

Tony Brown, Maryland Transit Administration

Don Chen, Smart Growth America

Richard Lloyd, Morgan State University

Michael Mazepink, Peoples Homesteading Group

Dorothy Morrison, Maryland Department of the Environment

Paul Oberle, Maryland Department of Transportation

Carol Payne, Department of Housing and Urban Development

Dan Pontious, Citizens Planning and Housing Association

Andrew Sawyer, Maryland Department of the Environment

Scot Spencer, Annie E. Casey FoundationRich Stoltz, Center for Community Change

3

Acknowledgments

We would like to take this opportunity to thank the four community groups for their fine work, the support they gave to this research, as well as their willingness to continue to share their

experience with us and with other communities. We wish them the best as they strive to ensure accessible, affordable and reliable transportation for people with disabilities, low incomes and

others in their communities.

Also, we wish to express our appreciation to federal representatives for their support as well, this includes: Victor McMahan (EPA), Sherry Ways (FHWA), and Gloria Shepherd (FHWA). A

note of thanks to an early contributor to this project, Rick Kuzmyak, is also warranted.

Note

This final report is a compendium of the Task 2 Impact Measures, Task 3 Analytical Procedures 3, and Task 4 Analysis approach. The analysis approaches identified and used in this report

represents a few of the potential transportation analytical tools and impact measures for evaluation of environmental justice issues.

4

Executive Summary

The Baltimore Region Environmental Justice in Transportation Project (BREJT) is a collaborative effort between the Morgan State University School of Engineering and the Institute for Urban Research, Baltimore Metropolitan Council, John Hopkins Bloomberg Center for Urban Environmental Health, the Greater Baltimore Urban League, and the Environmental Justice Partnership, Inc. The second of two EJ efforts, is sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to provide a systematic process for the integration of environmental justice (EJ) into the transportation decision-making process since there is no such approach currently in place.

BREJT’s goals are to advance the integration of EJ into the metropolitan planning process and to help low-income and minority communities and their planning agents better understand and more effectively deal with a wide range of urban transportation issues and problems. Since 2003, BREJT has been listening to low-income and minority communities describe the impacts of transportation on their environment and in their lives. BREJT utilized community stakeholders to identify local concerns and potential remedies. The EJ toolkit was developed to address these issues and to encourage government and communities to better work together to achieve sound solutions when addressing EJ concerns related to transportation. It is a vehicle for addressing community-based concerns through an informed public involvement process that is credibly responsive to public input particularly from low-income and minority communities.

The toolkit provides a contextual framework, analytical tools, evaluation criteria, and performance measures that can be used by metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), communities, and other stakeholders to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the social, economic, or environmental consequences of the local, regional, and statewide transportation planning decisions.

Case studies of four Baltimore communities—Kirk Avenue, Cherry Hill, US 40 Highway–to-Nowhere, and Lexington Market—are included to demonstrate the elements of EJ analysis. From the Baltimore experience the clear message is that when communities are motivated, well organized, and educated on the issues and options a sense of ownership is created that better influences the project selection outcomes.

5

Table of ContentsAcknowledgments ................................................................................................................................. 3Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................... 4Overview ................................................................................................................................................. 7Case Study Report: Kirk Avenue Bus Yard ............................................................................................. 9Case Study Report: Cherry Hill Issues ................................................................................................... 10Case Study Report: Lexington Market ................................................................................................... 12Case Study Report: US 40 Highway-to-Nowhere .................................................................................. 14Section 1: Performance Measures ...................................................................................................... 17

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 17Issues and Concerns ........................................................................................................................ 17A Focus on “Outcomes”.................................................................................................................. 20Analytic Tool Advances .................................................................................................................. 20Research Review Findings.............................................................................................................. 21

Atlanta Transportation Benefits & Burdens Study ................................................................................. 21NCHRP Report 532: Effective Methods for Environmental Justice Assessment........................ 24

Candidate Performance Measures................................................................................................. 27Section 2: Analytic Tools ..................................................................................................................... 28

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 28Selection Criteria .............................................................................................................................. 28Literature Review............................................................................................................................. 28Importance of Geographic Information System (GIS) Tools ..................................................... 32List of Analytic Tools Reviewed, Modified, or Considered for Use in Toolkit ...................... 34Data Resources ................................................................................................................................. 38

Case Study #1 and #3, Quantity and Adequacy of Transit Service ............................................. 40Section 4: EJ Case Study Analysis..................................................................................................... 43

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 43Case Study: Kirk Avenue Bus Yard.................................................................................................. 44

Description of Setting and Concerns:................................................................................................. 44Case Study Issues ............................................................................................................................. 45Investigations.................................................................................................................................... 48Analysis and Findings..................................................................................................................... 49Characteristics of Impacted Community...................................................................................... 51Impacts on Home Ownership, Vacancies and Home Value ..................................................... 53Noise and Pollution Impacts .......................................................................................................... 55ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................ 58

Case Study: Cherry Hill ..................................................................................................................... 59Description of Setting and Concerns:................................................................................................. 59Impact of Changes on Regional Accessibility.............................................................................. 64Changes in Transit Service Before/After Light Rail ................................................................... 65Community Profile and Changes .................................................................................................. 70Transit Service Delivery .................................................................................................................. 70ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................ 73

Case Study: Lexington Market .......................................................................................................... 74

6

Description of Setting and Concerns............................................................................................. 74Investigations.................................................................................................................................... 76Analysis and Findings..................................................................................................................... 76ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................ 83

Case Study: U.S. 40/Highway to Nowhere .................................................................................... 84Description of Setting and Concerns............................................................................................. 84Recognition of Past Injustice .......................................................................................................... 87Investigations.................................................................................................................................... 89Analysis and Findings..................................................................................................................... 89Transportation Facilities and Travel in the Corridor.................................................................. 94ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................... 109

Section 5: Summary ........................................................................................................................... 111

ChartsChart 1: Defining the Case Studies..........................................................................................................................8Chart 2: Scope of Analysis......................................................................................................................................16

ExhibitsExhibit 1: Overview of Concerns from Phase I Listening Sessions ..................................................................19Exhibit 2: Measures of Performance as Used to Assess Environmental Justice.............................................24Exhibit 3: Transportation Effects Addressed in NCHRP 532, Guidebook ......................................................26Exhibit 4: Bus Idling ................................................................................................................................................57Exhibit 5: : Emission Calculations .......................................................................................................................100Exhibit 6: Source of Trip Origins: US 40 @ Edmondson Village – AM Peak, 2000.......................................101Exhibit 7: Source of Trip Origins: US 40 @ West Baltimore MARC – AM Peak, 2000 .................................101Exhibit 8: Source of Trip Origins: US 40 @ MLK Boulevard – AM Peak, 2000 .............................................102Exhibit 9: Percentage African American Population and Median Family Income.......................................102Exhibit 10: Major Trip Origins & Destinations by RPD: Fulton and Monroe Streets @ US 40 – AM Peak, 2000 ..........................................................................................................................................................................109Exhibit 11: Major Trip Origins & Destinations by County: Fulton and Monroe Streets @ US 40 – AM Peak, 2000................................................................................................................................................................109

FiguresFigure 1. Kirk Avenue Bus Depot and Adjacent Neighborhood ............................................................... 46Figure 2: Land Use Mix in the Extended Kirk Avenue Community........................................................ 47Figure 3: Daily Bus Pullouts by MTA Division .................................................................................... 49Figure 4: Kirk Ave. Bus Yard..................................................................................................................... 49Figure 5: Kirk Ave. Real Estate.................................................................................................................. 54Figure 6. Noise Level (dBA) by Day of Week and Hour of Day at the Fenceline of the Kirk Division Depot........................................................................................................................................................... 55Figure 7. Integrated 24-hour Particle Mass Concentration <2.5 um (PM 2.5) .......................................... 56Figure 8. Illnesses and Health Issues Reported by Households Adjacent to Kirk Depot ............. 57Figure 9: Cherry Hill Aerial Photo of Neighborhood Streets Identified ................................................... 60Figure 10: Cherry Hill Community/Land Cover (2000)............................................................................. 61Figure 11: Bus Routes Serving Cherry Hill................................................................................................ 61Figure 12: Cherry Hill 1990-2000 Peak Travel Time ........................................................................... 66Figure 13: Off Peak Transit Travel Times ............................................................................................. 67

7

Figure 14: 2000 Employment Opportunities by TAZ and Change in Travel Time since 1990 ................ 68Figure 15: Cherry Hill Transit Access ................................................................................................... 69Figure 16. Lexington Market Location Map.............................................................................................. 74Figure 17. Movement of Bus Stops at Lexington Market ......................................................................... 75Figure 18: Vehicle and Pedestrian Volumes in Vicinity of Lexington Market (1996) ............................. 77Figure 19: Peak Transit Travel times From Lexington Market, 1990 vs. 2000 ......................................... 79Figure 20: Transit Travel Time from Lexington Market, 1990 vs 2000 – Off Peak .................................. 80Figure 21: Lexington Market Peak Travel Time and Racial Composition................................................. 82Figure 22: West Baltimore and the Highway to Nowhere................................................................. 84Figure 23: US 40 Corridor Racial Composition ....................................................................................... 90Figure 24: US 40 Corridor Median Household Income.............................................................................. 90Figure 25. Traffic Volumes in the US 40 Corridor.............................................................................. 95Figure 26. Bus Services in the US 40 Corridor .......................................................................................... 96Figure 27: 2000 AM Peak Hour Traffic Congestion in the US 40 Corridor ............................................. 98Figure 28:2000 PM Peak Hour Traffic Congestion in the US 40 Corridor ................................................ 99Figure 29. Select Link Traffic FlowMap – US 40 @ Edmondson Village, AM Peak and PM Peak – 2000................................................................................................................................................................... 103Figure 30: Select Link Traffic Flow Map – US 40 @ W. Baltimore MARC, AM Peak and PM Peak – 2000........................................................................................................................................................ 104Figure 31: Select Link Traffic Flow Map – US 40 @ MLK Boulevard, AM and PM Peak - 2000......... 105Figure 32. Select Link Traffic Flow Map – Fulton & Monroe Streets @ US 40, AM and PM Peak –2000........................................................................................................................................................... 106Figure 33: Productions and Attractions by RPD Affecting Volumes on Village, AM Peak - 2000 ...... 107Figure 34: Productions and Attractions by RPD US 40 @ Edmondson Affecting Volumes on Fulton and Monroe Streets @ US 40, AM Peak - 2000...................................................................................... 107Figure 35. Baltimore Regional Planning Districts (RPDs)...................................................................... 108

IllustrationsIllustration 1: Proposed Expansion Area..............................................................................................................44Illustration 2: Neighborhood Proximity ...............................................................................................................45Illustration 3: West Baltimore and the Highway to Nowhere Census Tracts 1940-2000..............................85

TablesTable 1: Analytic Approaches Recommended by NCHRP Report 532............................................ 31Table 2: Preliminary Assessment of Analytic Needs: ......................................................................... 40Table 3. Preliminary Assessment of Analytic Needs: Case Study #2 – Congestion and Environment ... 41Table 4: Case Study #4 – Public Involvement............................................................................................ 42Table 5: Population, Housing and Economic Profile of Kirk Avenue and Expanded Community (Source: US Census)................................................................................................................................ 52Table 6: Population by Race .................................................................................................................... 86Table 7: Rates of Population Decline - by Number and Percent ................................................................ 86Table 8: Migration out and Immigration by Race US Census Year ........................................................... 87Table 9. Demographic Characteristics of US 40 Corridor (1990 and 2000) ............................................. 92

Overview

8

Effective transportation decision-making depends upon understanding and properly addressing the unique needs of different socioeconomic groups. This is more that a desktop exercises; it requires involving the public to ensure inclusion of the three fundamental principles of Civil Rights, Title VI and environmental justice in transportation decision making. They are to: 1) avoid, minimize, or mitigate disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects, including social and economic effects, on minority populations and low-income populations; 2) ensure the full and fair participation by all potentially affected communities in the transportation decision-making process; and 3) prevent the denial of, reduction in, or significant delay in the receipt of benefits by minority and low-income populations

In current practice, State, regional and local transportation agencies are applying a wide variety of techniques for assessing the outcomes of transportation decisions on minority populations and reaching out to traditionally underrepresented groups. FHWA wants to ensure that transportation practitioners are aware of and can use state-of-the-art techniques when analyzing potential high and adverse disproportionate impacts and public participation processes. As such a flexible approach will encourage our State, regional and local partners to be creative and innovative in developing methods of meeting their Title VI obligations and to utilize best practices that are tailored to addressing the particular needs of their communities.

The BREJT project has three primary objectives. They are: (1) to be responsive to the concerns raised by the community in Phase I (2) work toward identifying reasonable solutions and (3) to gain sufficient experience and insight in addressing these concerns to be able to create a planning guide or, Toolkit, for use by others locally or nationally. A third and equally important objective is to format the analytic tools for use in assisting previously targeted community groups who participated in the community dialogue and who are in high-risk areas. This will be used in continuing the dialogue of defining remedial solutions. To accomplish the three objectives four case studies were chosen because they are cross cutting different issues and spatial detail (see chart below).

Chart 1: Defining the Case Studies

D e fin ing the C ase S tud ies

CC oo nn gg ee ss tt ii oo nn &&EE nn vv ii rroo nn mm ee nn tt

TT rr aa nn ss ii ttAA dd ee qq uu aa cc yy

PP uu bb ll iiccIInn vv oo llvv ee mm ee nn tt

NN ee iigg hh bb oo rr hh oo oo dd //LL oo cc aa ll

K irk A ve . B us D ep o t

Ch e rr y H il l

CC oo rr rr ii dd oo rr //SS uu bb aa rr ee aa

R e d L in e

RR ee gg ii oo nn aa ll L e x in gton M a rk et

9

Summary of case studies and community concerns

Case Study Report: Kirk Avenue Bus Yard

The Midway Community is one in which residential and industrial uses collide. The Kirk Avenue bus yard has been a point of contention between the surrounding community and the Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) for some time. The primary complaints have to do with the impact of noise and emissions from bus operations on the community and its residents. The bus yard is located between industrial land to the north and east and residential neighborhoods to the west and south, that seem to have somewhat receded over time. What is not clear is the extent to which the operations at the Kirk Avenue bus yard have directly caused the decline of the neighborhood.

Community Concerns

Residents complain that the noise levels at the bus yard are too high and are causing physiological health impacts.

There are concerns about the impacts of engine idling on residents’ respiratory health. A number of residents have asthma and some have died of cancer.

The bus yard is too close to homes. The Kirk Avenue bus yard is 1 of 3 MTA bus yards located in or near residential areas.

Residents are concerned about the impact of the bus yard on property values, as the bus yard is perceived as having a negative impact upon the community.

Quality of life has declined for many residents due to an inability to fully use their homes because of exhaust and noise. Examples cited were: Not being able to open windows in rooms facing bus yard; No one with any respiratory problems can sleep in the back rooms; and No backyard cookouts.

Community representatives have appealed to the MTA on numerous occasions to address these conditions but feel their concerns are not being resolved or at time, even considered.

Analysis and Findings

Bus Operations: In terms of daily pullouts, the Kirk Avenue bus yard is the 2nd largest MTA bus facility.

All 4 of MTA’s bus yards have had a significant decrease in bus pullouts between 1997 and 2007; however Kirk Avenue has experienced the largest decrease (22.5%).

Some of the bus routes leaving from Kirk Avenue directly serve the Midway Community. Of the 12 bus routes that leave the Kirk Avenue bus yard, 4 are within a 1/2 mile radius of Kirk Avenue and 2 are within 1 mile.

Community Impacts:

Noise pollution noted at bus yard: Announcements over loud speakers, Engines running throughout day and night, Repairs and servicing.

Recorded noise levels exceeded Baltimore City ordinance levels during both day and night, nearly every day tested. Noise levels were higher during night hours, especially on weekends. This could affect residents’ health (loss of sleep, high levels of stress, etc).

10

Although the daily average of air pollution didn’t exceed the federal standard, the 2 week average indicates that the annual standard may be exceeded.

The effects of air pollution put residents at an increased risk for adverse health effects. Related illnesses and doctor/hospital visits were documented and mapped.

Property values are lower in the 1/4 mile residential areas surrounding the bus yard, particularly given the houses are larger units than those in the surrounding area.

Assessment and Recommendations:

MTA is currently responding to the community’s concerns with some mitigation measures (all new hybrid buses are located at the Kirk Avenue bus yard rather than diesel fueled buses, new operational procedures have been put in place, a new structure is replacing the old structure, etc).

The community should have ongoing, structured, negotiations with MTA regarding near-term and long-term strategies that will begin to provide some relief from the impacts which are substantially attributed to the bus yard.

The community should ask the MTA for a clear statement of the likely impacts of the new, planned facility and pursue mitigation for impacts from construction and implementation of the new facility.

Tools Used in this Case Study: Residents maintained a Diary of concerns, that was made available to the team

Community meetings

Map of bus routes

Socio-demographic profiling

Homeownership and property value analysis

Map of reported illnesses and health concerns

Indoor and outdoor air pollution measurements

Key Policy Questions Should damage assessment fees be considered for transportation systems that disproportionately

impact communities?

Scaling upwards, how can the overall EJ concern of minorities be addressed within the existing transportation system? What practical solutions can be implemented?

How can future transportation systems be designed in a way to facilitate movement while minimizing distributional economic, environmental and health outcomes across communities?

Case Study Report: Cherry Hill Issues

The Cherry Hill community is located in the southern section of Baltimore City, south of the Inner Harbor/Central Business District of Baltimore City. The Cherry Hill community was established in the late 1940’s when the Housing Authority of Baltimore City chose it as a site of a federal project for African American war workers migrating from the South. In those days of segregated housing, no neighborhood in the city was available for an influx of African Americans. Today , Cherry Hill is a mostly residential area with apartment complexes, row houses, and public housing projects. Some of the

11

public housing has been demolished leaving large tracts of land in the middle of the community that can be redeveloped in the future.

Community Concerns Residents feel there are too few buses

The buses do not run on schedule

Bus stops, shelters, sidewalks are poorly maintained

Paratransit vehicles are poorly equipped

Drivers are impolite

As a poor community, residents are highly dependent on transit

People miss appointments or are left stranded

Employers see Cherry Hill residents as unreliable

Complaints go unanswered


Impact of Changes on Regional Accessibility: Decreased transit access overall

Major areas of east Baltimore are inaccessible within 1 hour of travel time

Access to substantial areas of northeast Baltimore are no longer reachable without at least one hour of travel time

Light rail service has improved travel time to jobs in the BWI corridor

Overall access to jobs for transit dependent households in Cherry Hill has declined

Community Profile and Changes:Between 1990 and 2000 there was a marked change in the size of the Cherry Hill Regional Planning District (RPD). Here are some of the findings:

Overall population declined 21.1%, with the largest population decrease among whites (-46.8%) with the largest increases among non-whites (+77.8%) and Hispanics (+99%).

There was a 12.9% decline in the number of households

The largest decreases in households were seen among married couples with children(-51.4%)

Single person households increased by 15.8%

By age, the largest decreases were seen among 18 to 44 year olds (-31.7%) and in children under 5 (-29.6%)

The total reduction in housing was 9.3%, but percent change in vacant homes increased by 113%

The number of employed residents fell by 28.6% and the unemployment rate was 15.5% of total labor force – well above the national average

Assessment and Recommendations An initial review shows the Cherry Hill community has experienced deferential treatment with

regard to transit service, however additional investigations should be undertaken to quantify and legitimize residents’ claims. Recommended studies and actions are listed below.

12

Consider developing an independent monitoring and assessment program to document community concerns regarding both transit and paratransit services.

Implement a process to report back to the community about the status of investigations into complaints, including any changes implemented as a result.

Create a community advisory board.

Establish that the reductions in bus services after the Light Rail service that began in 1992 were not part of a much larger, system wide reduction in services due to financial restrictions

Tools Used in This Case Study A Listening Session

Maps showing changes to transit travel times

Regional travel model analysis

Population, housing, and employment statistics

Map of available transit in area

Key policy questions In the face of decline in bus service quality and frequency, what is the associated impact on

community socio-economic performance?

What lessons can be learned from the Cherry Hill study to integrate in transit service decisions regarding the socio-economic impacts of route decisions?

How can the socio-economic concerns of communities be addressed through participatory public transportation system decision making process?

Case Study Report: Lexington Market

Lexington Market is a major commercial destination in downtown Baltimore, providing fresh produce, meats, seafood, and a variety of vendors selling items in a large, historic building. The market is not only a major tourist attraction, but also a mainstay for a large portion of Baltimore’s minority community, who prize its selections, freshness and tradition. Beginning in 2001, the City of Baltimore Police Department, the Market Authority, and the MTA introduced a set of controversial changes when they moved the stops for several of the bus routes.

Community Concerns The public felt it had been marginalized and left out of the decision-making process

Commercial interests were given preference over community well-being

Shoppers complained they had to walk longer distances to connect with buses

The public expressed concerned about exposure to vehicle exhaust as they walk to buses

Pedestrians have to navigate busy traffic to visit the market or transfer between transit services.


Changes in Regional Transit Access:

Historically, a large number of the city’s minority and low-income residents have traveled to the market by public transportation

13

Improvements in transit access to the market are seen in the communities to the north and west of the market. A significant improvement was also noted for Westport residents (-11 minutes).

In general, due to the addition of Metro and light rail, a much higher percentage of the region is within a 1-hour travel window of Lexington Market in 2000 over 1990.

The net effect of the added rail services seems to have improved transit access to the market.

Transportation statistics: The crosswalks at Lexington Street are not signalized. The crosswalks supports major pedestrian

traffic made up of visitors and transit users.

A 1996 City of Baltimore traffic report documents that 600 to 800 vehicles travel every hour along Eutaw Street in front of Lexington Market. This amounts to one vehicle every 4 to 6 seconds, making crossing without a signal difficult and dangerous.

Pedestrian counts taken at the same time show over 500 pedestrians crossing Eutaw Street. Giventhe narrow sidewalks, these high volumes of pedestrians and vehicles make for congested conditions.

Assessment and Recommendations Some hardship may have been visited upon riders to Lexington Market as a result of the

movement of bus stops. However, further information is needed to assess the actual impacts.

What is evident is the community was not included in the decision-making process of moving the bus stops. This “issue of process” is more a concern from an environmental justice perspective than the movement of the stops themselves, since they show a lack of consideration for an inclusive process. Recommend the following:

o Research ways to improve decision-making process o Implement improved process for notifying and involving transit riders of proposed

changes to bus stops

Due to high traffic volumes, pedestrian safety remains a concern for both transit riders and visitors. Recommend the following to address these concerns:

o Collect updated traffic counts to determine current safety issues between pedestrian and vehicle traffic.

o Identify and evaluate alternatives to improve pedestrian safety and access.

Tools Used in This Case Study Community meetings

Measure vehicle and pedestrian traffic volumes

Study changes to travel times

Key policy questions What are potential distributional impacts of transit stop changes on minorities and low income

riders?

How can potential community concerns with transit stop changes be addressed through a participatory public hearing?

What are the long-term impacts of transit changes on users and long-term uses?

14

How do transit changes impact local businesses through impact on volume of passengers to a particular location?

