You are on page 1of 82

DRAFT

12/31/2008

Transportation Equity Cooperative Research Program

Environmental Justice and Transportation Toolkit, Volume 2

Submitted to

Monica McCallum
Equal Opportunity Specialist, Region 10
Office of Civil Rights
Federal Transit Administration
915 Second Ave, Suite 3142
Seattle, WA 98174

Submitted by

Glenn Robinson, Project Director


Principal Investigator

School of Engineering and Institute for Urban Research


Morgan State University
Report No. Government Accession No. Recipient’ Catalog No.
#20.514 TBA
Title and Subtitle Report Date
Baltimore Region Environmental Justice and December 2008
Transportation Project
Authors: Glenn Robinson et. al Performing Organization Code
Performing Organization Name and Address Performing Organization Report No.
School of Engineering and Institute For Urban Research
Morgan State University, 1700 E. Cold Spring Lane
Baltimore, Maryland 21251
Sponsoring Agency Name and Address Work Unit No. (TRAIS)
Monica McCallum
Equal Opportunity Specialist, Region 10 TBA
Office of Civil Rights
Federal Transit Administration
915 Second Ave, Suite 3142
Seattle, WA 98174
Supplement Notes: Project Officer Monica McMillan Contract or Grant No.
MD -26-8001-01
Abstract
This final report contains the completed EJT Tool Kit. It takes the form of a guide whose function is to
provide clarity to practitioners on how to identify, understand and approach environmental justice issues at
all levels. Like the Community Guide, Toolkit and Technical Documentation found on the
http://www.brejtp.org website this final report will endeavor to quickly educate the user in the nature of
the issues, orienting them to the key regulatory requirements guiding EJ, a synopsis of how the
requirements have been responded to, characterization of good vs. deficient responses, and general
instructions on how to use and benefit from the Tool Kit. Following the general structure of the EJT
framework, major sections in this manual include:

 A categorization and discussion of EJT issues;


 Orientation to public outreach strategies
 Institutional factors and alternative approaches to deal with EJT
 A guide to applicable analytical tools and procedures, including measures of performance and tradeoff
analysis
 Work sheets, directions and look up guides to support application of an EJT analysis using the Tool Kit
Dissemination will be by Internet, print media, TRB, publications, on project sponsor, team member, and
various interest groups’ websites, with links to downloadable .pdf versions for users to copy. Products will
also be disseminated through the GBUL affiliates network, Environmental Health Centers and the
Transportation Advocacy Networks. Our intent is to: Better identify and address EJ issues using the
enhanced community involvement and technical analysis procedures and techniques in the EJ &
Transportation Toolkit, which is fully integrated into Baltimore’s regional transportation planning.
Key Words Baltimore Region Environmental Distribution Statement Type of Report and Period
Justice and Transportation Project (BREJT) Interim Report Covered Final Report
Security Classification of this report Security Classification of this page No of Pages
Unclassified (NA) Unclassified (NA) 82

4
Research Team

Glenn Robinson, Morgan State University, School of Engineering and Institute for Urban
Research
Aaron Golub, Arizona State University
Tim Buckley, OHU, Department of Environmental Health Studies
Brendan Nee, IT
Yohannes Hailu, Michigan State University, Land Policy Institute
Jackie Grinshaw, Center for Neighborhood Technology

National Experts

Center for Community Change, Rich Stolz


Smart Growth of America, Don Chen
University of Utah, Tom Sanchez
Transportation Equity Network, Laura Barrett

Outreach Team

Wallace Watson, PIIN


Sarah Mullin, Isaiah
Pamela Hardway, Moses
Lisa, Hussain, Urban Habitat

Acknowledgements

Baltimore Region Environmental Justice and Transportation Project Team and the Low
Income and Minority Communities of Baltimore

Disclaimer

The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the
Transportation Equity Cooperative Research Program project team who are responsible for the
facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. This report does not constitute a standard,
specification, or regulation.