Case Study Report: US 40 Highway-to-Nowhere

The “Highway to Nowhere” is a massive section of roadway that begins on the western edge of downtown Baltimore and heads due west out of the city as part of US 40 through the neighborhoods of Poppleton, Harlem Park, Lafayette Square and Rosemont. Once the starting point of an ambitious plan to connect I-95, as it passes through Baltimore, with I-70, which terminates at the Baltimore Beltway (I-695) in the west, the highway would have been called as I-170. However, the plan ran out of momentum and support before it could proceed beyond the railway line, and thus it remains to this day–almost 30 years after it was opened to traffic – a grade-separated superhighway that is only 1.4 miles long.

Community Concerns The Highway to Nowhere is a ditch that cut the community into two halves.

The creation of the Highway to Nowhere led to a decline in property values and in increase in abandoned buildings.

There has been an increase in crime, especially drug-related.

The city and state have allowed the area to decay over the last 30 years and nothing significant has been done to help correct the mistake of the highway.

Residents fear being displaced again when new improvements are introduced.

Analysis and FindingsDemographic Characteristics and Changes:

In the 3 main communities affected by the Highway to Nowhere (HTN), significant shifts in population were noted: a 67% decline in the central area and an 80% decline in the eastern area from 1950 to 2000, and a 39% decline in the western area from 1960 to 2000.

From 1940 to 2000, Baltimore’s White population fell 70%, while its Black population more than doubled (rising 253%).

The HTN corridor is mostly comprised of minority families with low-to-moderate incomes, many earning less than $30,000 per year.

Residents living closest to the eastern end of the HTN have a median-income of less than $15,000 per year.

Residents of the hard-hit eastern section also show signs of economic and social distress:o 48% of residents over 25 have less than a high school educationo 43.3% are living below the poverty level o 28% of housing is vacanto 57% of homes are occupied by renters.o 15% of homes are owner-occupied.

Congestion, Air Quality, and Transit: Some portions of the HTN corridor show congestion, particularly where the “expressway” ends.

Fulton and Monroe Streets also experience congestion, as they are major arteries bringing substantial traffic through the west Baltimore neighborhoods.

15

A substantial amount of traffic on the HTN comes from outside Baltimore City. This traffic stream is growing each year – daily volumes have increased by 24.5% just since 2000.

The principal population subgroups that use the HTN corridor appear to be of a very different socio-economic mix than those live along the corridor.

Along the 1.4 mile HTN corridor, daily production of emissions equal 39.2 tons a year of Hydrocarbons and 26.9 tons a year of NOx.

Bus transit service is good in the corridor, with MTA bus routes No. 10 and 40 providing frequent east - west from downtown to Social Security, and various cross-routes providing north-south connection.

There is access to a commuter train, but no local rail transit in the corridor. However, the proposed Red Line would occupy or parallel the US 40 right-of-way along much of its length.

Assessment and Recommendations It is clear that the communities in the W. Baltimore neighborhood adjacent to the HTN have had

a difficult time. The dislocation of several thousand residents left the remaining African America homeowners and communities struggling to sustain a proud past.

The HTN remains 30 years later as a daily reminder for residents of “planning gone wrong.”

The local residents bear the burden of 36,000 vehicles a day passing through their communities, generating an estimated 1/4 ton of ozone-producing pollutants each day, while the commuters from Baltimore, Howard, Frederick and even Montgomery Counties have the benefit of access.

A significant community planning effort is needed to address the disproportionate burden that is borne by this predominately low-income, minority community.

Baltimore City and the MDOT have initiated planning processes in West Baltimore related to the Red Line transit project and West Baltimore MARC station improvements. It will be key for residents to work closely together with planners to ensure community needs are met as planning moves forward on these two projects.

Tools Used in This Case Study Map congestion levels

Regional travel forecasting model

Review of U.S. Census data

Key policy questions An assessment of the distribution of opportunities and burdens of proposed road projects needs

to be communicated to communities to generate public support. What are the mechanisms through which proper information on the distribution of the impacts associated with new road projects be communicated to communities?

How do transportation planners and decision-makers integrate potential economic and environmental distributional impacts of transportation systems?

How can communities be engaged and well-informed to make choices about transportation routes in and near their communities?

16

Chart 2: Scope of Analysis

Questions To Ask Cherry Hill Kirk Avenue Lexington Market US 40

Overall Transportation Issues

Access to and from Interstate

Pedestrian & bicycles barriers Safety

Substandard intersection interchange

Annapolis/Waterview

Narrow and obstructed with utilities

Noise Barriers

Air Quality

Public Participation

Age of Facility

Suitability

Proximity to neighborhoods

Pollution from busses

Diesel exhaust

Removal of bus stops

Increased walking distances

Intercity mobility

Regional mobility

Safety

Regional Access Points I-95 & McComas

I-95 & Hanover

I-895 & Potee

I-295 & Waterview

Greenmount Avenue

Harford Road

Loch Raven Boulevard

All Points CBD Route 40, I-95, I-295, MLK. Boulevard

Pedestrian Activity Generators

Cherry Hill Light Rail Station

Westport Light Rail

Kirk Avenue Automotive body shops

Citywide Schools

Shopping

Main Traffic Street (Minor Arterials/Collectors)

Waterview Avenue

Cherry Hill Avenue

Hanover Street/Potee

Kirk Avenue

25th Street

Eutaw Street

Paca Street

Route 40

Edmonson Avenue

Monroe Street

Fulton Avenue

Impacted Communities Middle River

West Port

Homewood Avenue

Bartlett Avenue

Appleton

Harlem Park

Midtown

Mid-Town Edmondson

Harlem Park Orowso

What Government Wants

Economic Development

Enhanced Transit Access Points

Market Priced Housing

Inner City Bus Facility

Reduced Operating Cost

TOD

Reduce CBD Congestion

TOD

Red Line


What the Community Wants

Better transportation

Better transit services

Low income affordable housing for residents of public housing

Keep Homes

Find Land Use

Clean Environment

Community Cohesion

Bus Facility Moved

Improve Transit &

Transportation

Low income, affordable public housing

Better transportation

Better transit services

Community Cohesion


Impact Measures Land use impacts

Direct, indirect, secondary and cumulative effects (based on Traffic & population forecast

Employment accessibility and service accessibility

Accessibility

Select link analysis(VMT and VHT)

Time, distance, and population proximity analyses

Individual accessibility to Lexington Market

Crime statistics

Analyze accessibility using

select link analysis and traffic flow data

Collect data from adjacent communities.

17

Section 1: Performance Measures

IntroductionThe performance mesures identified in this section represent a store of universally accepted impact measures routinely used by transportation planners for various analytical tasks. An essential element to any analytic or evaluation procedure is the set of measures used to describe and quantify the particular issues or impacts under review. These performance measures (also referred to as performance indicators or measures of effectiveness) are critical to both visualizing the problem under study and to evaluating potential solutions.

In the context of the Environmental Justice in Transportation (EJT) Toolkit, the performance measures designed into the Toolkit must be capable of reflecting the broad array of concerns, impacts and potential outcomes that are likely to be encountered in environmental justice studies. Moreover, they must be appropriate to the scale of the particular study -- which may range from highly localized to regional in focus – the time frame in question, and to a certain extent be within the limits of reasonably available analytic tools and data to estimate.

For the BREJT Project, measures were selected with the criteria that: They realistically reflect the central concerns They may be used to measure and compare both current/unaltered conditions with solution

alternatives They can support enlightened dialogue on the topic and lead to resolution.

In addition, measures were also selected that allowed for comparison of access and safety to jobs and other activity needs, and exposure to transportation-related impacts such as traffic, safety, noise, and air pollution, both as the impact EJ vs. regular populations and across alternative planning scenarios. While the capabilities of existing data and analysis tools were used as an initial guide in framing the performance measures, recommendations tended toward the most meaningful measures for the analysis and were not limited by current capabilities.

Issues and Concerns

Ultimately, an EJT Toolkit should be capable of looking at a broad range of issues and concerns that have environmental justice implications. Since the intent of the Toolkit is to develop a mechanism for improving the voice of disadvantaged populations in the regional planning and programming process, presumably the measures of impact should bear some identity with the goals and objectives that are addressed by the metropolitan planning process.

The original Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 has shaped this process with its recommendations for the adoption of various Planning Factors into the state and MPO transportation planning process. The intent of the Planning Factors was to draw into consideration the many objectives that transportation either supports or influences when framing the goals and objectives of a comprehensive transportation plan. Prior to ISTEA, all too often transportation plans, policies and spending priorities were guided by a narrow set of performance criteria and political concerns. ISTEA ushered in a new planning ethic where transportation policies, plans and programs were required to

18

demonstrate a stronger link with economic and societal goals that transportation is used to support, including:

Support economic vitality and competitiveness Safety and security for motorized and non-motorized travelers Increase accessibility and mobility options for people and freight Protect the environment, conserve energy, and improve quality of life Enhance connectivity and integration across modes for people and freight Manage existing transportation system for maximum efficiency Preserve the existing transportation system

Based on the ISTEA Planning Factors, metropolitan transportation plans now reflect a more comprehensive vision and understanding of the role of and impacts resulting from transportation. Correspondingly, the measures of performance have also broadened, as have the capabilities of analytic tools, data resources, and the application of this information in the planning and decision making process. Fittingly, it seems, these comprehensive transportation-planning goals should also serve as the policy framework for evaluating Environmental Justice needs and concerns in the context of both metropolitan planning as well as more perfunctory or topical issues and concerns.

The issues and concerns elicited from the Baltimore community during Phase I of the BREJT project speak to this breadth of coverage and specificity that are required of the Toolkit and the tools and performance measures it contains. A perusal of the concerns summarized in Exhibit 1 suggests an abundance of concern in the following major areas:

Delivery of transit service: Frequency, proximity, reliability, quality, professionalism Access and mobility: ability to reach jobs, health care, other needs, particularly by transit Funding parity: priorities in poor vs. affluent areas, bus vs. rail transit, condition of

transportation infrastructure, inclusion in decision making Environmental: Exposure to traffic, noise, air pollution Quality of Life: Community health, individual health, safety

A reflection on these issues also suggests a spectrum of factors that may be contributing to the concerns that could occur at all levels of planning, funding or operations. Many of the voiced concerns may simply be the result of a change in operating policy that had more deeply reaching effects than anticipated or recognized; in this case it may be sufficient to simply reestablish the communications link between the community and the agency.

In other cases, however, the problems may not be simple in nature or source, and a higher level of assessment and intervention may be required, particularly if the problem is widespread and/or is the result of shifted funding or program priorities. In such a case, it may likely be necessary to deepen the assessment and intervention to better understand the nature of the problem or to investigate alternative solutions.

Given this “hierarchy” of issues, their causes, and the potential responses, the analysis tools and the measures in the toolkit must have enough dexterity to permit an analysis which is appropriate and credible for the issue at hand, but which leaves open the option to “dig deeper” if the problem proves to be more complex or difficult to resolve with simplistic methods. Ultimately, the Toolkit attempts to provide its users with the ability to identify the most appropriate measures and analyses to address a particular issue.

19

Exhibit 1: Overview of Concerns from Phase I Listening Sessions

Quality & adequacy of transit service:

Complaints don’t get heard Too few buses to serve demand, service (frequency) has declined Buses are frequently overcrowded, unsafe for seniors, passengers unruly, drivers surly or

uninvolved Equipment on buses is frequently broken – lifts, air conditioning Stops, stations and nearby infrastructure is poorly maintained – broken, dirty, uninviting. Buses don’t run on time, plus schedules are out of date Area is hooked on rail transit service, which has taken away from resources available for bus

service Principal service orientation is north-south, making east-west travel difficult

Accessibility:

Underlying concern with transit is trying to reach jobs in outlying locations – adequate routing, scheduling, information on system connections

Getting to health care via public transportation seen as a significant and unique problem –paratransit service is horrible, budgets have been cut on aides

Access to transit service via local streets and sidewalks in poor condition, limited opportunities to cross safely

Insufficient parking opportunities near transit stops/stations

Funding/Equity:

No way to find out if funds are being allocated fairly Perception that funding and service is going to more affluent areas Fear that transit will continue to be underfunded and service will continue to degrade Perception that regional rail service is taking resources away from local bus service

Congestion & Environment:

Primary concerns seem to be localized exposure to traffic, noise, and pollution Construction related traffic noise and pollution Traffic, noise and pollution associated with MTA bus yards

Public Participation:

Generally judged to be inadequate Important decisions have already been made by time of involvement

20

A Focus on “Outcomes”

Closely related to the use of particular measures to address issues of a particular scale or nature is the notion of measuring performance “outcomes”. Early attempts to adopt performance-based methods to transportation planning or program evaluation focused more heavily on gauging the “effort” taken to achieve an objective, or the initial results of that effort in terms of the product delivered. The former is regarded as a measure of “input”, and might be measured in terms of dollars spent, while the latter is generally regarded as an “output”, and might be expressed in terms of bus route miles, or average headways. However, if one more properly tries to focus on what impact the policy or investment is having on the customer, or on some primary social, economic or environmental goal, then it is necessary to try to define and measure the practical “outcome” that occurs. In the case of transit, outcome-based measures might be:

Change in transit ridership Change in transit modal share in a particular travel market Change in the time or cost to reach particular destinations by transit.

These measures are often harder to quantify, but provide much more useful information to support decision-making on projects or programs. Fortunately, the gradual movement of the profession to adopt meaningful measures of performance has been met with improvements in the analytic tools and data needed to create them. The Toolkit will be able to take advantage of these improvements in tools and data, as well as a developing body of research on defining and using these techniques in transportation-related situations in general and in application to environmental justice questions in particular.

Analytic Tool Advances

Outcome-based performance measures place more stringent requirements on the analytic tools and data used for conventional transportation planning. This is particularly true with regard to measures that require accounting for geographic location or proximity, which, of course, is a central concern with environmental justice analyses.

For example, a very revealing measure in evaluating the effectiveness of a transportation investment is the concept of “accessibility”. Accessibility can be measured in different ways, but essentially it represents the number of opportunities that are made available to an individual or a group through the transportation system, as well as the change in those opportunities as a result of a change in the transportation system (or some related policy). To measure accessibility, the task is to determine the number of opportunities that are within a specified travel time from a selected origin point. That travel time can be in relation to a given mode, say auto or transit, or it can be some combination of various modes providing service to the same user. This measure can be rather easily calculated with information from a standard four-step transportation planning model, and is very effective at demonstrating how well the transportation system – or a proposed change to that system – actually helps people travel. As a measure of outcome, it is much more meaningful than, say, measuring distance to the nearest bus stop (since the bus may not go to particular destinations) or average speed on a given roadway.

At the same time, these traditional transportation planning tools have numerous identified shortcomings when applied to more complex – but typical – modern planning and impact questions. Because of the

21

structure of conventional planning models, the level of analysis is restricted to the Traffic Analysis Zone, or TAZ. This scale of geography is generally much greater than a neighborhood, and at this level of aggregation many important characteristics of households, land use and the transportation system are “lost in the average”. This not only restricts the types of policies that can be looked at, but casts doubt upon the accuracy of those situations where it is used for such an application.

Advances in geographic information systems (GIS) methods offer to greatly expand the flexibility and capability of conventional travel analysis methods. Through use of “layers”, GIS makes it possible to superimpose data on different variables, even supplied from different sources, upon one another such that they can be viewed and manipulated in a common geographic frame. This frame may be a TAZ, or it may be a census tract, zip code, or some other geographic level, down to individual households if desired. A particular strength is the ability to overlay features that have the characteristics of “lines” onto the spatial layers and derive relationships from the subsequent identities. This is particularly valuable in relation to transportation system features, be it highways, transit routes, or point features like terminals, since it allows relatively efficient calculation of the proximity of populations (or activities) to these facilities. Moreover, since the transportation facilities constitute a “network” of links and nodes that provide connecting paths to places and activities, this complexity can be relatively easily recast into measures of travel time to reach particular destinations. With this capability to slice demographic and land use features into smaller units, and conveniently interrelate transportation system elements and changes, GIS presents an ideal capability for transportation planning and policy evaluation. And this value is particularly apparent with regard to environmental justice, where it is necessary to identify and isolate particular population subgroups and then ascertain the degree to which they are currently served or impacted by transportation service or programs, as well as to study the most effective ways to impact those conditions.

Research Review Findings

While this project is attempting to lay new ground in terms of the insight it provides to both practitioners and community interests in how to approach environmental justice issues, it is clear that much valuable thought has already been invested in the subject of analytic approaches and measurement techniques. Three earlier studies, in particular, focused intensively on the measurement and tools aspects of environmental justice, and provide a substantive foundation for the measures and analytic approaches that will be used in the development of the Toolkit. These studies were:

Atlanta Transportation Benefits and Burdens Study NCHRP Project 8-36(11): Technical Methods to Support Analyses of Environmental Justice Issues NCHRP Report 532: Effective Methods for Environmental Justice Assessment.

The scope and principal findings of these three important studies are summarized below.

Atlanta Transportation Benefits & Burdens Study1

This project was the result of a 1997 agreement between the USDOT and a coalition of non-government agencies (Environmental Defense, Southern Organizing Committee for Economic and Social Justice, and Georgia Coalition for a People’s Agenda) to conduct a study of environmental justice in the Atlanta

1 USDOT, FHWA, FTA, Transportation Benefits & Burdens in the Atlanta Region, Final Draft, May 2002

22

region. The project consisted of a Phase 1 assessment of public participation followed by a Phase II assessment of the distribution of transportation benefits and burdens on minority and low-income populations. The main purpose of Phase II was to identify and evaluate quantitative measures of transportation impact on disadvantaged population segments. Consultants retained by FHWA developed a framework that first established a baseline of current distributions of benefits and burdens, which would then be compared with conditions likely to occur over the next 25 years due to demographic trends and transportation investments.

Phase I served to solicit the community’s input on appropriate benefits and burdens to measure. The study team recognized that it didn’t have the tools or data to address all the questions that were raised, and that no single measure would provide a complete answer. It was clear that the dimensions of geography, demographic characteristics, transportation system attributes and model data would have to be synthesized from different sources, levels of aggregation or even points in time in order to portray travel patterns or impacts by race, ethnicity and income. GIS was the key tool used for this synthesis, and for presenting the information in understandable formats.

While numerous measures were reviewed, the following received the study’s recommendations:

Population within walking distance of transit Percent of employment accessible within 60 minutes by transit for lower income groups Average congested travel time by income Potential impact to historic areas

Other measures that were evaluated included:

Transit load factors (as a surrogate for service quality); Effect of congestion on neighborhood safety; Quality of transportation system maintenance; Proximity of population to point source emissions (represented by bus yards); Proximity to mobile source pollution (population near major highways as proxy); Effect of taking property for transportation on community cohesion; Distribution of crashes; Incidence of transportation costs.

For each measure the study documented: Description and importance of the measure; measurement tools; lessons learned/areas for further consideration; important technical considerations; and alternative approaches not taken, and why. In most cases, the measures that were not recommended for further use were limited by the available data or analytic methods, which was somewhat a function of the fact that the timing of the study meant that some key data sources (e.g., 2000 Census) were not available.

NCHRP Project 8-36(11): Technical Methods to Support Analyses of Environmental Justice Issues2

This project was undertaken as a special study for AASHTO’s Standing Committee on Planning to provide assistance to state DOTs, MPOs, transit agencies and others attempting to address environmental justice requirements in planning and project studies. The primary focus was on

2 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Technical Methods to Support Analysis of Environmental Justice Issues. NCHRP Project 8-36(11) (April 2002).

23

identifying and developing an inventory of technical approaches that could be in both systems-level and corridor/subarea planning to quantify benefits and burdens and their distribution across individual population groups. To perform this review, the study both articulated and offered interpretation for the array of existing environmental justice laws and policy directives, and also collected information on current practice and challenges from a large number of practicing agencies. Based on interviews with 15 state DOTs, 21 MPOs, and three transit agencies, the study determined considerable uncertainty among agencies as to the appropriate level of analysis that is necessary, the correct mix of public involvement and technical analysis, and the manner in which environmental justice should be treated during systems planning. The existing practice review confirmed that the approaches in use for project planning are much better defined and accepted than they are for statewide or regional systems planning.

The report describes methods, including examples, for defining and identifying population groups, conducting public outreach and involvement, defining measures of benefit and burden, defining disproportionate impacts, and responding to environmental justice issues. Its primary strength, however, is in its description of methods for identifying and examining the distribution of risks, benefitsand burdens. It provides both a solid overview of the definitions of benefits and burdens, and the procedures for assessing disparate benefits. Lists of each type of measure are provided, along with descriptions on how they may be calculated, agencies that have used the measures and their experiences. An emphasis is placed on currently available methods that can be applied immediately without further research, but the study also makes note of other methods that are currently in use which may be valuable in environmental justice applications, but which are not being routinely applied in that context.

Measures of “benefit” which are identified and discussed in the report include:

Accessibility to jobs or other activities: Used by at least 8 MPOs in their regional plan, generally measuring the number of jobs within X minutes of the average person; alternatively travel-time weighted indices were also used.

Travel times: Similar function to accessibility measures, have included average travel times to regional activity centers, average travel times by trip type, and travel time resulting from a particular project.

Provision and quality of transportation service: proximity to transit service (route, stop of station); Boston MPO considered quality measures such as frequencies, load factors, average age of vehicles, percent of vehicles with air conditioning.

Proximity to projects: location of RTP, TIP or STIP projects in relation to population subgroups (assumes that a neighborhood actually benefits from a project)

Characteristics of the users of projects: overcomes the ambiguity of proximity above. Maintenance: condition and/or expenditures on maintaining pavement, bridges, sidewalks,

landscaping, etc. by neighborhood.

Measures of “Burden” which are also listed and described in the report include:

Community cohesion/disruption: identified Community Impact Assessment procedures developed by FHWA in 1996

Economic: reduced business revenue and employment Fiscal Decline: tax base and property values Costs borne by taxpayers: SCAG approach noted which analyzed sources of tax revenue used to

finance the long-range transportation plan and the incidence of each source by income quintile;

24

distribution of benefits of the plan were then compared by monetizing travel time savings and accident cost reductions

Displacements: of residents, businesses, public amenities Restricted access: to other transportation modes (e.g., pedestrians) or areas Reductions in safety or personal security Emissions, air quality and health: found to not normally be compared among population groups Noise Diminished aesthetics

The study issued the important finding that most agency appraisals of transportation burdens tend to follow the traditional, projected-oriented NEPA process, where anticipated impacts on different population groups are described from a qualitative standpoint. While property takings, emissions, air quality and noise impacts are typically quantified, the distribution of these impacts is usually not compared among population groups. Thus, the measurements of impact on the “burdens” side of the ledger do not appear to be treated as concertedly as are many of the measures of “benefit”. Exhibit 2 from the NCHRP study report does a good job of summarizing what measures are used to represent benefits or burdens (some used for both), as well as whether they are deployed at the project vs. the planning (systems) level, and whether they are typically quantitative or qualitative measures.

Exhibit 2: Measures of Performance as Used to Assess Environmental Justice

Measure Benefit (+) or Burden (-)

Systems Level Project Level

Accessibility/travel times + # #Transportation Services + #Maintenance + #Fiscal (transportation finance) - #Community cohesion +/- OEconomic development +/- OFiscal (local government) +/-Displacement - #Safety & security +/- OAir Quality - #Noise - #Aesthetics +/- O

Source: NCHRP 8-36(11), Table 4.3 (page 4-23)+ = Benefit (positive impact of transportation) # = Quantitative analysis- = Burden (negative impact of transportation) O = Qualitative analysis

NCHRP Report 532: Effective Methods for Environmental Justice Assessment3

NCHRP Report 532 is a guidebook designed for planning practitioners in state DOTs, MPOs, and local planning agencies who must consider environmental justice impacts in planning, programming, and implementing transportation projects. It presents as a step-by-step guide that provides technical

3 Forkenbrock, D.J. and Sheeley, J. NCHRP Report 532: Effective Methods for Environmental Justice Assessment.Transportation Research Board (2004).

25

assistance in selecting appropriate methods of analysis for calculating any of a number of relevant impacts. The guidebook is a continuation of research begun in NCHRP Project 8-36(11), with a focus on modifying existing methods or developing new methods as needed.

The methods in the handbook are organized by topic. As illustrated in Exhibit 3, there are eleven topic categories, each presented as a stand-alone chapter with the following information:

Overview of the measure: the effect being addressed and why it would have EJ implications State of the practice: how the effect is evaluated by the profession and used for EJ Selecting an appropriate method of analysis: guidance on which method to use for particular

situations, scaled to level of focus and type of decision pending Methods: discusses each alternative method in detail Resources: cites articles, book and other sources with additional, more detailed information References: lists the sources that used in compiling the chapter

NCHRP Report 532’s primary value is in helping practitioners select the most appropriate analytic tool and approach for their particular analysis. It does not add significant new information on measures of impact, per se, but is helpful in illustrating what effort (tool) would be necessary in order to use a particular measure or to conduct a particular type of analysis with that measure. In particular, it offers important insight on ways in which health impacts from pollution exposure might be measured.

26

Exhibit 3: Transportation Effects Addressed in NCHRP 532, Guidebook

Human Health and Safety

Air quality (Chapter 3) – Air quality is important to human health, the vitality of the natural environment, and the quality of life in general.

Hazardous materials (Chapter 4) – Hazardous materials are used in the construction, maintenance, and operation activities of transportation facilities. There is also concern over spills when hazardous cargo is transported through populated areas or sensitive environmental areas.

Water quality and drainage (Chapter 5) – Impaired water quality may have environmental justice implications if it affects public or private water supplies or resources more highly valued by protected populations. Drainage issues are commonly social or economic, but are discussed here because they are related to water quality.

Transportation safety (Chapter 6) – Changes in public safety resulting from a transportation project or program can be classified into three groups: (1) traveler safety, particularly for road users; (2) safety of pedestrians and users of non-motorized transportation; and (3) safety of the general public, especially children, the elderly, and the disabled.

Social, Economic, and Cultural Effects

Transportation user effects (Chapter 7) – Transportation user effects can be classified into five groups: (1) changes in travel time, (2) changes in safety, (3) changes in vehicle operating costs, (4) changes in transportation choice, and (5) changes in accessibility.

Community cohesion (Chapter 8) – This topic is often raised as an environmental justice concern, commonly related to displacement of persons or severing of transportation linkages that connect community members.

Economic development (Chapter 9) – One of the most positive effects of transportation projects is that reduced transportation costs can make businesses more competitive. Transportation changes can have beneficial and adverse economic development effects.

Noise (Chapter 10) – Traffic noise and the noise associated with rail and air transportation can have harmful health effects, but nuisance effects are much more common.

Visual quality (Chapter 11) – Transportation system changes can have a significant visual effect when they require new structures to be built, older structures to be torn down, or the view of pleasant settings or landscapes to be obscured.

Land prices and property values (Chapter 12) – Land use and property values are discussed together because changes in the demand for land is a key driving force behind changes in property values.

Cultural resources (Chapter 13) – Resources that may be of cultural value to protected populations can be adversely affected by transportation system changes.

27

Candidate Performance Measures

In light of the issues identified by the public outreach activity in Phase I of the BREJT project and the concepts discussed in the key literature sources, the following performance measures were considered during the development of the EJT Toolkit. An initial list of measures is provided in Exhibit 4. The list has been compiled by planning goal area. These goals nominally reflect the earlier-mentioned ISTEA/TEA-21 Planning Factors, and also correspond closely to the goals in the Baltimore Regional Transportation Board’s 2005 long-range transportation plan, Transportation 2030.

Also shown in the table is an attempt to qualify these measures based on where in the planning process they might be utilized. Four different applications are envisioned:

Investigation of a Current Concern or issue, of the type that might have been identified in the Phase I Listening Sessions or, over time, arise outside of the standard planning process.

In relation to a proposed Project, typically in the context of assessing impacts or developing a mitigation plan.

In relation to the metropolitan Planning process, in the context of identifying and addressing longer-term population needs, mitigating impacts, and achieving the comprehensive goals and objectives of the plan (typically, the long-range RTP).

In relation to Programming activities, in which funding priorities and allocations are established, typically in conjunction with the regional Transportation Improvement Program, or TIP.

It is entirely possible, of course, that any of these application activities could lead to an investigation in one of the other applications areas. For example, investigation of a Current Concern could well blend over to the Planning or Programming activities. In this event, it is envisioned that the performance measures might either become more focused/specific, or be supplemented by additional measures that provide further insight.

Also noted in Exhibit 4 is an initial depiction of the analytic method or methods that might be used to quantify these measures. For simplicity, four generic methods are cited: (1) Data Analysis, which consists of acquiring, manipulating and drawing various conclusions from available or new data; (2) Regional Model, implying the use of the adopted regional transportation planning model and associated data of the metropolitan planning organization; (3) Geographic Information System tools, used for geospatial cross-referencing with or without transportation modeling extension; and (4) Emissions Modeling tools, which spans a range of procedures from MOBILE6 type emissions factor models to use of pollution monitoring data in health exposure analyses. Use of the respective analytic tool will depend on the measure, the level of detail required by the given analysis, and available resources.

Note that the performance measures cited in Exhibit 4 are not intended to be brought into use for any and all analyses, but rather should be custom-selected based on the needs of the situation (as directed by the Triage Committee). Those measures marked by asterisk (*) are those likely to be used in the broadest set of applications and issues).

28

Section 2: Analytic Tools

Introduction

This section describes the process and criteria which have been used to identify the set of analytic tools used in the study. We drew both upon team expertise for this inventory and such key resources as the Atlanta Benefits and Burdens Study, NCHRP Project 8-36(11) and NCHRP Report 532.

Selection Criteria

The following factors should be taken into consideration when identifying and evaluating analytic tools:

They should constitute a range of capabilities which are appropriate to the level and needs of the analysis. Simple methods should be available for analyses that do not require a high degree of detail and provide quick response; at the same time, more complex methods should be available to address issues of greater substance or more complex impact measures. Moreover, a desired capability of the package of tools is the ability to increase focus and detail on a particular issue as more insight is gained or as definition of the issue is refined.

They should attempt to make maximum effective use of existing methods, databases, and organizational expertise. While key analysis questions or impact measures will not be decided solely by the current capabilities of tools and data, leverage in creative and effective use of commonly available resources will be an objective highlighted in this study.

The tools should be capable of dealing with distributional effects: A primary consideration in environmental justice analyses is whether the incidence of a benefit or an impact falls disproportionately on one population group vs. another, or vs. the population as a whole.

They should allow forecasting or prediction of impacts or effects in relation to a transportation system change, problem solution alternatives, or alternative long-term scenarios.

They should offer the capability to visualize conditions or impacts in order to facilitate understanding and meaningful dialogue toward resolving the problem.

Literature Review

As with the Task 2 review of performance measures, a targeted review of literature was conducted to provide insight and support for the types of analytic approaches that were considered in addressing the issues framed by this study. In this regard, the three studies identified in the Task 2 memo once again proved to be the most relevant source documents for our review. This is primarily because of their focus on the identification of analytic tools and procedures in specific application to EJ issues. While other EJ literature may refer to analytic procedures used in conjunction with specific EJ issues (e.g., SCAG’s development of accessibility or tax burden measures), and provide insight into the practical experience of application, these core studies provide a structured synthesis of the techniques in relation to how and

29

where they would be used, and in relation to the full range of EJ issues that are -- or should be --addressed.

These core studies were previously described in the Task 2 memo. They are:

Transportation Benefits and Burdens in the Atlanta Region, Cambridge Systematics, et al for USDOT (May 2002).

NCHRP Project 8-36(11): Technical Methods to Support Analyses of Environmental Justice Issues,Cambridge Systematics (April 2002).

NCHRP Report 532: Effective Methods for Environmental Justice Assessment. Forkenbrock and Sheeley (2004).

Because of its position in the sequence of studies, NCHRP Report 532 is the most complete and comprehensive guide to the set of tools and their applications, although there are important details in the other studies that warrant separate attention. For example, NCHRP 8-36(11) provides considerable detail on the use of GIS tools and complementary applications, including population synthesis and household micro simulation approaches. The other major difference between Report 532 and NCHRP 8-36(11) is that the latter was designed intentionally to look at the capabilities of existing tools and procedures, while the former also has the objective of identifying tools, which may not be in current or common practice, but could be drawn upon for particular applications.

Perhaps the most compelling aspect of NCHRP Report 532 is its structure for packaging and recommending tools and procedures in conjunction with the setting, the question, and the level of detail needed for the analysis. This is similar to the way in which we have envisioned the EJ Toolkit from the beginning, wherein different issues – based either on geographic scale, the type of decision being supported, or the stage of the investigation – will have different analysis needs. Initial investigations, when the problem is being diagnosed and the underlying factors identified, are best served by quick and easy screening tools. However, when the investigation moves into more specificity, a shift to other measures of impact or sharper levels of geographic separation or a need for more accuracy in an estimated impact cause a shift in the complexity, data and expertise of the analytic tools which are necessary.

Table 1 provides a simplified overview of the type of guidance in analytic tool selection provided by NCHRP Report 532. For each of 11 impact areas (Transportation has been split into Accessibility and Choice subcategories), Report 532 suggests approaches for particular types of questions and different levels of detail. For each impact category they describe:

The method or methods The conditions under which it should be used The type of analysis it should be used for, ranging from “screening” to “highly detailed” The planning context in which it is most appropriate, i.e., project level, corridor level, system

level, or community level The data requirements, ranging from Low to High The type of expertise that is required to apply the method, including familiarity with particular

software tools or models

30

The report not only provides a convenient tabular summary, such as has been presented in reduced fashion here, but written step-by-step instructions on each approach. Because this resource covers more than 300 pages, it can only be described here at a very summary level, and is hereby incorporated by reference for use by the EJT Toolkit. Generalizing from guidance provided by Report 532, the set of tools and procedures associated with the three degrees of application detail may be broadly summarized as follows:

Screening Level:

Assembly and review of existing data or forecasts Published reports and tables Creation or analysis of maps Visual (field) inspections Simple surveys, interviews, or focus groups

Moderate Detail:

Standard four-step regional transportation planning model Use of GIS procedures to create maps for locating projects or impacts in relation to population

subgroups at a TAZ or census tract level Corridor traffic flow simulation models and analyses Transportation emissions forecasting models Physical measurement of noise, pollution, runoff impacts Visual preference surveys Formal surveys or operational data collection

Most Detailed:

Enhanced travel forecasting models (including activity-based methods) Population synthesis and household micro simulation approaches using detailed GIS Pollution surface models to gauge air pollution exposure Regression or other advanced statistical analysis methods to isolate and quantify contributing

factors Integrated transportation/land use models (such as DRAM/EMPAL, UrbanSim, or PECAS)

31

Table 1: Analytic Approaches Recommended by NCHRP Report 532

Impact Category Screening Moderate Detail Most DetailedAir Quality Review existing monitoring

data or forecastsMicro-scale modeling at project or corridor level, involving traffic volume/flow simulation; Regional travel forecasting model combined with emissions model for regional emissions estimates

Development of pollution surface model using GIS, travel forecasting model and targeted monitoring data

Hazardous Materials

Simple assessment of presence of hazardous waste sites; Initial assessment of transport routes for hazardous materials

Use of GIS and statistical analysis when waste sites are detected

Risk modeling of hazmat exposure or release using fault-tree and other risk analysis methods, GIS

Water Quality and Drainage

Land acquisition checklist -- degree to which protected populations will be impacted or displaced; Visual quality checklist; Impaired access checklist

Groundwater quality checklist; Surface water quality/runoff checklist

Transportation Safety

Analysis using national data; Comparision of comparable facilities; Conduct surveys or focus groups

Compare similar facilities in the same region; Bicycle Safety index; Bicycle Compatibility index; Pedestrian Danger index; Barrier Effect analysis

Statistical analysis of data using regression analysis

Transportation Accessibility

Travel demand between TAZs using standard travel model output; Identification of congested links using HERS model

Travel demand reflecting protected populations, but assume distribution uniform within TAZ or census tract -- use GIS procedure with standard travel model; dynamic traffic simulation for congestion

Travel demand reflecting protected populations, but assume distribution not uniform within TAZ or census tract -- use GIS procedures and household microsimulation

Transportation Choice

Modal use from existing travel model output; household or user travel surveys

Travel demand model mode choice application with allowance for population differences using GIS

Mode choice analysis with allowance for population differences using GIS, enhanced with population synthesis and household microsimulation

Community Cohesion

Map work; Focus groups; personal interviews; deliberative polling;

Evaluate pedestrian travel times and distances using physical measurement

Evaluate changes in travel opportunity using GIS-supported transportation modeling


Maps and v isual business impact assessment

Surveys or focus groups Accessibility to jobs, workers or markets using travel model with GIS to ascertain community impacts

Noise Maps and field inspection of current impact locations

Measure noise exposure levels from existing highway or transit projects

Project impacts from future volumes or projects using FHWA noise model, travel model and GIS

Visual Quality Analysis of existing conditions; comparison with alternatives

Visual preference surveys; focus groups

GIS methods to analyze distributive effects

Land Prices & Property Values

Review appraisal data; opinion of experts

Market analysis or appraisals Hedonic regression; PECAS model

Cultural Resources

Map and secondary source review to create inventory

Site visit and survey with community leader(s)

Stakeholder and expert charette

32

Importance of Geographic Information System (GIS) Tools

Perhaps transcending all of the other analysis tools and procedures, GIS technology is critical to effective review and evaluation of environmental justice issues. The principal reason for this is that the ability to spatially identify the location of population subgroups is paramount to dealing addressing distributive effects of a policy, plan or service. The ability to juxtapose layers of demographic information onto layers which detail the transportation system (or other prominent physical or socioeconomic feature) makes it possible to directly link transportation or travel-related information with the areas and people who are affected by it.

NCHRP 8-36(11) does a very good job in detailing the capabilities of GIS for performing EJ analyses, as well as providing insight into a substantial number of application strategies. GIS is still only coming into its own as a legitimate planning tool. For well over a decade, planners and demographers have used GIS as a tool for storing, manipulating and displaying data. However, its integration into mainline transportation planning is still evolving. Because virtually all conventional transportation (4-step) planning models operate at traffic analysis zone (TAZ) level of geographic detail, the ability offered by GIS to picture conditions down to the level of an individual parcel is beyond the practical use range of most current travel models.

For example, GIS can be used to compile information on the characteristics of an area circumscribing a ¼ or ½-mile radius around, say, a transit station, through geo-referencing with the respective layers upon which that buffer is imposed. To assemble the characteristics it either accumulates data at a smaller level of detail by adding up parcel (or point) information, or by interpolating from a larger unit of geography, such as a census tract or TAZ. However, if the travel model is designed to function at a TAZ level, it cannot extract much value from this more focused input. In most EJ studies, protected populations are identified based on the average condition of the TAZ, i.e., where the percentage of persons or households in that TAZ exceeds a specified threshold for race, income, auto ownership, or some other defining variable. While this is a good start toward accounting for distributional effects, it tends to overlook the often-significant differences that may occur within a TAZ based on where particular households actually live.

This unrealized potential is not to diminish the many valuable uses for GIS in EJ-related analyses, and there are methods in use that are already taking advantage of the greater spatial resolution of GIS in transportation planning. Drawing upon NCHRP 8-36(11), listed below are various GIS applications that will be considered in pursuit of the BREJT case studies and development of the EJT Toolkit.

Mapping and Visualization. GIS is most commonly used for querying spatial databases to find locations that fit criteria, mapping demographics, displaying trends or historical data, displaying assets like transportation infrastructure, visualizing areas and points of capital investment. Maps are always an important first step in analysis, revealing patterns that may not be obvious from numerical data. They also facilitate in the formation of hypotheses for statistical testing. Simple choropleth, or graduated color, maps of racial or economic characteristics by block group or even TAZ can make it easy to discern spatial patterns in the location of key population subgroups – an essential starting point for EJ analyses. This is also a convenient way to show how the location of these groups may have shifted over time, or where they are located in relation to transportation facilities or centers of opportunity. Slightly more complex maps can be developed that combine different variables into a single display, such as travel flows by origin/destination (using desire lines), volume (variable line width), and choice of mode (via pie chart).

33

Buffer Analysis, A simple but effective mapping tool is to define a “buffer”, or select subarea, adjacent to some item of interest – e.g., a household, a transportation facility – and use GIS to accumulate information from the respective layers falling within that geography to create a profile for that space. The typical buffer consists of an area within a particular radius from the point of interest, often ¼ or ½ mile for transportation purposes, such as defining the walkshed for transit. Combined with census information, this can be a way to determine the location of populations with EJ characteristics in proximity to an existing or proposed transportation facility or service. Unfortunately, buffer analysis is not useful for travel demand analyses, since the conventional travel demand models cannot deal with geographic breakdowns smaller than a TAZ. However, as will be discussed below, travel analyses based on individual survey households or using population synthesis methods can take advantage of this higher degree of resolution.

Surface Mapping, An interesting application of GIS is in creating surface maps, which depict conditions not only two dimensions but in a vertical dimension as well, using orthographic projection techniques. These surface maps might resemble topographical relief maps, showing differences in elevation corresponding to hills and valleys, but in this case they represent the magnitude of some demographic or transportation variable in relation to an x,y location on a map. This provides immediate visual recognition of the differences in the variable by geographic location. By co-locating more than one variable, say subtracting level of transit access from a surface of percent minority population, it is possible to begin to see if patterns of service have a systematic relationship with the demographic variable. In this case, if the peaks for minority population are increased, it would suggest that transit access is poorer in minority areas, and signal the need for a closer inspection. Mathematical tests can be applied to these paired relationships also to determine whether there is a statistical pattern inherent in the display, and the magnitude of that relationship.

Spatial Indices, GIS can be used to create measures of dispersion or concentration of a characteristic in an area, using indices that relate the characteristics of a given point with that of those surrounding it. These spatial statistics can be calculated to describe the location, centrality or dispersion of a spatially distributed variable. NCHRP 8-36(11) gives the example of a “population-weighted centroid” measure to describe how the distribution of the black population in Atlanta changed between 1980 and 1990. Also described is a “nearest neighbor” statistic that describes how clustered or spread out a population is, and whether that pattern is random or reflects a discernable trend. An index of “dissimilarity”, which measures the degree to which two variables are distributed differently over space, was used to gauge the degree of racial segregation in the Atlanta area. The degree to which the spatial distribution of minorities and non-minorities is similar or different can help assess the degree to which transportation needs are being addressed by the existing or proposed system. There are many such measures that can be used to explore the connection between spatial location, particular population groups, and transportation service levels.

Household Micro-simulation Modeling. As earlier discussed, the majority of current travel demand models are based on the concept of traffic analysis zones, or TAZs. While TAZs vary in size, with densely-populated areas represented by much smaller TAZs, the general characteristic is that the TAZ is an aggregate representation of the characteristics of the population (and employment) located in that spatial area. Techniques are applied by transportation planners to stratify key conditions in a TAZ, such as household size, income, or auto ownership, but this additional detail is only for the purpose of improving the estimates of trip generation or auto ownership for the TAZ. In the end, the TAZ becomes the unit of analysis in transportation modeling. Among the shortcomings this approach imparts are that

34

(1) the socioeconomic differences among the households in the TAZ are important factors differentiating travel needs and demands; (2) even within the same TAZ, availability of transportation alternatives can be quite different; and (3) among these key characteristics are the attributes of the protected populations (race, income, vehicle ownership, elderly, disabled, etc.).

Micro simulation modeling approaches attempt to overcome these limitations of aggregation by basing analysis and forecasts on a sample of households or individuals that represent a larger population group. Statistical weighting methods are then used to “enumerate” the effects determined through the sample to the overall population. The advantage of this approach, in addition to greater accuracy in modeling (through use of more complex logit or activity-based models) is that the travel benefits (or impacts) associated with a transportation change can be tracked across any population characteristic that is included in the sample used for the model. Historically, this has been done for income level, since income is a key travel prediction variable, however, the characteristics of the sample can quite easily be broadened to include characteristics of race and ethnicity as well as other variables of interest.

In applying household sample micro simulation, a choice is to use either a sample of households obtained from a recent regional household travel survey, or to create a larger synthetic sample using information from the Census’ Public Use Micro-data Sample (PUMS). Use of the household survey is relatively straightforward, assuming that the sample is of sufficient size, coverage and composition that it supports the types of analysis desired (Baltimore has a 2001 survey with 3,500 households represented, and extensive GIS information has already been compiled for this sample). A “synthetic” sample would be composed of a hypothetical set of households with characteristics that as a whole match those of a larger population group. Often the decision to use the synthetic sample approach is to create a larger sample, of sufficient size to support a statistically reliable analysis of the issue in question, and also to provide a revised trip table for use in running travel assignments. A population synthesizer routine is used to create the synthetic population of households from the source census files.

List of Analytic Tools Reviewed, Modified, or Considered for Use in Toolkit

Screening Tools: The following tools were reviewed and considered:

Existing schematic maps portraying the minority and low income communities, as developed for a 2005 review of a regional bus service restructuring plan.

Accessibility analyses and graphics developed by BMC for use in its latest Regional Transportation Plan “Transportation 2030”.

Information on transit routes and schedules, ridership, and boarding, along with plans for future transit service modifications or new services (ongoing rail transit studies)

Information on volumes and congestion of existing streets and highways, along with plans for enhancements in LRP and most recent TIP.