5
Table of Contents
Disclaimer ......................................................................................................................................5
Introduction .................................................................................................................................8
Goals .....................................................................................................................................9
Application and Objectives .............................................................................................10
Lessons Learned ................................................................................................................10
Need for Additional EJ Analysis Tools..........................................................................12
Approach............................................................................................................................13
Hypothesis .........................................................................................................................14
Analysis Framework: Public Participation, Accessibility and Public Health ..................14
Environmental Justice Impact Analysis.................................................................................16
Phase 1 - Community-Driven Intergovernmental Engagement and ............................16
Cooperation - I-95 Corridor Community Voices..........................................................16
Issues...................................................................................................................................17
Phase 2 - Community Assessment and Citizen Input Investigations (Identify the
Local Problems) .....................................................................................................................17
Resident’s Concerns..........................................................................................................17
Phase 3 - Information Gathering and Analysis (Due Diligence)....................................18
Phase 4 - Developing a Community Profile (Analytical) Mapping Analysis ..............18
Phase 5 - Drill Down to Evaluate the EJT Issues (Evaluation) .......................................28
Accessibility Calculator........................................................................................................28
Motivation..........................................................................................................................28
Accessibility Calculator Structure ..................................................................................29
Data Requirements ...........................................................................................................30
Basic Accessibility Calculation........................................................................................30
Accessibility for Particular Neighborhood (TAZ ‘I’) ...................................................31
Analyzing a Selection of Neighborhoods by Characteristics ..............................................35
Assessing Low Income and Minority Travel Behavior ...................................................39
Motivation..........................................................................................................................39
Methodology......................................................................................................................40
Results: Sample Report ....................................................................................................43
Public Health Rationale as a Transportation Decision-Making Factor .........................44
Background and Rationale ..............................................................................................45
Assessing Transportation-Related Health Risk in Baltimore, Maryland..................47
Data .....................................................................................................................................47
Methodology......................................................................................................................47
Results.................................................................................................................................49
Discussion ..........................................................................................................................54
Vehicle Miles of Travel Drill-down Analysis....................................................................54
Understanding VMT – What Influences VMT Trends ................................................56
VMT Reduction – Econometric Model...........................................................................57
6
Steps Followed to Generate Estimations (Results).......................................................57
Regional Impact Analysis ....................................................................................................58
Low Income and Minority Community Area Analysis ..............................................60
I-95 Corridor Analysis......................................................................................................69
Summary ............................................................................................................................73
Phase 6 - Being Heard (Communicating) Policy Implications .......................................74
Conclusions................................................................................................................................76

Appendix 1: Bottom up Categorization and Discussion of EJT Issues .............................77


Appendix 2: Performance Measures, Analytic Tools, and Distributive Impacts ............82
Appendix 3: Look Up Guide to Support Application of an EJT Analysis........................83

Figures

Figure 1: Cherry Hill Community/Land Cover (2000) .......................................................19


Figure 2 Overall structure of accessibility calculator and interface...................................30
Figure 3 Basic Accessibility Analysis Calculation................................................................31
Figure 4. Menu to select specific neighborhood for analysis..............................................32
Figure 5 Example output from specific neighborhood analysis ........................................33
Figure 6 Tabular output for particular neighborhood accessibility analysis ...................34
Figure 7 Output for analysis of neighborhoods with at least 40% African-American
households .................................................................................................................................37
Figure 8: Table of accessibility to “Manufacturing” jobs for neighborhoods with at least
40% African-American households........................................................................................38
Figure 9 Table of accessibility to “Manufacturing” jobs for neighborhoods with at least
50% households with incomes below 200% federal poverty line ......................................39
Figure 10 Personal Information Entry Page ..........................................................................43
Figure 11 Underserved Comunities .......................................................................................45
Figure 12. Risk index applied to Cherry Hill .......................................................................49
Figure 13 Risk index applied to Federal Hill .......................................................................50
Figure 14. Risk index applied to Kirk Ave ...........................................................................51
Figure 15. Risk Index applied to "Hightway to Nowhere..................................................52
Figure 16. Scatter plot of vehicle miles within 200 feet of Baltimore residences in
relation to median household income. ..................................................................................53
Figure 17. Scatter plot of ordinal transformation of transportation and socio economic
status indicators for Baltimore households...........................................................................53

Illustrations

Illustration 1: I-95 Corridor Transit Access ...........................................................................22


Illustration 2: African Americans and Hispanic/Latino Communities ........................................23
Illustration 3: Median Household Income and Household Density .................................24
Illustration 4: Change Median Household Income and Number of Office Workers......25
7
Illustration 5: Change in Other Workers and Population ...................................................26
Illustration 6: Change in Worker Density and Total Number of Workers .......................27

Tables

Table 1: EJ Impact Analysis Tools...........................................................................................10