Aerial photos of the Baltimore region Funding breakdowns for transportation projects and programs by location Accident and fatality statistics Myriad reports and studies prepared by BMC, Maryland state agencies, or local transportation or

planning agencies

Regional Transportation Planning Model - The Baltimore Metropolitan Council (BMC) uses a conventional four-step TAZ based model for analyzing transportation plans, policies and projects in the

35

Baltimore region. This model encompasses Baltimore City and five surrounding counties: Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Carroll, Harford, and Howard, as well as the Washington region jurisdictions of the District of Columbia and Frederick, Montgomery, and Prince Georges counties. Based in the TP+/Viper software environment, the model operates on a system of 1,421 zones and projects trip making in relation to seven trip purposes: Home-based Work, Home-based School, Home-based Shop, Home-Based Other, Journey to Work, Journey at Work, and Other-based Other. The model is used for a wide variety of applications, including long-range forecasting, evaluation of projects for the regional Transportation Improvement Program, air quality conformity, and numerous tasks typical for an MPO. During 2004-2005, BMC initiated a state-of-the-practice review of its model by a TMIP expert panel. Part of the reason for this review is that BMC was engaged in analysis of a proposed new rail transit line (Red Line), and wished to ensure that the model would meet the stringent requirements necessary to submit an application for federal New Starts funding. Subsequent to receiving the recommendations of the TMIP panel, BMC completed important enhancements to the model, particularly in the areas of trip generation, distribution and mode choice, taking advantage of new data from its 2001 regional household travel survey. The model has been used for past EJ analyses in conjunction with the regional long range plan and in a special study of the impacts of the Maryland Transit Administration’s Greater Baltimore Bus Initiative, a major restructuring of the regional bus system. In this latter case, the model was used to analyze changes in travel time and accessibility due to the restructuring; linked to spatial information from GIS as to the location of minority and low income populations, it was possible to ascertain whether the burdens from the service adjustments (mainly cuts) were equitably distributed.

Corridor Simulation Models: Certain investigations may find it important to examine the impacts of a transportation system change on traffic flow in a corridor. Corridor simulation models have the purpose of simulating the micro-movements of vehicle traffic in relation to flow volumes, facility characteristics, signalization, or even exogenous events like accidents. Such simulations not only provide a means for estimating the impacts of system changes or events on traffic congestion and speeds, but also are a vital input to estimating air pollution impacts since certain emissions are sensitive to speed/acceleration parameters or have pronounced localized effects. One option to fill this analysis need is the CORSIM model which is maintained and operated by BMC. Its uses are primarily for evaluating congestion conditions and congestion mitigation strategies, but it may find application for accessibility analysis, safety, or air quality/health impacts. The BREJT team may also have access to a fairly new and highly visual traffic simulation program in the form of TransModeler, a new feature of the TransCAD software package that will also be used by the team.

Emissions Models: Transportation emissions in the BMC region are estimated by BMC using the latest version of EPA’s emissions factor model, MOBILE6.2. Air quality in the Baltimore region exceeds the national standards for 8-hour ozone and for fine particulate matter (PM 2.5), and the region is in a “maintenance” phase with regard to the carbon monoxide (CO) standard. As a result, the region must demonstrate conformity of its regional Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and its Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) with the standards for 8-hour ozone, PM 2.5, and CO for the years 2010, 2020 and 2030. The MOBILE model takes inputs from the regional transportation model conveying traffic volumes and speeds on regional transportation facilities and computes resultant emissions in relation to information on the age and mix of the regional vehicle fleet, with adjustments for fuel additives, vehicle technology, inspection and maintenance programs, and climatic conditions. The combination regional travel model and MOBILE emissions model may be used to analyze any of a wide range of mitigation strategies, by first determining the effect on travel (changes in VMT or speed) and then reapplying the emissions factor relationships. Certain strategies, however, do not lend themselves to analysis in this fashion, for reasons of compatibility with the travel or emissions models, and hence must be analyzed

36

with alternative – frequently simpler – “off-model” types of procedures. It is important to note that the described emissions procedures do not result in estimates of actual air quality concentrations. Physical measures of emissions concentrations are determined through monitoring sites, and approximation of air quality in relation to transportation activity is done through atmospheric diffusion models, typically by the state departments of the environment.

Geographic Information Systems. The broad-reaching importance of GIS in environmental justice analysis has been already discussed. Fortunately, the options for the BREJT study appear to be good ones. BMC maintains an extensive GIS system based in ARCview/ARC-GIS, with data layers containing copious information from census, individual jurisdictions, state agencies, and even private vendors. Aerial photographs cover most if not all of the region in high resolution reflecting conditions post-2000. All transportation features and facilities exist in point and line based layers, and transportation activity (volumes, speeds, congestion, modal use) can be displayed in relation to the facilities and services, as well as desired demographic or physical geographic features. A second capability is available through the TransCAD software program, which is discussed below.

FHWA’s STEAM (Surface Transportation Efficiency Analysis) Model. This tool was developed by the FHWA as a sketch-planning tool to assist planners in developing the types of economic efficiency and other evaluative information needed for comparing the impacts of various transportation system investment options. This capability was intended to fill a void in planning practice created by the ISTEA Act’s requirements for comparing project options on more than the standard travel and cost measures. STEAM enables calculation of such key impacts as emissions, accidents, noise, energy use, and congestion delay. These impacts are calculated using inputs gathered from either the 4-step regional transportation planning model or a variety of other sources. The program, which is spreadsheet-based, allows for considerable flexibility in relation to level of detail desired and quality of available data, such that the user can tailor the application to its particular needs.

TransCAD Transportation GIS Software. TransCAD is a fairly unique software package that combines GIS capabilities with transportation planning and analysis functions. While TransCAD can perform transportation analysis at the level of traffic analysis zones, its ability to manipulate data at the much finer levels of points, lines and polygons means that it can be readily applied to much finer levels of spatial resolution. Because of the aforementioned aggregation problems with TAZs, this offers an important capability for environmental justice applications. In particular, TransCAD employs built-in features that allow transition to household microsimulation modeling, which provides much more realistic estimates of impacts by socioeconomic groups and individual trip movements (which is useful in vehicle microsimulation). Combined with excellent graphical and visualization capabilities, TransCAD offers an exceptional media both for analyzing complex transportation, equity and environmental issues and for clearly communicating those results to a very diverse audience. TransCAD was earlier applied in Baltimore [DATE/CITATION] in a joint study involving BMC, Environmental Defense, and Caliper Corp., the developer of TransCAD, at which time considerable experience was gained in its application requirements and capabilities.

BMC has acquired the TransCAD software, as has Morgan State University, and we expect to employ this software in a wide range of applications in the BREJT case studies. Indeed, as there may be uncertainty to the on-demand availability of BMC’s standard tools or staff, the BREJT team intends to establish TransCAD as its primary analysis platform for the case studies and the Toolkit. This will not only provide us great flexibility in the types of analysis we may wish to undertake, but will permit us to

37

assess the value of applying household micro simulation approaches in comparison to similar analyses done through the standard TAZ based regional model.

PECAS Integrated Transportation-Land Use Model. Regional transportation planning agencies, like BMC, are taking increasing interest in a body of planning tools that attempt to account for the fact that transportation investment and land use planning decisions are highly interrelated. Clearly, a major capital investment in a transportation facility such as a highway or rail transit line has a major impact on the economic attractiveness of the area served by virtue of improved accessibility (reduced time and cost to travel to the area). Integrated transportation and land use models attempt to use this value-added feature of transportation to project potential impacts on land use trends and economic development in relation to transportation investment and other key underlying variables. BMC has invested in one of the more advanced such models, PECAS, developed by Douglas Hunt and John Abraham of the University of Calgary, and since 2005 has been engaged in its implementation and testing in the Baltimore region. While the BREJT project may not develop a major interest in long-range scenario planning, PECAS is a powerful tool and its availability through BMC is relatively unique. It is conceivable that questions may arise in the case studies concerning the longer-term impact of various transportation investment policies on the location of jobs or housing for minority and low income residents, as well as the impact on redevelopment and economic revitalization in the older, urban portions of the region where EJ populations are in greatest concentration.

MEASURE Pollution Surface Model. A major missing link in environmental justice studies has been the ability to quantify the relationship between transportation activity, vehicle emissions, and the impact on human health. Developing transportation-related indicators to measure public health impacts is actually a requirement under Title VI. While transportation may impact health in many ways, for example vehicle/pedestrian conflicts, noise and exhaust odors, perhaps the most pernicious is transportation’s contribution to air pollution. Poor air quality has a detrimental effect on persons with asthma or other pulmonary health problems, children and the elderly. A large and growing body of empirical research is able to demonstrate an epidemiological link between the proximity of exposure to air pollution concentrations and higher incidence rates of such health abnormalities as asthma, emphysema, and cancer. Another body of evidence shows that minority and low-income populations are most likely to live and work closer to these sources of air pollution, and hence face greater health risks.

NCHRP Report 532 provides a comprehensive review of the role of air quality in environmental justice, and lays out the issues, challenges, and potential analytic approaches for dealing with this impact. It points out that transportation-related air pollution’s effect on communities can occur in two primary ways:

Through increased ground-level concentrations of pollutants like carbon monoxide (CO) or particulate matter (PM) caused by motor vehicle traffic and congestion

Through atmospheric concentrations of ozone and particulate-causing pollutants like VOCs, NOx, SOx, and also CO.

From an environmental justice perspective, the conventional transportation and emissions model based methods are not particularly good for dealing with either type of effect. Ground-level effects are analyzed using hot spot or micro-scale techniques that relate vehicle activity levels at roadway intersections with readings at pollution measurement receptor sites. While the models are fairly accurate at creating this linkage between activity and receptor reading, they are not able to project what

38

concentrations are or will be in non-receptor areas, e.g., along sidewalks or inside neighborhoods. And for the measurement of atmospheric pollutants, the standard regional air quality models used for transportation conformity cannot distinguish whether concentrations are greater in some areas than others. Hence, the ability of standard tools and data to tie transportation activity to pollution concentrations in particular geographic areas – i.e., those with EJ populations – is very challenged. This obviously compromises the second element in the analysis chain, linking transportation activity with health, even though the link between pollution concentrations and health has been well demonstrated.

An interesting solution to this may be the application of the “pollution surface” concept, introduced as the fourth method in Chapter 3 of Report 532. In this approach, conventional transportation and emissions models are used to estimate emissions based on roadway geometry, traffic volumes and vehicle fleet emissions characteristics. Transportation activity is then linked to pollution concentrations as measured through receptors, spatially distributed in such a manner as to record emissions concentrations by time period over a broad sample of receptor sites. Statistical methods are then used to predict pollution levels across this defined “surface” by fitting regression models to observations at monitoring sites with known values for predictor variables such as land use, population, and vehicle miles traveled. Creation of this pollution surface makes it possible to estimate pollution concentrations and duration in particular geographic areas, which makes this a very encouraging approach for evaluating exposure for EJ populations.

Report 532 introduces a prototype model known as MEASURE (Mobile Emission Assessment System for Urban and Regional Evaluation), developed by the Georgia Institute of Technology with support from the EPA and FHWA, as a working example of a pollution surface approach. The MEASURE model operates in a GIS framework, which allows it to not only produce more accurate estimates of emissions than conventional MOBILE6 approaches, but also provide better spatial and temporal resolution of the emissions and be sensitive to how transportation system changes can affect emissions rates. Because pollution monitoring networks are typically sparse, Report 532 advises that a larger monitoring network and a larger number of samples over time will yield a more accurate model. Fortunately for the BREJT project, the Johns Hopkins team has already compiled a significant amount of this information, and the existing data can be supplemented through additional readings obtained through Hopkins’ own monitoring equipment.

Data Resources

The analytic approaches cited in the preceding sections generally have the data which will be needed to fuel their intended application in this study. An obvious exception is the need for additional air quality measurements in relation to any efforts that may be made to develop a pollution surface model such as MEASURE. For all other applications, we expect the necessary data already exist, or can be madeserviceable with modest additional effort. No major new data collections are anticipated or proposed, either in the form of transportation operations data or travel survey information. It may be desirable to obtain certain data related to consumer attitudes or perceptions, but these would be obtained through simplistic questionnaires or through focus groups. Three major data resources that we would expect to draw upon as part of our studies are as follows:

2001 Regional Household Travel Survey: This survey was conducted by BMC during 2001, and obtained detailed demographic and travel information from a sample of 3,500 households distributed throughout the Baltimore region. Sufficient clusters of household samples exist in 32 different area

39

(neighborhoods/definable places) that these areas can be used for comparative studies where demographics, transportation and impacts might be expected to vary. Considerable information has already been compiled for these “neighborhoods” as a result of recent BMC research on land use issues. The survey may be utilized either for household micro-simulation applications or for a variety of detailed investigations driven by questions arising in the case studies.

Greater Baltimore Bus Initiative (GBBI): Considerable data were compiled and analyzed in the summer of 2005 for the purpose of reviewing transportation accessibility and equity impacts associated with the Maryland Transit Administration’s proposed major overhaul of the region’s bus transit system. To perform this analysis it was necessary to compile detailed information on bus routes and schedules, stops and transfer points, rider-ship and boardings/alightings by stop, travel times, and rider characteristics from on-board surveys. While some of this information may now be invalid due to subsequent service changes, much of it may serve as solid background data for analyzing services in relation to issues of importance to the minority and low-income community.

Pollution and Health Data: Pursuant to potential studies of the linkage between transportation emissions/air quality and human health, it is relevant to note that Johns Hopkins/Bloomberg School has performed significant studies of pollution and health in Baltimore’s disadvantaged communities. These studies have compiled and analyzed data relating concentration levels of carbon monoxide, ozone precursors, particulate matter and air toxics both outside and inside of buildings. JHU professionals are closely linked with other health professionals around the country who have been compiling and studying similar data, making it possible to share information from a large collective database on exposure and health effects.

40

Table 2: Assessment of Analytic Needs: Case Study #1 and #3, Quantity and Adequacy of Transit Service

Issue Impact Measure Analysis ApproachBus transit service is substandard in certain (poor) neighborhoods

Number of bus routesDaily/weekly operating hoursNumber/location of bus stopsService frequencies

Delineate neighborhoods with EJ characteristics using GISOverlay bus routes using GISAscertain headways, stops, daily & weekly hours from MTA schedules or BMC transit network;Develop spreadsheet to tabulate characteristics by neighborhoodCompare features across peer neighborhoods

Bus transit service has declined in [some area or community]

As above As above, but attempt to acquire & compare information on service changes in past X years

Changes in bus service have reduced the ability to reach jobs or key destinations

Average travel times between selected neighborhoods and those major employment destinations

Select representative communities and job centers; Use BMC travel model or TransCAD to compute transit and highway travel times, including portion of time which is out of vehicle (walk, wait and transfer).If possible, compare with earlier transit network and population distribution

As above, travel times to key shopping, educational or medical activities

As above

Gravity based accessibility between select neighborhoods and regional jobs, or non-work activities

Select representative communities, use BMC model or TransCAD model to calculate accessibility.If possible, compare with earlier transit network and population distribution

Emphasis on rail transit has taken away from bus service

Percentage of transit trips by type service. Cost per rider by type of service

Compare current and past ridership and expense data for MTA using National Transit Database

Rail transit services do not serve the minority community as well as bus did

Composition of riders by type of serviceOrigin-destination distribution of riders by type of service

Analyze traveler survey data from MTA

Use GIS and TransCAD to ascertain OD characteristics of different transit services

Transit is underfunded, money is going to other transportation needs and areas

Total capital and operating funding programmed to transit and highways by year or periodFunding by transportation mode by jurisdiction

Compile information from MDOT Capital Program and regional TIP

Compare trends over past 10 years with projection for next 6 years

41

Table 3. Assessment of Analytic Needs: Case Study #2 – Congestion and Environment

Issue Impact Measure Analysis ApproachMinority and low-income communities are more exposed to transportation impacts than the general population

Number of households/people living within X feet of a busy highway

Use GIS and household micro-simulation to identify households located adjacent to facilities meeting specified criteria;Compare characteristics with general population

Minority and low-income communities are more exposed to unsafe street crossings

Pedestrian accidents and fatalities

Compare rates of vehicle-pedestrian/bicycle mishaps in predominately minority/low income communities with the general population;Ascertain degree of correlation with adjacent traffic volumes, speeds, safe crossings

Local and arterial streets in minority and low-income communities are often used by outsiders to by pass congestion.

Degree of cut-through traffic in neighborhoods

Delineate sample minority/low-income neighborhoods where cut-through traffic (or accidents) are an issue;Use GIS and TransCAD to ascertain OD identify of travelers on identified streets or roads

Local and arterial streets in minority and low-income communities are often used to channel commuter traffic.

Level and duration of traffic-related noise

Use GIS and household micro-simulation to identify number and demographic composition of households located within X feet of highways or transit or other transportation facilities;Quantify level of activity on respective facilities from traffic volumes, transit runs, or similar;Use STEAM model to estimate noise exposureCompare households experiencing high noise with general population

Low-income and minority households in urban areas have reduced accessibility due to high levels of itinerant traffic volumes and congestion

Highway travel times between selected OD pairs, peak vs. off-peak

Select representative neighborhoods;Compute door to door travel times under peak and off peak conditions;Compare travel times and average speeds for disadvantaged neighborhood examples with general population or control group.

Low-income and minority households are more likely to experience negative health impacts due to exposure to vehicle traffic and emissions

Incidence rates of various respiratory diseases associated with poor air: asthma, emphysema, cancer

Obtain incidence rates from local health studies and records;Compare incidence rates by demographic characteristics;Ascertain whether other health risk or incidence markers are associated with the same population group Compare difference across communities in relation to demographic characteristics and spatial location (near transportation facilities)

Housing in Low-income and minority communities is often situated close to major arterials.

Link between high traffic volume, high pollution concentration, high exposure, and health

Prepare pollution surface model in specific area;Develop relationship between transportation activity, emissions and spatial concentrations;Assess relationship with health statistics

42

Table 4: Case Study #4 – Public Involvement

Issue Impact Measure Analysis ApproachMinority and low-income communities are more exposed to transportation impacts than the general population

Number of households people impacted by past policy decisions.

Use GIS to identify households located adjacent to facilities meeting specified criteria;Compare characteristics with general population

Suggested cause of pollution and noise

Number of commuter trips in impact area

Compare rates of vehicle-pedestrian/bicycle mishaps in predominately minority/low income communities with the general population;Ascertain degree of correlation with adjacent traffic volumes, speeds, safe crossings

Local and arterial streets in minority and low-income communities are often used by outsiders to by pass congestion.

Degree of cut-through traffic in neighborhoods.Level and duration of traffic-related noise

Delineate sample minority/low-income neighborhoods where cut-through traffic (or accidents) are an issue;Use GIS and TransCAD to ascertain OD identify of travelers on identified streets or roads

Minority communities are not actively engaged in the planning decision making process

Demographic analysis of population shifts associated with past planning decisions that were community participation was limited.

Use GIS to help identify and display the number and demographic composition of households that were negatively impacted. Quantify level of activity on respective facilities from traffic volumes, transit runs, or similar;

Low-income and minority households in urban areas have reduced accessibility due to high levels of itinerant traffic volumes and congestion

Highway travel times between selected OD pairs, peak vs. off-peak

Select representative neighborhoods;Compute door to door travel times under peak and off peak conditions;Compare travel times and average speeds for disadvantaged neighborhood examples with general population or control group.

Low-income and minority households are more likely to experience negative health impacts due to exposure to vehicle traffic and emissions

Incidence rates of various respiratory diseases associated with poor air: asthma, emphysema, cancer

Obtain incidence rates from local health studies and records;Compare incidence rates by demographic characteristics;Ascertain whether other health risk or incidence markers are associated with the same population group Compare difference across communities in relation to demographic characteristics and spatial location (near transportation facilities)

Many residents feel that their communities are being used unfairly.

Link between high traffic volume, high pollution concentration, high exposure, and health

Prepare pollution surface model in specific area;Develop relationship between transportation activity, emissions and spatial concentrations;Assess relationship with health statistics

43

Section 4: EJ Case Study Analysis

IntroductionPresented here in is a summary of the analysis activities undertaken in relation to each case study. Each study is presented as a profile, beginning with a brief Description of the setting and the concerns, followed by an inventory of the Investigations undertaken in support of the concerns, and then a presentation of the Findings resulting from the analysis and review of the key questions. A final section in each profile summarizes the Conclusions and Recommendations resulting from the analysis.

The case studies, selected with the objective of testing different types and geographic scales of Environmental Justice issues, consist of the following:

1. Concerns in relation to the location and operation of a bus depot in an older, inner-city working-class neighborhood along Kirk Avenue.

2. A history of public transit service changes, reductions and poor service delivery in a predominately African American, low-income community known as Cherry Hill.

3. Reaction to changes in transit service at Lexington Market in central Baltimore, an historic shopping destination frequented by lower-income residents from surrounding communities.

4. Concern of communities in the U.S. Route 40 Corridor through West Baltimore regarding plans for a proposed Red Line and efforts to create transit-oriented development around an existing commuter rail station (West Baltimore MARC), fearing community disruption, destruction and dislocation as occurred in the abandoned Highway to Nowhere which divided West Baltimore in the 1960s.

44

Case Study: Kirk Avenue Bus Yard

Description of Setting and Concerns:

The Midway Community is one in which residential and industrial uses collide. The Kirk Avenue bus yard has been a point of contention between the surrounding community and the MTA for some time. The primary complaint has to do with noise and emissions impacts from operations at the yard on the Community. The bus lot sits in a traditional setting between industrial land to the north and east, and residential neighborhoods that seem to have somewhat receded over time on the west and south. What is not clear is the extent to which the operations at the Kirk Avenue have directly caused the decline of the neighborhood.

The Kirk Avenue facility lies south of East 25th Street and the main northeast corridor railroad line out of Penn Station. The areas immediately north (Bonaparte Avenue) and east (Kirk Avenue) of the bus yard support light industrial uses, including buildings (from fair to good condition), their parking lots, and some empty land with trash. Something of an anomaly, the portions of Bonaparte Avenue immediately east of the bus yard is a relatively attractive residential street, though for a couple blocks it is only a ribbon of houses – surrounded on either side by industrial activities or empty lots. It is not until Bonaparte reaches its intersection with Garret Avenue that the residential development fans out into more of a neighborhood. South and west of the bus yard are the remains of some older residential neighborhoods. The area to the west, along Homewood Avenue, consists primarily of empty lots and abandonment in what was apparently once an established neighborhood, particularly in the first half to two-thirds of a western portion of the bus yard, affording the area to the west a bit of topographic separation for the bus lot (thought it is not clear whether it is sufficient to buffer any of the noise or backs of these small row houses (in various states of repair) separated by from the bus yard by an alley. Partially buffering these houses from the yard is a welding/fabrication company warehouse located on the southwestern quadrant of the bus lot block but unrelated to MTA and the bus yard. Of the 4 regional bus yards Kirk Avenue is the only one separated from homes by just an alley.

The Kirk Avenue Division, 226 Kirk Avenue, is separated from homes by the alley behind Bartlett Avenue.

The Eastern Division, 201 Oldham Street, is separated from homes by Oldham Street. The Bush Division, 1515 Washington Blvd, is separated form homes by Bush Street plus about

110 ft. of commercial/industrial property. Northern Parkway and Powder Mill Park separate the Northwest Division, 4501 Mount Hope

Drive from homes.

Illustration 1: Proposed Expansion Area

45

Case Study Issues

The questions addressed by the Kirk Avenue case study included following:

1. What is the impact of the bus yard on the community in relation to: traffic volumes and pedestrian safety; noise air pollution exposure and risk?

2. How has this impact affected the community: declining property values and ownership; relocation of families; housing abandonment, vandalism and crime; health impacts?

3. How widespread are the impacts of the facility felt in the community, i.e., beyond the neighborhood that is facing and immediately adjacent to the border of the yard?

4. How long has the situation existed, and what changes have occurred operations over time, e.g.: number of buses stationed at Kirk Avenue and growth/decline in volume over time? How has the community changed over the same time period?

5. What are near-term and future plans for the facility? What routes in MTA’s network does Kirk Avenue service?

6. What effort has been made or recommendations presented by the community to MTA and how have they been dealt with?

7. What options might be considered to help mitigate these impacts, e.g.: close/relocate the facility; reduce the scale or nature of operations; change operating strategies such as parking or idling; assign newer/cleaner buses to Kirk Avenue; install sound walls or other buffering measures; encourage alternative transitional land uses between the yard and neighborhoods?

Illustration 2: Neighborhood Proximity

46

The Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) has for 50 years operated the Kirk Avenue bus yard as a storage, maintenance and staging facility. As shown in Figure 1 below, it occupies virtually a city block, facing along Kirk Avenue on its eastern edge and bordered by Bonaparte Avenue on its northern edge. Immediately west and south of the facility are older, working class communities along Homewood and Bartlett Avenues whose population is predominately low-to-moderate income African-American. Primarily repair shops, commercial, typify the area to the east and south of the bus yard and light industrial uses, reflecting its historical nature as a blue-collar employment site for residents of the Kirk Avenue neighborhoods.

Figure 1. Kirk Avenue Bus Depot and Adjacent Neighborhood

47

The bus depot sits in what is effectively a transitional zone between the residential and commercial areas. The general patterns of land use mix are illustrated in Figure 2, which suggests that only about half of the area within ¼ mile of the bus depot is residential in character. While the residential areas along Homewood and Bartlett Avenues are exhibiting a bit of resurgence, those areas immediately bordering the bus yard are clearly distressed. The property along Homewood nearest the bus yard shows a clear receding pattern, with numerous empty lots and abandonments, a condition that clearly improves with distance from the lot. Similarly the homes along Bartlett Avenue are clearly in better condition on the side of Bartlett that does not abut the depot, vs. those homes, which are adjacent and share an alley with the southern border of the lot. The community has long viewed the bus yard as an undesirable land use to have next door, and believes that its presence has contributed to the community’s steady decline and is a major obstacle to the neighborhoods “coming back.” In addition to its visual impact, the negative effects of the depot have been noise and air pollution. Residents of homes adjacent to the bus yard have complained of both respiratory health and psychological health impacts, and have appealed to the MTA on numerous occasions to address conditions at the lot or – preferably –to greatly downsize or close and relocate the facility.

Figure 2: Land Use Mix in the Extended Kirk Avenue Community

During the past year, the MTA has introduced plans to make significant changes at the site. Part of this plan would be to actually increase the MTA’s presence at Kirk Avenue, in that it proposes to purchase

48

the property of a former printing company plant across Kirk Avenue (away from the community). It would demolish the structures on both the existing and new parcels and construct a new maintenance building on the new property, while constructing a new administration building and a vehicle storage building on the existing site. This new storage facility would provide for indoor storage of buses and indoor fueling and cleaning. The community is not pleased with the new plan, for the reason that it insures the continuation – even expansion – of the Kirk Avenue facility, and since the time frame to implement the plan is 2012, there is real question of what mitigation may be possible or attempted in the ensuing 5 years. The community wishes:

[1] The community’s first preference would be that the bus yard be moved out of their neighborhood entirely. The residents feel the noise and air pollution concerns they’ve endured for going on thirty years cannot be partially alleviated successfully. They feel in order for their quality of life to be improved substantially, the bus yard should move.

[2] Barring the complete shutting down of the yard, the community supports a serious downsizing of the yard by as much as 50%. If there are now 180 buses occupying spaces on the lot on a regular basis, the community supports reducing it to 90 buses and moving their parked location as far from Bartlett Avenue as possible. Ideally, the community would like to see the yard return to its pre-1970s expansion size.

[3] Otherwise, the community expects damages for the lack of use of residents’ homes and for the MTA caused factors contributing to their current poor health conditions.

[4] The community also calls for mitigation funds to renovate homes so residents near the yard are able to live with the impacts of fumes and/or noise from the bus-yard.

[5] There was some talk of sound walls, if somehow they could be made aesthetically acceptable to the community. There was fairly minimal support within the community for this idea.

[6] Landscaping: that is, adding trees to beautify the area and also to act as a separator between the bus-yard and its surrounding neighborhood was also discussed.

The community residents’ position is that they want no less for their neighborhood as anyone else does. Residents feel that there must be a value standard: if the noise levels and pollution levels are an acceptable to others’ neighborhoods, then they are unacceptable for the citizens who live nearest the bus yard.

Investigations

To address these allegations and concerns, the following investigations were performed:

1. Nature of bus operations Quantify scale of operations at Kirk Avenue, change in scale or nature of activity over time,

comparison with other MTA bus depots. Markets served by routes supplied by buses stored at Kirk Avenue; relevance to Kirk Avenue

neighborhood.

2. Impact on neighborhood:

49

Number of households/homes in proximity of the bus depot Socio-demographic characteristics of households in surrounding vs. adjacent communities. Levels of home ownership, abandonment’s Housing values, sales prices, turnover rates Noise and pollution impacts

3. Mitigation history and alternatives Mitigation actions which have been taken by MTA: nature, timing, objective, effectiveness Other actions suggested but not taken, and why Potential impacts of proposed new facility


1. Nature of bus operationsAn analysis of data on bus operations at Kirk Avenue and the MTA’s other three lots – Bush, Eastern, and Northwest – shows that that Kirk is the second largest facility in terms of daily bus pullouts, ranking just behind Bush.

Figure 3: Daily Bus Pullouts by MTA Division

Historical data were only available through January of 1997, however, when compared with February 2007 data; they show a reduction in activity at all bus yards, with the largest percentage reduction occurring at Kirk. Bus “pullouts” correspond to the number of vehicles that exit the lot to provide route service. Typically, buses make two pullouts per day, one in the morning peak period and one in the evening period. Hence, the actual number of buses leaving the lot during an individual period would be half of the numbers shown in Figure 3 above. The total number of buses stored at the facility would generally be greater than the number of pullouts, to account for spares and backup during servicing or breakdowns. Thus it appears that the number of daily pullouts from Kirk Avenue declined by 22.5% at Kirk Avenue, vs. 11.6% at Bush, 9.3% at Eastern, and 21.9% at Northwest. It is not clear how far this trend extends into the past (pre-1997), but it does appear that overall activity has lessened in recent years.

Another characteristic examined was the extent to which the buses based at Kirk Avenue actually provide service to the local community. It was initially presumed that the Kirk Avenue/Homewood/ Bartlett Avenue area would be fairly well served by local bus service, and that those routes would originate from the Kirk Avenue depot. However, a mapping exercise, illustrated in Figure 4, suggests quite the contrary. The routes based out of Kirk Avenue are primarily suburban commuter routes:

Figure 4: Kirk Ave. Bus Yard

50

Route 3 connects Cromwell Bridge Road with the Inner Harbor, Route 8 connects Hunt Valley and Lutherville with the Inner Harbor, Route 9 services Mays Chapel and Towson, Route 11 services the Charles Street corridor, Route 15 is a circumferential service that connects Perry Hall and White Marsh in the east with Security Square in the West, Route 19 connects Carney with State Center, Route 36 connects Northern Parkway and York Road with the University of MD Transit Center, Route 44 connects Brighton and Gwynn Oak with Rosedale Industrial Park, Route 50 services Belair and Edison,

Route 55 Towson University and Fox Ridge, and Routes 104 and 120 are commuter express services serving, respectively, Cromwell and White Marsh.

It is worth noting from the map insert in Figure 3 that none of these services run particularly close to the Kirk Avenue residential community, nor offer much of an array of accessibility options. Route 3, which connects Cromwell Bridge with the Inner Harbor, is the only route that directly services the community. Route 8, which connects Hunt Valley, Towson and the U of MD Transit Center, falls just outside ¼ mile of community center, while Route 19 (Carney to State Center Metro) lies closer to ½ mile from the community center. Most of the other routes offer little in the way of meaningful service to the community, whereas the community bears the burden of the noise and pollution associated with storing and maintaining the vehicles for those routes at Kirk Avenue.

51

Characteristics of Impacted Community

To properly assess the impact of the bus depot on the community at Kirk Avenue, a profile of the social and economic characteristics of the nearby community was developed using data from the US Census. These data were compiled for the immediate area (within ¼ mile of the bus depot), and for comparison purposes, profiles were also developed for the area within ½ mile and 1 mile.4 These data are shown in Table 1, for two time periods -- 1990 and 2000 – in order to evaluate key changes over time.

In terms of the composition of the community immediately surrounding the Kirk Avenue bus depot, the data for 2000 indicate that the 4,169 residents in the adjacent community (within ¼ mile) are predominately African American (96%) and 87% live in “family” household units, with 25% being married couple households and 7% being households with children under 18 (21% of all persons are younger than 18). Twenty-five percent are single-person households. In terms of education, 48% of residents over 25 years of age never completed high school, while 35% did have a high school diploma, and 16% attended college. Average annual household income in the Kirk Avenue neighborhood was $43,544 in 2000, although 26.7% of all residents qualified as below the poverty line.

In relation to the surrounding area ( 1/2 and 1 mile radii), it appears that the Kirk Avenue community is slightly older, has a higher proportion of African American residents, has more households living in family situations, has slightly larger household sizes (including fewer 1-person households), and has more households with children. Rates of educational attainment are somewhat lower, with a higher percentage failing to complete high school, and a much lower percentage attending college, and a smaller percentage of persons over age 16 are employed. At the same time, household income (average and median) are notably higher than the surround area, a much smaller percentage of people are living in poverty, and a substantially higher percentage of households are living in owner-occupied housing. Looking at important trends over the 10 years between 1990 and 2000, the resident population has gotten older, there are somewhat fewer family households, household size has gone down, and the proportion of single-person households has increased.

4 In the early 1990’s, BMC’s Regional Information Center purchased proprietary software called “PCensus” that enables generation of demographic profiles for circles or other shapes. In addition to the 1990 and 2000 Census data, BMC also purchases annual updates from Claritas. This service is offered by BMC’s Regional Information Center on a fee basis to the public (generally small businesses or non-profit organizations) but at no cost to local government agencies or for use in BMC projects.

52

Table 5: Population, Housing and Economic Profile of Kirk Avenue and Expanded Community (Source: US Census)

1990 2000 1990 2000 1990 2000Population 3,736 4,169 14,615 12,501 60,507 46,504

AgeUnder 18 30% 21% 29% 23% 26% 20%65 and older 12% 15% 10% 14% 10% 12%Average age 34.4 37.1 33.1 35.9 32.8 35.2

RaceWhite 2% 2% 5% 4% 17% 16%Black 98% 96% 94% 94% 81% 79%Other <1% >1% 1% 2% >2% >4%

Living SituationFamily Households 91% 87% 86% 83% 79% 73%Non-Family Households 6% 11% 13% 16% 19% 25%Group Quarters 3% 2% 1% 1% 2% 2%

Married, Persons 15+ 43% 33% 36% 28% 32% 27%

Educational Attainment, age 25+Less than complete high school 53% 48% 53% 46% 47% 37%High school graduate 29% 35% 26% 34% 24% 29%Some college or college degree 18% 16% 21% 20% 29% 34%

Employment Status, age 16+Employed 55% 40% 50% 50% 52% 47%Unemployed 6% 8% 8% 8% 8% 7%Unemployment Rate 10% 17% 14% 18% 14% 14%

Household CharacteristicsFamily households 81% 71% 68% 65% 60% 51%Married-couple households 36% 25% 23% 16% 22% 16%With own children < 18 years 11% 7% 9% 4% 8% 5%Nonfamily households 19% 29% 32% 35% 40% 49%Householder living alone 16% 24% 27% 30% 31% 39%

Average Household Size 3.5 3.1 3.0 2.7 2.8 2.4

Within 1/4 mile Within 1/2 mile Within 1 mile

These, however, are trends also seen in the surrounding area. In sum, what this profile says about the Kirk Avenue community is that it appears to have a solid family structure, displays an above-average rate of home ownership, and reflects improvement in home value in both money and real terms between 1990 and 2000.

53

Table 5 (continued): Population, Housing and Economic Profile of Kirk Avenue and Expanded Community (Source: US Census)

Average household income 1990 2000 1990 2000 1990 2000Average family income $27,944 $51,073

($38,764)$28,834 $35,765

($27,146)$27,549 $36,162

($27,447)Average non-family household income

$12,131 $19,573 ($14,856)

$13,374 $21,850 ($16,584)

$18,732 $27,125 ($18,732)

Median Household Income $20,732 $28,370 ($21,533)

$18,121 $21,872 ($16,601)

$18,739 $22,892 ($18,739)

Persons below the poverty level 31.6% 26.7% 31.0% 33.1% 32.9% 32.4%

Housing CharacteristicsTotal units 1,184 1,701 5,450 5,924 24,238 23,296Vacant 11% 21% 12% 23% 12% 20%Occupied 89% 79% 88% 77% 88% 80%Owner occupied 43% 41% 28% 29% 27% 27%Renter occupied 46% 38% 60% 47% 61% 52%Multiple unit 93% 98% 95% 97% 96% 96%Average rooms per unit 6 6 5.3 5.6 5.1 5.1

Owner occupied units 506 701 1,519 1,740 6,571 6,365With a mortgage 42% 47% 41% 55% 50% 61%

Average owned home value $27,168 $38,367 ($29,121)

$34,660 $43,581 ($33,078)

$40,036 $51,196 ($38,858)

Median owned home value $24,514 $35,278 ($26,776)

$30,610 $40,237 ($30,540)

$34,461 $46,087 ($34,980)

Renter occupied units 547 648 3,255 2,811 14,695 12,181Average monthly gross rent $463 $479

($364)$386 $414

($314)$413 $468

($355)Median monthly gross rent $455 $509

($386)$407 $416

($314)$409 $465

($343)

Within 1/4 mile Within 1/2 mile Within 1 mile

There has been a reduction in the percentage of persons living in poverty between 1990 and 2000, whereas that percentage has increased in the surrounding area. Even with a higher rate of unemployment, smaller households, and more persons over 65, average and median household income increased in both monetary and real terms in the Kirk Avenue neighborhood, whereas it fell in the surrounding areas.

Impacts on Home Ownership, Vacancies and Home Value

Table 1 reveals that average and median owned-home values are lower than the surrounding area, although the homes near Kirk have increased in real value (1990 dollars) while those in the surrounding area have all lost value. Rents are slightly higher in the Kirk Avenue neighborhood, but they are lower in all areas in real terms (1990 dollars) than they were in 1990. Figure 4 also illustrates the distribution of year 2000 housing value in proximity to the Kirk Avenue bus yard and the surrounding community using a mapping tool based in GIS.

54

Curiously, the number of housing units in the Kirk Avenue neighborhood has increased by 517 units, or 44%, between 1990 and 2000, whereas the 1 mile surrounding area actually lost almost 1,000 units. The vacancy rate has clearly increased (almost doubled), but virtually the same trend is evident in the surrounding area. The percent of houses, which are owner occupied, has dropped slightly (43% to 41%), although the rates themselves are much lower in the surrounding area (27-29% level).

Figure 5: Kirk Ave. Real Estate

Average home values have increased in current dollar terms in all the areas, but the Kirk Avenue neighborhood is the only place that has seen an increase in value in constant (1990) dollars. Home values continue to be lower in the Kirk Avenue neighborhood on average, however, than the surrounding area, despite the fact that the homes near Kirk are somewhat larger than those in the surrounding area (6 rooms vs. 5.6 to 5.1). Rents have risen in dollar terms but fallen in real terms in all areas.

55

The only apparent negative indicator for Kirk Avenue, which might be associated with the bus yard, is a lower overall housing value. The average home in the Kirk Avenue neighborhood valued at $38,367 in 2000, which was 12% less than the average of $43,581 in the surrounding ½ mile area, and 25.1% lower than the average of $51,196 in the surrounding 1-mile area. The difference, however, has narrowed since 1990 when the average home price of $27,168 was 21.6% lower than the ½ mile price average of $34,660, and 32.1% lower than the 1-mile average price of $40,036.

Noise and Pollution Impacts

In addition to it being a visual eyesore, the community’s aversion to the bus depot has to do with unusually high levels of noise and pollution from its operations. The pattern of the buses staging in and out of the lot twice daily to provide peak hour service itself creates a lot of noise and pollution-generating activity, but vehicles at the lot are also moved regularly for servicing and are often kept idling to keep the engines at ideal operating temperatures, to avoid difficulties associated with restart of diesel engines, and to heat or cool the bus interiors prior to service.

Figure 6. Noise Level (dBA) by Day of Week and Hour of Day at the Fenceline of the Kirk Division Depot

There are also collateral impacts associated with such a large and dynamic operation, such as paging and announcements over the public address system and noise associated with repairs and servicing. In 2004, after years of complaining to the MTA with little satisfaction, the community obtained the assistance the Johns Hopkins Center for Urban Environmental Health, in the Bloomberg School of Public

56

Health. In response to community concerns, a team of Johns Hopkins students, faculty, and staff conducted assessments of air quality and noise level within the community.

Noise and air pollution were measured daily during January of 2004. The measured air pollutant was small particles with a diameter size of less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5). PM2.5 was measured on a daily basis for two weeks indoors and outdoors at a row home on the bus depot side of Bartlett Avenue. During a separate week, noise levels were measured at the Bartlett Avenue side of the bus depot fence line using a sound level meter.

Figure 7: Integrated 24-hour Particle Mass Concentration <2.5 um (PM 2.5)

Noise level readings measured at the bus depot by hour of day and day of week are illustrated in Figure 5. The study found that noise levels ranged from 45 to 86 decibels, with levels tending to be higher during the night time hours, especially on weekends. Noise levels exceeded the night time noise ordinance level of 53 decibels on all days and times, whereas the daytime standard of 58 decibels was exceeded for nearly all days and times. The implication is that residents living near the Kirk Division Bus Depot are routinely exposed to noise levels that exceed the City Department of Health Noise Ordinance, and at such levels constitute a legitimate stress, including loss of sleep, which could affect residents’ health.

The buses at Kirk Division Bus Depot idle at all hours, including during the hours between midnight and sunrise. According to residents, the newer buses are even louder than the old models. An outdoor public announcement system is also used at all hours creating noise and sleep disturbance. In addition, drivers are required to test the bus enunciator system before beginning the route, which adds to the noise of rhe PA system and the idling. During the period May 2003 through June 2004, a record was maintained of the number of calls made to the MTA to report and complain about buses idling between the hours of midnight and 6 a.m.:

57

Figure 8: Illnesses and Health Issues Reported by Households Adjacent to Kirk Depot

Exhibit 4: Bus Idling

Time Period No. Days Buses Idling between 12 a.m. and 6 a.m.

# of Calls to MTA

May 21-June 21, 2003 none NoneJune 21, 2003 – Jan. 21, 2004 14 47Jan. 29 – Feb. 3, 2004 2 8Feb. 5 – Mar. 30, 2004 24 114March 30 – May 20, 2004 15 292May 21 – June 24, 2004 3 54TOTALS 58 515

With regard to air quality, measured particle air pollution levels were found to vary from day to day and from indoors to outdoors. Outdoor levels tended to be higher than indoors, indicating that the row home structure offered some protection from penetration of outdoor air pollution into the home.

700 Bartlett: Toddler with shortness of breath; Adult nauseous while sitting on front porch

716 Bartlett: Resident diagnosed with cancer

734 Bartlett: Resident with chronic asthma

740 Bartlett: Resident suffering from eye discomfort, persistent headaches

744 Bartlett: Runny nose, chronic congestion, earaches

746 Bartlett: Persistent cough, asthma; visit hospital because of salty, toxic taste in mouth

748 Bartlett: Daughter hospitalized with asthma; father very drowsy for two days

760 Bartlett: 5 and 9 year old children develop asthma with 2 years of moving in in 2003

809 Bonaparte: 5 year old hospitalized with asthma

800 Block of Bonaparte: Numerous residents suffer insomnia due to noise

58

Outdoor levels ranged from a low of 7.9 µg/m3 to a high of 29 µg/m3 with an overall average of 17 µg/m3. These PM2.5 air pollution levels are below the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s daily health standard of 65 µg/m3, however, the two week average level provides some indication that the annual federal health standard of 15 µg/m3 may be exceeded. Results are illustrated in Figure 6.

Measured particle air pollution levels were typical for an urban environment. From this study, it was not possible to assess the impact of the bus diesel exhaust emissions on community air quality. Daily levels were all below EPA’s daily health standard for particle pollution, although average levels measured over two weeks raise concern that EPA’s annual health standard for particles may be exceeded. While scientists have not found evidence of a threshold effect for particulate matter air pollution, it is possible that exposure to PM2.5 at the levels observed in this assessment put residents at increased risk for adverse health effects during the same May 2003 to June 2004 period, a record was also developed of the number of residents reporting problems with noise or fumes, and particularly, incidences of illnesses or conditions severe enough to require a hospital visit or trip to the doctor. These are noted on the map in Figure 7 to illustrate the location of the afflicted household. The proximity to the bus yard is apparent.

ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The next step in the process for the Kirk Avenue neighborhood will be to have structured negotiations with the MTA regarding near term and long term strategies that will begin to provide some relief from the impacts which are substantially attributable to the bus depot. The MTA has presented some evidence that it has heard the concerns of the community and attempted to respond with mitigation measures, which have included new operational procedures regarding how the buses are positioned when parked in the lot and practices with regard to idling. It has also been suggested that to the extent possible, the newer and cleaner alternative fuel buses will be based at Kirk as they are phased into the fleet. However, with each of these claims and suggestions, there is some question on the part of the community as to how significant past improvements have been and how significant and how soon future mitigation actions will be put in place.

The MTA’s long-term plan is to expand and modernize the Kirk Division Depot, with provision to house the storage and service activity within new structures on the existing site. However, the community has been given scant information on what noise and emissions impacts will result from the change, as well as from the reconstruction itself. And even if the new facility is constructed, and it did internalize a higher percentage of its impacts, it still would not be operational until 2012, meaning the community is still looking at 5 or more years of “business as usual” in terms of noise and impacts.

For these reasons, the community should pressure the MTA in negotiations to both get a clear statement of the likely impacts should the new facility be constructed, and to obtain meaningful mitigation in the time between. The following findings from this analysis suggest that the Kirk Avenue neighborhood has been bearing disproportionate burdens from the operation of the Kirk Division Depot for some time, and those burdens may be cited as follows:

1. Property values are clearly lower in the ¼ mile residential area surrounding the bus depot, particularly given that houses are larger units than those in the surrounding area.

2. The buses housed at the Kirk Division provide little direct benefit to the residents of the neighborhood. Only one route provides service that appears to be of direct value to the

59

community, whereas most of the other routes supplied by Kirk are suburban commuter services. The socio-demographics of the riders of these other services are likely to be different from those of the Kirk Avenue community.

3. Measured noise levels attributable to bus idling, servicing, and amplified voice messaging are above the standards of the city ordinance, and they occur at all hours including prime sleeping hours. There are documented cases of stress and insomnia linked to these impacts.

4. Emissions from bus pullouts and idling are significant, and measurably above background norms. While readings of particulate pollution taken in 2004 were found to be below official federal thresholds, the presence of fumes from bus engines is clearly detectable and reasonably constant. One need not be exposed to federal-critical concentrations of particulate pollution to suffer from nausea, eye and throat irritation, congestion, earaches, headaches and asthma. The number of reported cases in the homes surrounding the bus depot is sufficiently above standard population levels that it is hard to deny an association with the bus activity.

The Kirk Avenue community deserves a fair hearing and legitimate mitigation program from the MTA. To fail to provide this acknowledgement and dialogue would be tantamount to environmental injustice.

Case Study: Cherry Hill

Description of Setting and Concerns:

The Cherry Hill community is geographically located in the southern section of Baltimore City. Cherry Hill covers more than 300 acres south of the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and west of Hanover Street. It is located just over the Hanover Street Bridge, which is really at the foot of the city. The Middle Branch, north of the Patapsco River, Hanover Street, Waterview Avenue and the west and south ends of the Baltimore Light Rail system, bound the Cherry Hill community. The area is comprised of Census Tracts 2502.03, 2502.04 and 2502.07. The community is located south of the Inner Harbor/Central Business District of Baltimore City.

60

Figure 9: Cherry Hill Aerial Photo of Neighborhood Streets Identified

The Cherry Hill community was established in the late 1940s when the Housing Authority of Baltimore chose it as the site of a federal project for African American war workers migrating from the South. In those days of segregated housing, no neighborhood in the city was available for an influx of African American. “In 1944, a 600-unit project was launched under federal auspices. But even earlier, three private developers had pushed ahead with plans of their own to construct a total of more than 670 units. Before the federal housing was ready, however, the war had ended. It was opened for occupancy in December 1945, in a scene of mud and snow. War veterans had preference among applicants. Settlers there included a number servicemen who were studying under the GI Bill and who would go on up to productive careers.

Many people living in the private housing in those early years were widows and pensioners, a stable group of homeowners. Until the early 1950s, remembers Mr. Burge, founder of the “Cherry Hill News” paper, the community “was cut out to be a middle-income area.” The pressures from the inner city, including the need to relocate families dispossessed by urban renewal, brought about a far-reaching change in the population makeup. A large percentage of new residents were fatherless households of people who were not going anywhere but were doing well to survive. Over the years, Cherry Hill has developed many of the problems that go with poverty among families lacking a male head. Developed as a planned community for African-American veterans returning from World War II, the Cherry Hill community today has about 7,700 residents and is still largely population by African-American. The Cherry Hill community has a Democratic stronghold that includes a handful of middle-class homeowners and renters, and many public housing residents.

Patapsco LRT

Cherry Hill LRT

Cherry

Hill

61

Today Cherry Hill is mostly residential area with apartment complexes, row houses, and public housing projects. Some of the public housing has been demolished leaving large tracts of land in the middle of the community that can be redeveloped in the future. In the midst of Cherry Hill is a shopping center and on the fringes are industry and the Middle Branch Park. Buses serve the neighborhood as does a light rail stop. Access to Interstate highways and downtown Baltimore is facilitated by the Light Rail system and Hanover Street.

Figure 10: Cherry Hill Community/Land Cover (2000)

Among the major concerns of the Cherry Hill community is a long-standing perception that it has been unfairly treated in the delivery of transit service. Cherry Hill is a predominately black, low-to-moderate income community that was created by public forces following WW II, resulting in one of the Baltimore region’s first planned public housing community. Residents feel that this history has created a stigma that has resulted in its receiving unequal levels of public services and inaccurate perceptions as to community stability, reliability of workers, crime rates and drug use. Located just south of the central city, it traditionally enjoyed good transit access to the city, major activity centers and the region. When the MTA’s new Central Light Rail Line went into service in the early 1990s, resulting in service losses that they feel have never been acknowledged or addressed. Figure 1the transit route map of the Cherry Hill community, shows its location in relation to downtown Baltimore, key highways, and the LRT line.

62

Figure 11: Bus Routes Serving Cherry Hill

They perceive that their accessibility has been reduced as a result of bus routes being realigned or eliminated to better support the light rail system, which for Cherry Hill residents has meant accessing a station at the western fringe of the community. It is alleged that areas which were fairly easy to reach by bus are no longer so, and this has been compounded by a general diminution in the quantity and quality of service.

63

This is an important problem, since Cherry Hill residents are highly dependent on public transportation for their basic mobility needs. Residents report regular dissatisfaction with buses that are chronically late, are badly maintained, have surly drivers, and are inhospitable to older riders. This assertion extends to MTA’s Para transit service, with numerous complaints of unreliable service, missed pickups and appointments, and poorly trained drivers.

Investigations

To address these allegations and concerns, the following investigations were performed:

1. Assessment of changes in transit service

Nature of system changes when LRT system phased in Change in route coverage and connectivity Change in ease of access to transit within the community

2. Impact of changes on regional accessibility

Comparison of areas reachable by transit within 30, 45 and 60 minutes of travel time before and after system change

Comparative travel times to favorite destinations Assessment of whether changes in service orientation reflect redistribution of land use and

opportunities in the region. Number of jobs within 30, 45 and 60 minutes of transit travel times before and after

3. Changes in the Community

Population: number, race, age, education, employment Households – number, size, composition, income Housing – number units, size, ownership, vacancies, home values, rents

4. Transit service delivery

Reliability (on-time performance, showing up for appointments) Condition & cleanliness of equipment and facilities Driver professionalism, competence, orderliness on buses


Using BMC’s regional travel model and transit skim times, it was possible to construct maps indicating those areas of the region reachable by transit within 30, 45 and 60 minutes of travel time (including access, wait and transfer time) from Cherry Hill. This was done for 1990 conditions and in the year 2000, and a comparison was also made between peak and off-peak travel periods. The comparisons are shown in Figures 12 and 13.

64

Impact of Changes on Regional Accessibility

Figure 10 uses a color-coding system to show those areas of the Baltimore region that are reachable within up to 30 minutes of travel time (green shading), 30 to 45 minutes (yellow shading), or between 45 minutes and 1 hour (red shading) during the peak period in 1990 and 2000. The land areas are traffic analysis zones from BMC’s travel model system, and the number within the shaded zones indicates the estimated travel time by transit from Cherry Hill to that zone. The year 1990 is believed to represent conditions before the opening of the Central Light Rail line, and the accompanying reorientation of bus service to better constitute an integrated transit system.

As a result of the service changes, access to some parts of the region have increased while to other areas it appears to have declined. Areas that seem to have improved in transit access between 1990 and 2000 include the area between Liberty and Reisterstown Roads in northwest Baltimore and the areas to the south and southwest extending to BWI (this due to the LRT line itself). However, in many areas transit access has decreased. Major portions of northeast Baltimore City along Harford and Belair Roads and sections of North Charles Street are no longer reachable within an hour of travel time.

Also inaccessible with 1 hour of travel time are areas in East Baltimore associated with Moravia and Rosedale industrial parks in the US 40 corridor, and areas along Ritchie Highway to the southeast. Perhaps even more significant is the loss of access within the city of Baltimore, where as a result of the service changes, access to some parts of the region have increased while to other areas it appears to have declined. Areas that seem to have improved in transit access between 1990 and 2000 include the area between Liberty and Reisterstown Roads in northwest Baltimore and the areas to the south and southwest extending to BWI (this due to the LRT line itself).

However, in many areas transit access has decreased. Major portions of northeast Baltimore City along Harford and Belair Roads and sections of North Charles Street are no longer reachable within an hour of travel time. Also inaccessible with 1 hour of travel time are areas in East Baltimore associated with Moravia and Rosedale industrial parks in the US 40 corridor, and areas along Ritchie Highway to the southeast. Perhaps even more significant is the loss of access within the city of Baltimore, where many locations that could previously be reached within 45 minutes now require up to an hour. And the number of TAZs that are reachable within 30 minutes by transit has notably shrunk between 1990 and 2000.

The changes in off-peak access are along the same lines, but even more dramatic. These patterns are shown in Figure 11. Again, transit access improves in the BWI corridor to the southeast, and to some extent along Reisterstown Road in the northwest, but declines virtually everywhere else. These comparisons make it fairly clear that transit access has declined for Cherry Hill residents, with the exception of the BWI corridor, which is becoming a new job center. What is not clear from these comparisons – peak or off-peak – however, is the extent that the reduction in access is a result of the switch - over to LRT, or a more generalized cutback in transit service.

65

Changes in Transit Service Before/After Light Rail

Figure 12 looks at the accessibility question from a slightly different angle. The figure attempts to show the location of major job concentrations, and then looks at the change in travel time to reach those jobs between 1990 and 2000. Areas shaded in green represent the largest job concentrations, while yellow are medium concentrations and orange are the lowest concentrations. The number shown inside the respective TAZ indicates the change in transit travel time to reach the area from Cherry Hill in 2000 vs.1990. A negative number indicates a reduction in travel time, while a positive number indicates an increase in travel time. The numbers tell a mixed story. Some of the major employment areas, particularly those south and west of Cherry Hill in the BWI corridor, show major improvements in travel time. However, for job concentrations in almost every other location – including downtown Baltimore – transit travel times have increased. It would appear that – overall – access to jobs for the transit dependent households of Cherry Hill has not been reshaped to help workers access regional job opportunities.

66

Figure 12: Cherry Hill 1990-2000 Peak Travel Time

67

Figure 13: Off Peak Transit Travel Times

Figure 14: 2000 Employment Opportunities by TAZ and Change in Travel Time since 1990

69

Figure 15: Cherry Hill Transit Access

70

Community Profile and Changes

The period from 1990 to 2000 saw a marked change in the size and composition of the Cherry Hill community. These changes are depicted in Table 8. During this period the population of Cherry Hill declined by 21.1%, from 19,400 to 15,300. While the portion of this population, which was Caucasian, was only about 22% in 1990, whites represented almost half of the population decline between 1990 and 2000 (1,992 of 4,079). The decline in the number of households was only 12.9%, indicating that larger households – primarily married couples with children – left in larger numbers. Indeed, the number of households with married couples and children declined by 51.4%, while the number of single person households increased by 15.8%. These shifts are also reflected in a decline in the population aged 18 to 44 years, which fell by 31.7%, children under 5, which declined by 29.6%, and even a decline of 10.3% in the population over 65 years.

Other negative trends in Cherry Hill include a reduction in the number of housing units (9.3%), including both owner-occupied (11.1%) and rental units (14.7%). The number of vacant homes either for sale/rent or simply vacant also increased between 1990 and 2000; total vacancies increased from 467 to 676, amounting to about 11% of all housing units. Median housing value increased by 26.2% from $45,903 to $57,931, or $12,027, between 1990 and 2000 in current dollar terms, but in real dollars the median value in 2000 was only $43,970, suggesting a decline in home value of $1,933, or 4.2%.

On the positive side, the percentage of persons in the labor force who were unemployed fell by 37% between 1990 and 2000, from 17.2% to 15.5%, although these numbers are still well above average levels of unemployment in the population at large.

Transit Service Delivery

Cherry Hill residents have made strong allegations that not only was transit service cut back in the community at the time the Light Rail Line opened, but overall service delivery has declined. These deficiencies fall in the areas of reliability, condition and upkeep of equipment and facilities, and driver competence. The following specific concerns were identified by residents at a June 2004 BREJT Listening Session in Cherry Hill:

Maintenance in Cherry Hill is awful – streets, sidewalks and bus/light rail stops are dirty and broken. Complaints and comments on maintenance issues do not produce results.

Bus service is terrible – there are too few buses and buses do not run on schedule. The # 27 and the # 51 routes are the worst.

Bus service in Cherry Hill used to be better – one reason for the poor service is that resources are being spent in more affluent communities.

MTA doesn’t use “checkers” anymore to see whether buses are working or running on time. Para transit buses are uncomfortable and unsafe – safety feature like poles and handrails are not

adequate. Para transit drivers are not polite and will sometimes refuse to accept vouchers for payment and

demand cash. People are missing doctor appointments or are left stranded at doctor’s offices after they are

scheduled to close – complaints cause reprisals.

71

Cherry Hill’s low income and minority population is subject to discrimination in the way services are provided – “look, they have plenty of buses, that’s not the problem – the problem is that they don’t send them to Cherry Hill.’

Some employers discriminate against Cherry Hill residents because they know people from Cherry Hill will be late for work due to poor transit service.

Seniors have difficulty riding the #27, #51 and #29 buses because they are overcrowded and bus drivers often do not tell younger people to get out of the priority seating.

Table 6. Socioeconomic Profile for Cherry Hill Community, 1990 and 2000

72

Table 6 (cont.). Socioeconomic Profile for Cherry Hill Community, 1990 and 2000

*Note: (Census Tracts should be updated to only include only 250207,250230, 250204) which indicate the 1990 population at 10,897 with 49 Caucasians. In 2000 the population dropped to 7,664 and the number of Caucasians grew to 131.)

73


While it appears upon initial review that the Cherry Hill community has experienced deferential treatment with regard to transit service, there are several additional investigations that should be undertaken in order to quantify and thus legitimize their claims.

1. Establish that the reductions in bus service that occurred at the time when Light Rail service was inaugurated in 1992 were not part of a much larger, systemwide reduction in service. The following statement was extracted from the Baltimore Transit Archives site (www.btco.net).

“as the 1980’s began to draw to a close, a tough economic environment saw the discontinuance of many marginal bus services. This trend continued into the early 1990’s, combined with fare increases to cover escalating operating costs.”

To establish this point, a list should be obtained of the bus routes which were eliminated, revised or curtailed as part of these changes in the late 1980’s, and those cuts affecting Cherry Hill compared with those occurring elsewhere in the system. The specific changes in service then accompanying the opening of the LRT line should be separately enumerated, with a description of the impact on the community (changes in coverage, bus stops, headways, etc).

2. An independent monitoring and assessment program should be undertaken to document the concerns regarding service reliability, upkeep of equipment and facilities, and driver conduct. Particular attention should be given to the number of ADA compliant housing units that exist within the public housing complex and the number of corresponding physically challenged tenants.

3. Concurrently, MTA should undertake its own studies of service complaints and delivery to Cherry Hill to determine what it could be doing to address these concerns and improve service, and should develop a practice of monitoring and reporting on its service to Cherry Hill until a change is acknowledged in the acceptance level on the part of the community.

4. MTA establish community form to disseminate about transportation policy, procedures and future development implications.

5. MTA establish advisory board that includes members of the community who are not employed by MTA.

Unfortunately, at the time of this analysis, we were unable to lay hands on actual data to support these allegations. To properly assess and quantify the severity of these concerns, it would be necessary to institute a monitoring process that would ascertain such conditions as bus upkeep, on-time arrivals, inappropriate driver behavior, and Para transit appointments missed.

74

Case Study: Lexington Market

Description of Setting and Concerns

Lexington Market is a major commercial destination in downtown Baltimore, providing fresh produce, meats, seafood, and a variety of vendors selling items in a large, historic warehouse building. This setting is illustrated in the map pictured as Figure 15. The market is not only a major tourist attractionfor visitors, but also a mainstay for a large portion of Baltimore’s minority community, who prize its selections, freshness and tradition. The market area has historically been well served by public transit, and is somewhat of a regional transit hub. Many bus routes converge at Lexington Market, and the market area is also a transfer point for both the MTA’s Metro subway line and the Central Light Rail line. Eutaw Street, which fronts the Market’s main entrance on the east, accommodates two-way vehicletraffic throughout the day, and permits metered parking along the west curb. The eastern curb is reserved for buses, many of which have historically picked up and dropped off passengers at the main entrance.

Beginning in 2001, the City of Baltimore police department, the Market Authority, and the MTA introduced a set of controversial changes to transit operations at the market when they moved the stops for several of the bus routes to the adjacent block. The shifts are pictured in Figure 16.

Figure 16. Lexington Market Location Map

Beginning in 2001, the City of Baltimore police department, the Market Authority, and the MTA introduced a set of controversial changes to transit operations at the market when they moved the stops for several of the bus routes to the adjacent block. The reason for the changes was to improve safety in the vicinity of the market. Large crowds of people congregating at the entrance area allegedly made it difficult to monitor and deter crime activity in the area, a condition partially attributed to a drug

75

Market

New Bus Stop Locations

Metro Station

LRT Station

treatment center also located in the vicinity. Unfortunately, members of the riding public, many of whom are low-income, transit-dependent minority shoppers, were never consulted on the proposal or included in the planning. The public rightly felt that it been marginalized by the decision-making process, and that commercial interests (such as a parking lot adjacent to the Market) were given preference over their well being. Shoppers complained that they were forced to walk longer distances to connect with buses, exposed to the weather and vehicle exhaust, traffic at intersections, and street activity, generally while carrying packages and shepherding small children.

Upon review of the situation, initial concerns about serious congestion and health effects due to prolonged exposure to vehicle activity – as framed in the community discussions – appeared less severe than initially portrayed. However, what did emerge was the vision that substantial pedestrian traffic associated with both market visitation and substantial numbers of transit riders accessing or transferring between bus, metro and light rail, were obliged to vie with frequently heavy vehicle traffic along Eutaw Street, coupled with limited safe crossings. This, however, was ultimately judged to be less of an environmental justice issue than one of urban planning, and hence not the domain of this project as a case studies. It also became clear that the predominant customer base of the Market was the minority community, many of whom relied on public transit to reach the site. For these individuals, the main concern ended up being the sense that transit access to and from the transit dependent communities and Lexington Market had systematically diminished over time, for possibly numerous reasons, including not only budgetary on the part of MTA but the shifts in stops and routing inspired by the recent safety concerns.

Figure 17: Movement of Bus Stops at Lexington Market

76

Investigations

To address these allegations and concerns, the following investigations were recommended:

1. Assessment of nature, magnitude, and impact of changes in bus stops

Bus routes for which stop locations changed Location of new stops, appraisal of impact on access (time, distance, exposure) Communities served by these routes, route ridership, average boardings/alightings at

Lexington Market Characteristics of riders: race, age, gender, income, origin community, trip purpose, trip

purpose, frequency Stated effect on trip making behavior

2. Assessment of vehicle/pedestrian conditions and conflicts in Market vicinity:

Peak hour vehicle volumes on adjacent streets, particularly those which bus riders would need to cross to access the relocated bus stops.

Comparable pedestrian volumes in Market area. Pedestrian accident statistics

3. Changes in regional transit accessibility

Change in accessibility to Lexington Market by transit, 1990 vs. 2000 Areas for which transit travel times have increased between 1990 and 2000 Characteristics of areas receiving service reductions by race and income


Nature and impact of movements in bus stops

Figure 17 shows the location and identification of MTA bus routes at and adjacent to Lexington Market. Those routes operating on N. Eutaw Street and serving the Market are:

No. 5: serving Cedonia and the Mondawmin Metro subway station No. 10: serving Sparrows Point/Inverness/Dundalk and the State Center Metro subway station No. 19: serving Carney/Goucher & Taylor, and the State Center Metro subway station No. 27: serving Reisterstown Plaza Metro subway station, Cherry Hill & Patapsco LRT stops No. 91: serving Sinai Hospital and City Hall

As shown in Figure 16, the stops at Fayette Street (farside) and Lexington Street (nearside) were consolidated into the current Marion Street (farside)/Fayette Street (nearside) stop in a series of changes that took place between June 2001 and March 2002, as follows:

On June 12, 2001 the Fayette Street (farside) stop was discontinued On January 23, 2002 the Marion Street (farside) stop was established

77

On March 4, 2002, the Lexington Street (nearside) stop was discontinued.

Marion Street is 1/2 block South of the Lexington Market Eutaw St. Entrance (adjacent to parking lot).

Vehicle and Pedestrian Traffic Conditions and Conflicts

North Eutaw Street, which borders Lexington Market on its eastern front and main entrance, is a two-way north/south street, with vehicle parking permitted along the eastern curb. Buses have access to the western curb, and pedestrians are in substantial numbers at all hours along both sides of Eutaw Street. Main crosswalks are located on the north at Saratoga Street, and just south of the market entrance at Lexington Street. The crosswalk at Lexington Street, which supports major pedestrian traffic made up of market visitors and transit users (Metro subway and Light Rail lines offer a rare transfer point at this location), is not signalized. This street environment is pictured in Figure 18.

Traffic counts obtained by the City of Baltimore in 1996 reveal a combined (bi-directional) vehicle volume of 601 vehicles per hour in the AM peak period at North Eutaw and Lexington Streets, and 814 during the PM peak hour. This amounts to one vehicle every 6 seconds in the AM peak and every 4 seconds in the PM peak, which can make crossing without aid of a signal difficult and dangerous. Meanwhile, Saratoga, the first major cross street to the north, is also a two-way artery and carries a bi-directional volume of 525 vehicles per hour in the AM peak and 884 per hour in the PM peak. Market users attempting to connect with buses whose stops have been relocated from the market to the block face north of Saratoga Street must confront two-way vehicle volumes of this magnitude when accessing the new stops. Pedestrian volumes counted during the same traffic study indicated 443 persons attempting to cross Saratoga Street along N. Eutaw going north in the AM peak hour, only 68 crossing to go south, 141 crossing Eutaw going east and 392 heading west. Given the narrow sidewalks, these volumes of pedestrians and vehicles make for congested conditions during the main travel times of the day.

Figure 18: Vehicle and Pedestrian Volumes in Vicinity of Lexington Market (1996)

5 2 5 v e h / h rA M P e a k

8 8 4 v e h / h rP M P e a k

8 1 4 v e h / h rP M P e a k

6 0 1 v e h / h r A M P e a k

L e x i n g t o nM a r k e t

S a r a t o g a S t r e e t

L e x i n g t o n S t r e e t

N.

Eut

awS

tree

t

4 4 3 p e d s / h rA M P e a k



6 8 p e d s / h rA M P e a k

78

Changes in Regional Transit Access to Lexington Market

Historically, a large number of the city’s minority and low-income residents have traveled to Lexington Market by public transit. The recent changes in service represented by the movement of the bus stops are but one element of what is alleged to be a long-term decline in the level of transit service and access to Lexington Market. To test the validity of this perception, transit service levels in the year 2000 were compared with those provided in 1990 to determine the magnitude and distribution of any changes. The comparisons are shown in map form, in Figure 19 and 20 for Peak Period and Off-Peak conditions. The results are perhaps somewhat surprising, in that it appears that – in general – a much higher percentage of the region is within a 1-hour travel window of Lexington Market in 2000 than in 1990. The combined effects of Metro and Light Rail, both of which have station stops at or near Lexington Market, of course, explain much of the credit for this. Hence, even if pre-existing bus services were eliminated, redirected, or curtailed, the net effect of the added rail services seems to have improved transit access to Lexington Market. These trends are evident for both peak and off-peak service conditions.

79

Figure 19: Peak Transit Travel times From Lexington Market, 1990 vs. 2000

80

Figure 20: Transit Travel Time from Lexington Market, 1990 vs 2000 – Off Peak

A separate analysis was made of the question of whether reductions in transit service over time to and from Lexington Market have fallen disproportionately upon the minority community, which has heavily depended on transit to access the market. Results of this assessment are shown in Figure 210, which shows racial concentrations by TAZ (shaded red for primarily African American and dark blue for primarily white) and the change in transit travel time from Lexington Market between 1990 and 2000. The numbers in the individual TAZs represent the travel time change in minutes, with a “minus” value indicating an improvement in service, i.e., a reduction in travel time. Also shown in the chart are those areas that lost their transit service to Lexington Market between 1990 and 2000, and conversely, those sites that gained access in 2000 that were not connected in 1990.

The map tells an interesting story. The communities along Liberty Road and Reisterstown Road to the north and west of Lexington Market all show tangible improvements in transit service, clearly evidence of the growing impact of rail transit (Metro) in this corridor. The majority of TAZs in these two corridors are African-American, with the transition to white beginning along Reisterstown Road at the Baltimore City line. In contrast, the northeastern corridor shows mainly a decline in transit service between 1990 and 2000, a fact attributable to the absence of rail service in this corridor and reductions in bus service over time. Many of the TAZs in this corridor – within the City of Baltimore – are predominately African American residents, although for the most part the reductions in service appear to be fairly minor, on the order of 2 to 5 minutes. Where rail service does exist, in the area around Johns Hopkins, transit travel times have come down. There are few substantial African American communities south of Baltimore City, with the exception of Westport and Cherry Hill. Here, LRT service shows up in a significant improvement in access for Westport residents (-11 minutes) but a slight increase for Cherry Hill residents (+4 minutes).

82

Figure 21: Lexington Market Peak Travel Time and Racial Composition

83


In light of the findings produced by this analysis, the following conclusions and recommendations are offered:

Some hardship may have been visited upon bus riders to Lexington Market as a result of the movement of the bus stops from the front of the market to the adjacent block. However the quantitative impact of this change cannot be assessed from the data in hand. It will be necessary to obtain information on changes in bus ridership, composition of that ridership, additional travel time and exposure burdens, and rider perceptions to assess the actual impacts. A wholly separate set of issues concerns how the changes were made in the unilateral way they were, by the city and the market authority, without involving the transit riding public or respective community advocacy organizations. These “issues of process” are perhaps more of a concern from an environmental justice perspective than the movement of the stops themselves, since they show a lack of consideration for an inclusive process, and should be called under separate review.

While bus service has been reduced over the past decade or so in response to changing markets, falling ridership, and consolidation of the system into a rail-based network, overall transit access to Lexington Market appears to have actually improved. Comparing data on average travel times by transit in 1990 and 2000 indicates that the portion of the region that can reach Lexington Market by transit within 1 hour has increased over this period, and the areas that can access the market within 45 minutes and 30 minutes has also expanded – this largely due to the improved service offered to many areas by rail transit. The northeastern portion of Baltimore City and adjacent areas of Baltimore County seem to be the only places with reduced transit access, primarily because they are not served by a rail transit service.

Finally, and related to the lack of public involvement in the first bullet, issues of pedestrian and vehicle traffic conflicts at and nearby the market deserve a closer and more systematic review by the City. Bus riders are being forced to walk away from the front of the market to reach relocated bus stops, necessitating a walk along a relatively narrow and crowded sidewalk, and having to cross a busy street at Saratoga, where waiting capacity at the corner is very limited. Similarly, many pedestrians, including transit riders moving between bus and/or rail services, attempt to cross N. Eutaw in front of the Market at Lexington Street, where there is significant 2-way vehicle traffic and no signal protection at the crosswalk.

Transit users proceeding down or up Lexington Street to connect with Metro or LRT stations also face a challenging environment; with extremely narrow sidewalks and unrestricted vehicle traffic on that narrow street. This stretch of N. Eutaw, Lexington and Saratoga Streets is a high-density, high-intensity activity area, and given the number of transit users, market patrons, and simply pedestrians moving through, it would seem appropriate to identify and evaluate alternatives to improve access, circulation and pedestrian safety in this location. Converting N. Eutaw and Lexington Streets to an auto-free district through this section would seem to be an alternative that would benefit the market, transit users, and probably even crime enforcement efforts.

84

Case Study: U.S. 40/Highway to Nowhere

Description of Setting and Concerns

Show in Figure 22 is the aptly named, the “Highway to Nowhere” is a massive section of roadway that begins at the western edge of the Baltimore CBD (Lexington Market) and heads due west out of the city as part of US Route 40 through the neighborhoods of Poppleton, Harlem Park, Lafayette Square, and Rosemount. Once the starting point of an ambitious plan to connect I-95 as it passes through Baltimore with I-70, which terminates at the Baltimore Beltway (I-695) in the west, the highway would have been badged as I-170.

Figure 22: West Baltimore and the Highway to Nowhere

However, the plan ran out of momentum and support before it could proceed beyond the railroad line and what is now the West Baltimore MARC station at Benatou and Franklin Streets. And thus it remains to this day—almost 30 years after it was opened to traffic in 1979 – a grade-separated superhighway that is only 1.4 miles long and comes to an abrupt halt at the MARC station. As illustrated in Figure 21, the right of way is a full city block wide and roughly 18 city blocks long, and the highway itself lies at a

West Baltimore

MARC

Abandoned I-170

“Highway to Nowhere

85

depressed elevation, constituting what many regard as a “ditch”, separating west Baltimore into northern and southern halves. The neighborhoods, largely low-income African-American, have struggled – without great success – to survive the physical and social trauma inflicted by the failed public works project.

The area has gained a reputation as a location for the drug trade, crime, and unkempt, abandoned buildings. Home ownership and the pride that goes with it has given way to poor upkeep and marginal rentals. Revitalization that has helped reclaim other close-in neighborhoods in Baltimore City has largely bypassed this area, despite its proximity to growth and renewal in and around the University of Maryland medical complex at the eastern end. Illustration 3 displays three of the areas primary impact zones where population declines and radical shifts were particularly noticeable. In the central portion (shaded yellow and encompassing the Orwasoo Community Association), from 1950 (its highest point) to 2000, population declined 67% - from 90,225 to 29,803. This decline was most rapid between 1950 and 1980. In the eastern portion (shaded purple and encompassing the Harlem Park Community Association) from 1950 (its highest point) to 2000, population declined a staggering 80% - from 29,676 to 5,832. In the western portion (shades green and encompassing the Midtown Edmonson Ave. Association), from 1960 (its highest point) to 2000, population declined 39% - from 33,819 to 20,592.

Illustration 3: West Baltimore and the Highway to Nowhere Census Tracts 1940-2000

The radical shifts that occurred in the neighborhoods adjacent to HTN are explained by the trends from 1940 to the present and are presented below in Table 7- 10. From 1940 to 2000, Baltimore's White population fell 70%, while its Black population more than doubled (rising 253%).

In the area-shaded yellow, both Black and White population declined, although White declined at a faster rate. Whereas in 1950, there had been about 62,000 Black and 28,000 White, by the year 2000, these amounts had declined to 25,000 Black and 4,000 White. Again, the decline was most rapid in the 30 years between 1950 and 1980. In the area-shaded purple, the picture was similar.

86

Black and White both declined the latter at a faster rate. Whereas in 1950, there had been almost 24,000 Blacks and about 5,500 Whites, by the year 2000, these amounts had declined to just over 4,500 Blacks and just under 900 Whites.

Table 6: Population by Race

US Census Year TOTAL Black White % White1940 143,200 66,732 76,469 53%1950 148,411 86,632 61,779 42%1960 125,415 100,465 24,950 20%1970 97,773 84,492 15,281 15%1980 81,458 69,857 11,601 14%1990 72,506 63,513 8,993 12%2000 54,823 49,854 4,969 9%

The most rapid decline in this area was over the 20 years from 1950 to 1970. And in the area-shaded, the picture was quite different. Although the total population was highest in 1960 (33,819), the racial shift took place almost entirely within the ten-year period preceding 1960. In 1950, there had been less than 600 Blacks living in this area, while there were about 28,500 Whites. By 1960, these proportions did a total flip, with the Blacks increasing to 30,000 and the Whites declining to just over 3,500. As seen from Table 10 above, the proportion of Whites in the area declined rapidly, especially from 1940 to 1960. However, to really get a handle on what happened to cause the population decline in these areas, it is necessary also to look at the numbers and percents of people leaving from one Decennial Census to the next, as in Table 8below.

Table 7: Rates of Population Decline - by Number and Percent

Census Yr

TOTAL # of Population Change (-/+) from Each Previous Decade

% of Population Change (-/+) from Each Previous Decade

1940 143,2001950 148,411 +5,211 +4%1960 125,415 -22,996 -15%1970 97,773 -25,642 -20%1980 81,458 -18,315 -18%1990 72,506 -8,952 -11%2000 54,823 -17,683 -24%

It can be seen in Table 8 that both the largest numbers and percentages of net loss of persons occurred in two periods - from 1950-1980, and from 1990-2000. The term "net loss" is used, because the numbers represent the sum, on the one hand, of people leaving the area, the out-migrants (and in smaller numbers, the deceased), and on the other hand, new in-migrants to area (and in smaller numbers, the newborn). Table 9 below shows the out-migration from and immigration to the areas reveals the following:

87

Table 8: Migration out and Immigration by Race US Census Year

Census Yr.

TOTAL Black White

1940 143,200 66,732 76,4691950 148,411 86,632 +19,900 +30% 61,779 -14,689 -19%1960 125,415 100,465 +13,883 +16% 24,950 -36,829 -60%1970 97,773 84,492 -15,973 -16% 15,281 -9,669 -39%1980 81,458 69,857 -14,635 -17% 11,601 -3,680 -24%1990 72,506 63,513 -6,344 -9% 8,993 -2608 -22%2000 54,823 49,854 -13,659 -22% 4,696 -4,024 -45%

By breaking down the migrations by race, Table 9 provides a refinement of Table 8. It is clear from the census data that Whites were leaving in large numbers throughout the 60-year period, with their most rapid out-migration from 1950 to 1960. Beginning in 1960, Blacks joined the Whites in also leaving the areas in significant numbers, especially for the next 20 years until 1980, and then again from 1990 to 2000. The white exodus is probably mostly attributable to white flight to other Baltimore City neighborhoods and the Baltimore and Anne Arundel County suburbs - occurring as it did most rapidly before 1960. The 1960-1980 exoduses of Blacks can be laid at the doorstep of the interstate highway planners and the Baltimore City Council (which had enacted the property condemnation ordinances), and also as a result of the 1968 civil disorders. Explaining the 1990-2000 Black exoduses is more difficult. It may have been due to decisions to move away from neighborhoods which had become too full of abandoned houses and increased drug use and crime - cumulating over the previous 30 years and by 1990 having reached a critical negative mass which made continued residence in the area no longer supportable to many. It may also have been due to a gradual opening up to Blacks of housing in urban and suburban neighborhoods.

Recognition of Past Injustice

New hopes emerged with the State and region’s study of an expanded regional rail transit network in the early 2000’s, which identified the US 40 corridor – through west Baltimore and on out to the Social Security Administration complex at the Beltway – as the top priority for the next strategic link in an integrated rail system. Between 2004 and 2006, the state aggressively pursued planning for what would be known as the “Red Line”, attempting to position the project for federal funding under the Federal Transit Administration’s highly competitive New Starts program. Recognizing that the Red Line would undergo intense competition for scarce funding, and that ridership levels –initially at least – in this corridor would be modest, the state planners opted to focus their assessment on the least costly alternatives. Hence, instead of looking at potential Metro-style subway service, with lines tunneled under existing neighborhoods, state leaders made an early decision to favor bus rapid transit (BRT) or possible light rail transit (LRT) running at-surface through the corridor.

88

Even though the State’s planning process for the Red Line was generally touted as “exemplary” in terms of active community involvement, the effort failed to produce a high level of community support for the project. Corridor residents – from West Baltimore through Rosemount and out to Edmondson Village -- feared that the BRT or LRT alternatives, by competing for service street capacity, would simply add to existing traffic congestion and air pollution in the corridor, without providing substantially better service than existing bus routes. The sense that their concerns were not being heard caused many residents, particularly in West Baltimore, to recall the history of the Highway to Nowhere, when countless households were displaced for a project that had no benefit to the community, but rather has been a painful burden that they have had to unfairly bear for almost 40 years, with little prospect of reversal. In partial response to the community’s lack of support, and also in consideration of the reality of needing to demonstrate sufficient benefits to compete for federal funding, a new Governor in 2007 directed that the Red Line studies be suspended until better planning tools and information could be brought forward.

A similar caution has accompanied the State’s recent study of a transit oriented development (TOD) project at the West Baltimore MARC station. The presumed opportunity for the MARC station is a ready market for housing for commuters working in jobs in the Washington DC area, and finding the much lower prices for housing in the Baltimore area worth making the daily commute by MARC commuter rail. An economic infusion in the vicinity of the MARC station – which will also likely be a node for the eventual Red Line – has been viewed by the state and the city as a way to stimulate broader revitalization and investment activity in the West Baltimore area.

However, early planning sessions conducted by MDOT and MTA drew openly negative reactions from the community, largely reflecting the suspicion and apprehension that once again the community would be left out of the decision-making process and have major physical changes imposed upon them by government. In response to the community’s expressed concerns, the state has greatly opened up its planning process for the West Baltimore MARC TOD assessment, by being much more inclusive of the community in its planning. In this case study, the interests of the community are:

To be materially involved and have a voice in the planning and decision-making process; To avoid being victim to another failed or poorly-planned major infrastructure project; To not be displaced from their existing neighborhoods when improvements are

introduced; To not have to bear the burden of traffic, noise and pollution from intra-regional traffic

through their neighborhoods – either private vehicles or at-surface transit alternatives. To see a concerted effort to work with the west Baltimore communities to convert the

Highway to Nowhere section into a redevelopment project that benefits the surrounding community.

89

Investigations

To address these objectives and concerns, the following investigations were recommended:

1. Characteristics of the communities in the HTN/US 40 corridor: Segment into inner, middle, and outer corridor sections Population size, characteristics of each segment Housing condition, availability, home ownership Changes over time

2. Transportation conditions in the corridor: Daily vehicle traffic volumes, congestion levels Transit service and ridership in the corridor Pedestrian environment, walk ability Changes over time

3. Benefits and burdens: Traffic congestion by segment, and origin of vehicle occupants Vehicle emissions Vehicle/pedestrian conflicts, accidents, injuries Changes in transit service (and accessibility) over time Housing prices, vacancies, ownership adjacent to corridor


Demographic Characteristics and Changes

There is little doubt that the US 40/Highway to Nowhere corridor is predominately comprised of minority, low-to-moderate income households, meaning that transportation decisions and impacts in the corridor have Environmental Justice consequences. Figure 23 portrays racial composition in the corridor by Census block group, and indicates that residents within a quarter-mile of US 40 are predominately African-American, comprising 80% or more of block populations. This characteristic extends from the eastern edge of the corridor at MLK Boulevard west through Edmondson Village. Only block 36, located at mid corridor just east of Hilton Parkway, has a racial mix that is not majority African American. Block groups west of Edmondson Village are more likely to be racially mixed, although still predominately African-American.

Figure 24 shows the same blocks with respect to Median Household Income, making it clear that most of the corridor from MLK to Edmondson Village displays incomes under $30,000 per year, climbing to only the $30,000 to $45,000 level after west of Edmondson Village. Clearly, the households residing in the Highway to Nowhere portion of the corridor – West Baltimore -- have the lowest incomes, with most blocks at the eastern end of the “ditch” falling below $15,000 per year.

90

Figure 23: US 40 Corridor Racial Composition

Figure 24: US 40 Corridor Median Household Income

As shown in Table 11, population fell in the corridor between 1990 and 2000, continuing a trend begun back in the 1950’s. The biggest decline was in the Eastern Section that surrounds the Highway to Nowhere segment, where population declined from 28,888 to 18,746, or 35.1%. The mid-section of the corridor, from West Baltimore MARC to Hilton Parkway, lost 7.8% of its population, while the Western Section dropped by 12.1%. According to the US Census, the City of Baltimore’s population overall peaked at 948,708 in 1950, which was the same year that the US 40 corridor (from Lexington Market to Hilton Parkway) peaked at 148,970. During the next 50 years, both populations declined – the City by 31% to 651,154 and the corridor by 62%, to 56,277. The HTN corridor (East Section) declined the most, from 90,255 to 29,803, while the Mid Section dropped 39%, from 33,819 to 20,592. The portion between MLK Boulevard and Lexington Market dropped the most – by 80%, from almost 30,000 to less than 6,000.

Table 11 also confirms that African Americans make up the substantial majority of the racial mix in the corridor, predominately so in the East Section (96%), and only slightly less so in the Mid Section (94%) and West Section (88%). This was not always the composition in the corridor. In the 1950’s, the racial mix was quite balanced in the HTN Eastern Section, with a 69%/31% black/white balance. Meanwhile, the Mid Section between West Baltimore MARC and Hilton Parkway, was only about 2% black. However, between 1940 and 2000, the City of Baltimore’s white population overall fell by 70%, while its black population more than doubled. And in the corridor, the black/white ratio in the HTN East Section went from 69/31 to 96/4 and in the Mid-Section from 2/98 to 94/6. While both blacks and whites moved out of the corridor for a variety of reasons, whites moved out at a faster rate, and found much less resistance when they chose to do so. Meanwhile, the exodus also took out many of the businesses and services that supported this area, further contributing to its subsequent economic and social ill fortunes.

Signs of economic and social distress in the most hard-hit Eastern Section along the Highway to Nowhere include (from Table 11):

Persons over 25 with less than a high school education: 48% (vs. 32% for the City as a whole and 18% for the region)

Unemployment rate: 21% (vs. 10.7% for the City, 5% for the region) Married couple households: 13% (vs. 28% City, 49% region) Non-family households: 48%(vs. 43% city and 33% region) Householders living alone: 41% (vs. 35% city and 26% region)

92

Table 9. Demographic Characteristics of US 40 Corridor (1990 and 2000)

Note: Eastern section extends from MLK Boulevard to Pulaski Street, Middle section from Pulaski to Hilton Parkway, and Western section from Hilton Parkway to Edmondson Village

Person CharacteristicsTotal Population 28,888 18,746 14,304 13,185 26,994 23,736Population/square mile 26,721 17,617 10,013 9,267 12,712 9,704

Male 12,997 45% 8,445 45% 6,432 45% 5,826 44% 12,318 46% 10,425 44%Female 15,891 55% 10,301 55% 7,872 55% 7,359 56% 14,676 54% 13,311 56%

Average Age 32.8 36.2 38 37.9 35.3 37.6

White 670 2% 462 2% 323 2% 713 5% 3,931 15% 2,391 10%Black or African American 27,854 96% 17,909 96% 13,974 98% 12,330 94% 22,834 85% 20,910 88%Asian 304 1% 162 1% 0 0% 75 1% 203 1% 121 1%Other 401 1% 232 1% 210 2% 76 1% 159 1% 315 1%

Persons living in households 28,641 99% 18,482 99% 14,117 99% 13,058 99% 26,939 100% 23,620 100%Persons in group quarters 247 1% 264 1% 187 1% 127 1% 55 0% 116 0%

Persons 15 years or older by Marital Status

21,287 14,334 11,485 9,985 21,287 18,459

Not presently married 11,745 55% 10,640 74% 7,244 63% 6,252 63% 11,745 55% 10,972 59%Now married 9,542 45% 3,694 26% 4,241 37% 3,733 37% 9,542 45% 7,487 41%

Persons 3 years or older by school attendance 27,176 18,037 13,740 12,747 25,702 22,906

In preprimary, elementary or high school 6,746 25% 4,564 25% 2,669 19% 3,347 26% 5,025 20% 5,405 24%In college (undergraduate, graduate or professional school)

1,189 4% 659 4% 571 4% 486 4% 1,513 6% 1,285 6%

Not enrolled in school 19,241 71% 12,814 71% 10,500 76% 8,914 70% 19,164 75% 16,216 71%Public school 7,471 27% 4,867 27% 2,911 21% 3,629 28% 5,532 22% 5,360 23%Private school 464 2% 356 2% 329 2% 204 2% 1,006 4% 1,330 6%

Persons 25 years and over by educational attainment 16,775 11,684 9,355 8,253 17,458 15,532

Less than complete high school 9,525 57% 5,646 48% 4,315 46% 3,334 40% 6,329 36% 4,694 30%High school graduate (includes equivalency) 4,672 28% 3,591 31% 2,810 30% 2,824 34% 5,175 30% 4,482 29%Some college or college degree 2,578 15% 2,447 21% 2,230 24% 2,095 25% 5,954 34% 6,356 41%

Population 16 yrs and over By Employment Status 20,540 13,984 11,260 9,792 20,954 18,169

In Armed Forces 72 0% 17 0% 7 0% 0 0% 112 1% 32 0%Employed 7,769 38% 4,926 35% 5,397 48% 4,262 44% 12,827 61% 9,553 53%Unemployed 1,672 8% 1,326 9% 906 8% 831 8% 1,095 5% 1,363 8%

Civilian participation rate 46.10% 44.80% 56.00% 52.00% 66.80% 60.20%Male participation rate 54.50% 48.30% 60.30% 53.10% 73.00% 63.60%Female participation rate 40.00% 42.10% 52.80% 51.20% 62.00% 57.60%

Unemployment rate 17.70% 21.20% 14.40% 16.30% 7.90% 12.50%Male unemployment rate 19.10% 23.80% 17.40% 18.70% 8.60% 15.50%Female unemployment rate 16.30% 19.00% 11.80% 14.50% 7.20% 10.00%

200020001990 20001990East Section Mid Section West Section

1990

93

Continued…Table 8. Demographic Characteristics of US 40 Corridor (1990 and 2000)

Note: Eastern section extends from MLK Boulevard to Pulaski Street, Middle section from Pulaski to Hilton Parkway, and Western section from Hilton Parkway to Edmondson Village

HouseholdCharacteristics

Total Households 10,495 7,763 4,678 4,688 9,534 9,181Family households 6,092 58% 4,017 52% 3,399 73% 3,283 70% 6,843 72% 5,923 65%Married-couple households 1,365 13% 971 13% 1,581 34% 1,252 27% 3,712 39% 2,990 33%With own children < 18 yrs 549 5% 373 5% 478 10% 424 9% 1,368 14% 1,121 12%Other households 4,727 45% 3,046 39% 1,818 39% 2,031 43% 3,131 33% 2,933 32%Nonfamily households 4,403 42% 3,746 48% 1,279 27% 1,405 30% 2,691 28% 3,258 35%Householder living alone 3,857 37% 3,220 41% 1,139 24% 1,287 27% 2,303 24% 2,787 30%

Persons per household 2.7 2.4 3 2.8 2.8 2.6

Average Income $15,216 $26,048 $33,941Household $17,326 $24,784 $28,318 $34,107 $38,074 $42,774Family $27,906 $29,358 $34,121 $36,595 $46,717 $50,211Non-family $14,270 $17,525 $23,271 $25,267 $27,830 $26,851Median Household Income $10,258 $14,515 $13,511 $25,042 $19,162 $32,869

Percent of persons below thepoverty level 51.70% 43.30% 20.30% 25.50% 13.10% 17.40%

Total Housing Units 12,807 10,973 5,035 5,436 9,903 9,885Vacant 2,198 17% 3,082 28% 242 5% 729 13% 312 3% 688 7%Occupied 10,609 83% 7,891 72% 4,793 95% 4,707 87% 9,591 97% 9,197 93%Owner occupied 1,771 14% 1,599 15% 2,712 54% 2,846 52% 5,395 54% 5,403 55%Renter occupied 8,838 69% 6,292 57% 2,081 41% 1,861 34% 4,196 42% 3,794 38%

Single detached unit 256 2% 317 3% 162 3% 213 4% 811 8% 1,237 13%Multiple unit 12,321 96% 10,647 97% 4,857 96% 5,210 96% 9,075 92% 8,648 87%Mobile home, trailer or other 230 2% 9 0% 16 0% 13 0% 17 0% 0 0%

Average rooms per unit 4.8 5.1 5.8 5.9 5.7 5.7Percent of Housing Units:

With no bedroom 4.20% 4.00% 0.00% 1.00% 2.00% 1.70%With 3 or more bedrooms 43.10% 45.60% 75.60% 75.80% 61.50% 60.90%With kitchen facilities 99.80% 92.50% 99.70% 98.80% 99.90% 98.90%With plumbing facilities 96.20% 93.40% 98.00% 98.80% 98.70% 98.60%

Owner occupied units 1,771 1,599 2,712 2,846 5,395 5,403With a mortgage 726 41% 841 53% 1,167 43% 1,690 59% 3,227 60% 3,621 67%Average owned home value $31,290 $45,728 $36,813 $47,345 $57,076 $79,482Median value of ownedhomes $40,218 $47,677 $67,904Percentage of ownerspaying more than 30% ofincome on home costs

19.90% 24.70% 23.90% 26.20% 15.90% 29.70%

Renter occupied units 838 6,292 2,081 1,861 4,196 3,794Average monthly gross rent $274 $336 $395 $480 $417 $475Median monthly gross rent $325 $508 $494Percentage of renterspaying more than 30% ofincome on rent

48.70% 39.70% 39.50% 44.80% 37.90% 33.30%

West Section20001990

East Section Mid Section1990 2000 20001990

94

Median household income: $14,515 per year (vs. $30,090 city and $49,802 region) Percent of persons below the poverty level: 43.3% (vs. 22.9% city and 9.9% region) Percent of total housing units that are owner occupied: 15% (vs. 43% city and 62% region) Percent of total housing units that are renter occupied: 57% (vs. 43% city and 31% region) Percent of total housing units that are vacant: 28% (vs. 14% city and 7% region) Percent of renters paying more than 30% of their income on rent: 39.7% (vs. 40% city and 35.7%

region) Average value of owned home: $40,218 (vs. $83,247 city and $162,892 region)

The above statistics for unemployment rate, non-family households, householders living alone, and percent of housing units, which are vacant, have all worsened in the HTN portion of the corridor since 1990 where according to the US Census, 1950 was the year that Baltimore City's population peaked at 949,708. This was also the census year in which the Franklin- Mulberry Gash areas (central, west, and east) peaked at 148,970. During the next 50 years, until the 2000 census, both populations declined. The City declined 31% to 651,154. The FM Gash areas declined 62% to 56,227. Thus, taken together, the three FM Gash Areas lost their population at a rate double that of the City as a whole.

Transportation Facilities and Travel in the Corridor

US Route 40 is a major artery that connects downtown Baltimore with the western part of the city and on into Baltimore and Howard Counties to the west. US 40 also passes through the City through East Baltimore as it becomes Pulaski Highway and continues on up through the northeast corridor – parallel to Interstate 95 -- to the Delaware state line. As it passes from the downtown into west Baltimore as Franklin and Mulberry Streets, it passes near Lexington Market, crosses over Martin Luther King Boulevard, and then becomes a 1.4 mile separate expressway section between Franklin and Mulberry, running on its own right of way which is depressed from the surrounding street elevations. As it reaches the West Baltimore MARC station near Pulaski Street, it rejoins the regular street grid, becoming Franklin Street and then Edmondson Avenue until it reaches a junction with Cooks Lane, just before the Baltimore City/County line. From this point, US 40 becomes the Baltimore National Pike and continues west to the Beltway and to Catonsville, while the split northwest at Cooks Lane provides the connection to I-70 west to Howard and Frederick Counties, while also servicing the substantial development at Social Security and Woodlawn.

Figure 25 illustrates the fairly substantial daily traffic volumes carried on this portion of US 40. Readings at Arlington Street along the Highway to Nowhere segment indicate Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) volumes of 36,480 in 2006, up 24% since just 2000. As will be later shown, these volumes are primarily one directional, in the direction of peak commuter traffic flow. However, further west in the corridor, the volumes become more balanced, since substantial traffic is moving both into and out of the city at any given time. Thus, we see that in the vicinity of Edmondson Village (Old Frederick Rd.), AADTs of 59,225 were recorded in 2002, showing similar rates of annual increase as along the HTN section.

95

Figure 25. Traffic Volumes in the US 40 Corridor

As shown in Figure 25, transit service is good in the corridor, with MTA bus routes No. 10 and 40 providing frequent east-west from downtown to Social Security, and various cross-routes providing north-south connection. It is not clear from the information at hand, however, how well the HTN segment in West Baltimore is served, what changes may have occurred in service in recent years, and what impacts those changes have had on ridership.

Several express commuter routes from Howard County enter the city along US 40. There is currently no rail transit service in the corridor, although MARC has a stop at West Baltimore (largely to serve commuters heading west), and the proposed Red Line would occupy or parallel the US 40 right of way along much of its length.

96

Figure 26. Bus Services in the US 40 Corridor

It is also not possible with the information at hand to say anything about pedestrian conditions, travel, or safety in the corridor.

Benefits and Burdens

Travel in the US 40 corridor provokes several questions with regard to environmental justice:

The first is the issue of heavy traffic volumes and associated noise impacts and safety concerns for residents in the corridor and adjacent neighborhoods.

The second issue has to do with the health impacts of this traffic on corridor residents from vehicle emissions and air pollution, which increase in magnitude as traffic volumes and congestion levels increase.

97

A third issue has to do with who is generating this traffic, and hence benefiting from the access provided by the US 40 and Fulton/Monroe highway network.

A fourth issue has to do with the potential additional impact on congestion associated with one or more of the proposed Red Line alternatives. Earlier-favored alternatives involving bus rapid transit or at-grade light rail service would both compete for scarce highway capacity in the corridor and potentially exacerbate congestion, mobility, and health impacts without proportionate benefit to corridor residents.

Congestion

The first issue was investigated through mapping of congestion levels on key routes in the corridor. This was done using BMC’s regional model to depict AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes in the year 2000 and compare them with associated carrying capacities. Because the greatest demand for travel in the corridor is commuter based, the analysis of critical impacts was focused on the weekday peak travel periods. Figures 26 and 27 illustrate the congestion levels along key segment of the corridor during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively, in terms of volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios. This analysis shows relatively little congestion in the Highway to Nowhere segment in either the AM or PM peak, save for the connection between the HTN and Franklin Street when the “expressway” ends. The portion that does show congestion is the section from Hilton Parkway west to Cooks Lane past Edmondson Village, where in the evening peak period the V/C ratios exceed 0.75. It should be noted that the volumes used in this analysis are for year 2000 and would figure to be substantially greater today, given the 24% increase observed along the Highway to Nowhere segment between 2000 and 2006 and similar trends at US 40 and Old Fredrick Road as shown in Figure 24. A 24% increase in volume would most likely put most of these segments currently at V/C levels above 0.75, and hence, reflecting relatively congested traffic conditions.

Given their importance to serving the HTN corridor area, the analysis also examined volume and congestion conditions on Fulton and Monroe Streets, which intersect with the US 40 corridor at the western end of the HTN segment. Fulton is one-way northbound and Monroe is one-way southbound through this area, and serve to connect with Liberty Heights Avenue, Reisterstown Road, and Park Heights Avenue to the northwest, and with US 1, I-95 and MD 295 in the south. Hence, these major arteries bring substantial traffic through the west Baltimore neighborhoods, and also connect up with Mulberry and Franklin Streets, and the Highway to Nowhere. As seen in Figures 25 and 26, Monroe Street is moderately congested in the AM peak and Fulton slightly more congested in the PM peak. Again, allowing for traffic increases since 2000, the current V/C ratios on these facilities are likely to exceed 0.75.

98

Figure 27: 2000 AM Peak Hour Traffic Congestion in the US 40 Corridor

99

Figure 28:2000 PM Peak Hour Traffic Congestion in the US 40 Corridor

100

Air Quality

Emissions impacts from this traffic stream through the HTN have been approximated using information on the daily traffic volumes (Figure 24) and emissions factors borrowed from TRB Special Report 264: The Congestion Management and Air Quality (CMAQ) Program: Assessing 10 years of Experience, using the table on page 293. Given that the length of the HTN segment is 1.4 miles, and AADT volumes measured in 2007 reflect 36,480 vehicles per day, daily VMT plying this section of highway would average 36,480 x 1.4 miles = 51,072. Using the emissions factors from TRB Report 264, the following daily emissions are estimated:

Exhibit 5: : Emission Calculations

HC = 3.26 grams x Vehicle Trips + 0.36 grams x Vehicle Miles Traveled

= (3.26)(36,480) + (0.36)(51,072) = 137,311 grams/day = 0.15 tons/day

NOx = 1.56 grams x Vehicle Trips + 0.71 grams x Vehicle Miles Traveled

= (1.56)(36,480) + (0.71)(51,072) = 93,170 grams/day = 0.103 tons/day

This may not seem like a particularly large amount of pollution until one considers that it is just that pollution produced along just this 1.4-mile segment of the US 40 corridor, and that pollution control measures that reduce a ton of ozone-forming emissions are considered to be highly effective. Consider also that this daily production of emissions works out to 39.2 tons per year of Hydrocarbons (HC) and 26.9 tons per year of NOx. These would seem to be substantial exposure rates for residents in the HTN corridor area. We were not able to calculate Carbon Monoxide emissions or fine particulates (PM 2.5), but would expect them to have similar intensities and also have a much more localized concentration and health impact.

Contribution to Traffic Stream

In terms of the third issue – who is contributing to these traffic volumes and their various impacts – a “select link” analysis was conducted to ascertain the origin and the destination of trips in the corridor. Once again, BMC’s regional travel forecasting model was used to generate the information for this analysis. In such an analysis, a link segment in the highway network is chosen as a representative slice of the corridor. Since the regional travel model “assigns” vehicle trips from origin-destination trip tables to links in the transportation network, it is possible to work backwards in the process to determine where the trips originated and to where they are destined.

For this analysis, the following locations were selected for examination of traffic flow composition:

US 40 at Edmondson Village US 40 at West Baltimore MARC US 40 at MLK Boulevard Fulton and Monroe Streets south of Franklin and Mulberry

The information from this analysis can be viewed in several ways. One way is through a line-density map, such as is pictured in Figures 28 through 31, that reflects through “bandwidth” plots the total volume of traffic in each direction along each highway link segment. By looking at the thickness of the

101

line density at any point it is possible to gauge not only the locations of the greatest flow, but those segments that are contributing most to flow at the given reference point. This makes it possible to visually trace where the predominant flows are coming from and going to. Figures 28 through 31 portray flow conditions for each of the four analysis locations outlined above, with AM and PM conditions depicted for each analysis location.

Another way to view this information is depicted in Figures 32 and 33, which shows in terms of color shading the areas that are contributing the greatest number of trips to the given analysis point. In these diagrams, the "areas” are Regional Planning Districts, or RPDs, which are compilations of a number of smaller Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs). The Baltimore region contains 93 RPDs, plus Externals, including Frederick County, Montgomery County, District of Columbia and Prince George’s County. Not only does this approach give a better visual feel for where the trips on US 40 are coming from or going to, but “Community Profile” information has been prepared by BMC’s Transportation Information Center that relates the social and economic makeup of each RPD using data from the 1990 and 2000 Census. This makes it possible to identify the characteristics of the travelers who are making the trips. Figure 34 provides a map identifying the respective RPDs.

Using these RPD relationships – in tabular format to get actual numbers – the following activity patterns were determined for the various monitoring points:

Exhibit 6: Source of Trip Origins: US 40 @ Edmondson Village – AM Peak, 2000

By RPD By County323 Security (Baltimore Co.) 30.6% Baltimore County 50.4%603 Ellicott City (Howard Co.) 15.4% Howard County 23.0%1000 Frederick County 11.9% Frederick County 11.9%324 Catonsville (Baltimore Co.) 11.8% Carroll County 9.0%800 Montgomery County 4.7% Montgomery County 4.7%

Subtotal 74.4% Subtotal 99.0%

Exhibit 7: Source of Trip Origins: US 40 @ West Baltimore MARC – AM Peak, 2000

By RPD By County116 Rosemont (Baltimore City) 19.3% Baltimore City 38.3%323 Security (Baltimore Co.) 18.5% Baltimore County 28.8%603 Ellicott City (Howard Co.) 10.2% Howard County 15.1%1000 Frederick County 9.2% Frederick County 9.2%114 Ten Hills (Baltimore City) 8.3% Carroll County 5.5%115 Irvington (Baltimore City) 7.4% Montgomery County 3.1%324 Catonsville (Baltimore Co.) 5.6%


102

Exhibit 8: Source of Trip Origins: US 40 @ MLK Boulevard – AM Peak, 2000

By RPD By County323 Security (Howard Co.) 17.7% Baltimore City 42.3%116 Rosemont (Baltimore City) 15.3% Baltimore County 25.4%117 West Baltimore (Balt. City) 11.2% Howard County 15.3%603 Ellicott City (Howard Co.) 10.3% Frederick County 8.9%1000 Frederick County 8.9% Carroll County 5.0%114 Ten Hills (Baltimore City) 7.5% Montgomery County 3.1%115 Irvington (Baltimore City) 7.3%


What these data illustrate is that a substantial amount of the traffic on US 40 – in fact the clear majority –comes from outside Baltimore City, and even from outside the region. Obviously, the closer into downtown Baltimore the measuring point on US 40, the greater the mix of traffic that originates in the City. However, the majority is still generated outside the City.

On the westernmost portion, near Edmondson Village, over half of the traffic during AM peak hour is coming from Baltimore County, and primarily from the Security and Catonsville RPDs. Howard County (primarily Ellicott City, Laurel and Columbia) contributes 23%, and a surprisingly large share, 11.9%, comes all the way from Frederick County via I-70. In the center section, near West Baltimore MARC, the balance begins to shift, to where the largest share originates in Baltimore City (38.3%), but 28.8% still comes from Baltimore County, 15.1% from Howard County, and 9.2% from Frederick County. And on the final eastern segment, at MLK Boulevard, the share of trips beginning in the City increases to 42.3%, but the majority is still from outside the City. Knowing the principal RPDs from which these trips are being generated, it is possible to examine the socioeconomic makeup of the travelers. This assessment reveals the following:

Exhibit 9: Percentage African American Population and Median Family Income

RPD Location Pct. African American Median Family Income603 Ellicott City (Howard County) 7.1% $90,477324 Catonsville (Baltimore County) 13.4% $63,944323 Security (Baltimore County) 42.9% $59,090114 Ten Hills (Baltimore City) 81.4% $44,790115 Irvington (Baltimore City) 89.5% $35,162116 Rosemont (Baltimore City) 90.8% $25,507117 West Baltimore (Baltimore City) 96.0%* $22,984

* African American share for entire West Baltimore RPD is 84%; however, the portion of West Baltimore most associated with the US 40/HTN corridor measures 96%

So in other words, the principal populations that are using the US 40 corridor are of a very different socioeconomic mix than those living in the corridor. Statistics are not available for Frederick County since it is not monitored by BMC as an RPD, but it would be expected to be similar to Ellicott City in composition.opportunities.

103

Figure 29. Select Link Traffic FlowMap – US 40 @ Edmondson Village, AM Peak and PM Peak – 2000

104

Figure 30: Select Link Traffic Flow Map – US 40 @ W. Baltimore MARC, AM Peak and PM Peak – 2000

105

Figure 31: Select Link Traffic Flow Map – US 40 @ MLK Boulevard, AM and PM Peak - 2000

106

Figure 32. Select Link Traffic Flow Map – Fulton & Monroe Streets @ US 40, AM and PM Peak – 2000

Draft Task 4 Memorandum: Analysis Approach 107

Figure 33: Productions and Attractions by RPD Affecting Volumes on Village, AM Peak - 2000 Figure 34: Productions and Attractions by RPD US 40 @ Edmondson Affecting Volumes on Fulton and Monroe Streets @ US 40, AM Peak - 2000

108

Figure 35. Baltimore Regional Planning Districts (RPDs)

109

The traffic character of the principal north-south arteries through the Highway to Nowhere corridor is quite different from that of US 40. First, its users are a much more diffuse group. As the table below illustrates, identifying the top 6 RPDs either producing trips in the Fulton-Monroe corridor or serving as destinations accounts for only 66.4% and 60.2% of all trips in the AM Peak Hour, whereas the same analysis in the US 40 corridor yielded 75% to 80%. The other difference is that the major origins of trips in the Fulton-Monroe corridor are Baltimore City residents, not commuters from outside the city.

Exhibit 10: Major Trip Origins & Destinations by RPD: Fulton and Monroe Streets @ US 40 – AM Peak, 2000

Origins Destinations117 West Baltimore (Balt. City) 21.5% 117 West Baltimore (Balt. City) 17.3%116 Rosemont (Baltimore City) 13.5% 122 Morrell Park (Baltimore City) 10.0%108 Lower Park Hts. (Baltimore City) 11.3% 123 Carroll Park (Baltimore City) 9.0%109 Druid Hill (Baltimore City) 10.0% 325 Arbutus/Lansdowne (Baltimore Co.) 9.0%101 Upper Park Hts. (Baltimore City) 5.1% 125 Cherry Hill (Baltimore City) 7.9%107 Forest Park (Baltimore City) 5.0% 116 Rosemont (Baltimore City) 6.9%


This relationship is further borne out in the table below, which shows that 81.3% of all trips originating in the AM peak hour in the Fulton/Monroe corridor are by Baltimore City residents, vs. only 16.5% from Baltimore County, and only 2.2% from everywhere else. Baltimore City is also the primary destination, accounting for 57.5% of all trips, although a substantial amount is directed to Anne Arundel County, principally to places like Glenn Burnie, Brooklyn Heights, and Friendship. However, for the most part, what this indicates is that the Fulton-Monroe corridor primarily serves the travel needs of City residents, and not outside commuters.

Exhibit 11: Major Trip Origins & Destinations by County: Fulton and Monroe Streets @ US 40 – AM Peak, 2000

Origins DestinationsBaltimore City 81.3% Baltimore City 57.5%Anne Arundel County 0% Anne Arundel County 20.1%Baltimore County 16.5% Baltimore County 11.6%Carroll County 1.1% Carroll County 0%Harford 0.3% Harford 0%Howard County 0.3% Howard County 4.8%Outside Region 0.5% Outside Region 6.0%



History leaves little doubt that the communities in the West Baltimore neighborhood adjacent to US 40 and the Highway to Nowhere have had a tough time of it. The area has always been a moderate income, working class community without substantial political voice, and has always been racially mixed, with substantial minority populations. The area was ripe for dissatisfaction and unrest in the 1960’s, and this dissatisfaction was easily kindled to outcry by the traumatic spark of the Martin Luther King assassination in 1968. Even before this spark, however, beginning in the 1950’s,

110

powerful forces were already planning a “modern” highway corridor into the city from the west, driven by national trends in suburban migration and massive federal investment in the interstate highway system. Baltimore’s own City Council enacted property condemnation ordinances in the mid-1960’s to authorize the taking of houses and property along the 15-mile proposed route. While protest from more affluent, politically connected, and well-organized communities caused the original expressway route to be changed, the portion along Franklin-Mulberry remained on the plans. And, between 1975 and 1979, the massive 1.4 mile trench was excavated and the visionary expressway was built and opened to traffic. Of course, the rest of the highway was never built, making the 1.4 mile segment through west Baltimore a true “highway to nowhere”, that stands as a bold testimony to “planning gone wrong” and public tax dollars wasted on a facility that destroyed African American neighborhoods and dislocated several its thousand residents. In its wake lay African American homeowners and communities struggling to sustain perhaps a proud past.

So it is that today, almost 30 years after the fact, the “ditch” still stands as a monument to how a community could be destroyed in the name of progress, with no real effort in those 30 years to try to compensate for that ill-conceived notion. The area continues to be a hot spot for drugs and crime, despite the fact that many long-time residents remain committed to living there and making the community work. The blight stands in marked contrast to the economic renewal occurring just to the east at the University of Maryland Baltimore Campus medical complex. Perhaps eventually the economic growth forces will reach west across MLK Boulevard, supported by a possible new Red Line transit service, and renewal will at last come to the neighborhoods around the “ditch”. Then, however, the community’s major concern will be that “progress” will finally push them out, extinguishing their 30+ year vigilance in trying to rescue their community.

What is clearly needed here is a bona-fide community planning effort, such as being attempted now in connection with the West Baltimore MARC TOD study at the western edge of the ditch. And the justification is well based in the principles of environmental justice. This community, like many others around the country before our eventual awareness, was simply cast aside in the name of “urban renewal”. It was convenient – and much money and legal authority was provided – to plow over older communities, most populated by lower-income and minority households. The hope was that if you knocked it down, new growth would take its place; at a minimum, the old and blighted and undesirable was removed from sight, and sent somewhere else to be someone else’s problem. Of course, that did not happen, and many of these households ended up in public housing complexes with their attendant social ills, and the razed blocks remained as empty debris fields, except in the most economically progressive cities.

The traffic that traverses the US 40 corridor and passes through the 1.4-mile HTN segment is substantially commuters accessing jobs in the City of Baltimore from locations outside the city –Baltimore County, Howard County, Frederick County and even Montgomery County. These travelers have the benefit of access, while the surrounding residents bear the burden of more than 36,000 vehicles per day passing through their community, generating an estimated ¼ ton of ozone-producing pollutants each day. Moreover, this traffic stream is growing each year – daily volumes have increased by 24.5% since only the year 2000. This is a disproportionate burden that is borne by this predominately low-income, minority community, and it has been borne for almost 30 years. The principles of environmental justice demand that a significant effort on the part of the City, state and federal government be made to comprehensively address this imbalance.

111

Section 5: Summary

In summary the case studies findings confirm but not necessarily prove the community perception that that there has been an environmental injustice. As such, it is important to understand the process that the project used to arrive at the results for each of case study were foremost driven by:issues identified at the community level, the desire to provide a systematic process for identifying the feasibility of EJ issues and then the evaluation of those issues.

The primary purpose of this report has not been to dwell on the process of issues selection but rather the process issues verification. We accomplish this endeavor by providing a quantitative analysis for the issues raised during the Phase I listening sessions, confirmed at the Phase I Community Dialogue and reconfirmed at the and reconfirmed during the Phase II workshops. To address these issues a mix of procedures were chosen from a store of traditional issues found NCHRP Report 523 and reported in measures of impact and analytical sections of this report.

Documents

EJTK Technical Documentation