Table 2: Lessons Learned..........................................................................................................12
Table 3: I-95 EJ Impact Analysis Tools....................................................................................12
Table 4 : Major Low Income Low Income and Minority Issue...........................................15
Table 5: Typical Demographic Profile for I-95 Low Income Residents, 1990 and 2000..20
Table 6 Sample report that pulls profile and trip data from the database .......................44
Table 7: Total Vehicle Miles Traveled ........................................................................................54
Table 8: Baltimore Area VMT and Emission Summary by Functional Class.............................55
Table 9: Regional Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis .............................................................59
Table 10 Regional Analysis with Income Classes.................................................................60
Table 11: All Case Study Areas vs. Region............................................................................61
Table 12: Cherry Hill Study Area Growth Patterns .............................................................62
Table 13 Econometric Analysis Results for Cherry Hill ......................................................62
Table 14 Kirk Ave. Bus Depot Study Area Growth patterns:.............................................63
Table 15 Econometric Analysis for Kirk Ave ........................................................................64
Table 16: Lexington Market Study Area Growth Patterns..................................................65
Table 17 Econometric Analysis for Lexington Market ........................................................65
Table 18: Highway-to-Nowhere Study Area Growth Patterns ..........................................67
Table 19 Econometric Analysis Lexington Market ..............................................................67
Table 20: Sensitivity Analysis Changes in Socioeconomic Factors on VMT (2005-2030)69
Table 21: Regression Results – I-95 Corridor ........................................................................70
Table 22: I-95 Corridor Study Area Growth Patters ............................................................71
Table 23: Measuring Equity.....................................................................................................83
Table 24: Performance Measures by Planning Goal Area...................................................84

8
Introduction
The purpose of this project is to use the lessons learned in the BREJT project to incrementally
advance public participation in the field of transportation where the literature speaks clearly
with examples of low income and minority, urban and rural neighborhoods that were once
viable but are now unstable losing population and suffering declining land values. In some
cases development pressures take advantage of disadvantaged neighborhood vulnerabilities
and often result in pressures that lead to abandonment, dismay and gentrification.
Underserved population groups seek ways to create healthier living environments see
environmental justice planning as an opportunity to address what they perceive to be a lack of
universally accepted definitions and procedures for analysis and evaluation of local issues.
That the fuzzy nature of the existing environmental justice law that weakens rather than
strengthens environmental justice’s mitigation through enforceable regulations is confirmed by
the “Environmental Justice Law Handbook” which cites that legal outcomes have been mixed
and notes that it has only been since 1997 that plaintiffs began winning environmental justice
cases, which did not require proof of intent.

Prior to 1997 proof of intent was an absolute requirement. As a result of changing legal rulings
and in an genuine effort to improve the public participation process planning organizations
who are obliged to treat EJ communities equally in terms of affording them meaningful public
participation opportunities and ensure that they have opportunities equal to those of the most
“important” stakeholders. Federal regulations recognize that planning organizations must
give EJ communities extra assistance to take full advantage of opportunities for meaningful
participation.

Goals
The overall goal of the Transportation Cooperative Equity Research Project (TCERP) project is
to apply and build upon the Baltimore Region Environmental Justice and Transportation
platform, to incrementally advance the integration of Environmental Justice into metropolitan
planning process and develop a second volume EJT Toolkit that has a focus on helping
communities and their planning agents better understand the impact of public health,
transportation accessibility and travel demand on Low income and minority communities.
And in doing so we seek, to validate and broaden a wider range of tools for finding solutions
to EJT issues and problems. Achieving these goals will provide additions to the family of
procedures and applications used in the Baltimore Region Environmental Justice and
Transportation Project and enable the user to:
 Extend the voice of the community into the planning process through collaboration rather
than agitation;
 Demonstrate the use of analytical for identifying and evaluating EJ considerations in the
planning process;
 Provide planners, community representatives and decision-makers with better
performance variables to measures consequences and tradeoffs when evaluating
alternative impacts; and
 Reinforce the need to establish an institutional structure with appropriate authority and
expertise to ensure objective review and response to important EJ issues.

9
Application and Objectives

In developing this 2nd Volume of an Environmental Justice Toolkit the Baltimore Region
Environmental Justice and Transportation (BREJT) Project Toolkit is applied using the I-95
corridor as the case study example. This is done in support of the TCERP projects key objective
of reapplying the toolkit in Baltimore, independent of the Baltimore Metropolitan Councils
participation, to obtain feedback on the functionality of the Toolkit, whether it is useful, and
ways it should be enhanced and improved. In doing so this project advances the primary goal of
being responsive to the concerns raised by the community in Phase I of the BREJT project,
work earnestly toward identifying reasonable solutions, gain sufficient experience and insight in
trying to address these concerns and create a toolkit, for use by others locally or nationally.
These objectives will be accomplished through a coordinated set of eight work tasks that are
designed to look at two levels of Problems – ones that exist, and ones that arise because of some
new project or policy that is proposed. Within each level, the following kinds of impacts would
be examined – air pollution/health; accessibility to jobs; policy effects; and other costs and
burdens that the minority community may disproportionately result from transportation services
and policies.

Lessons Learned

The development of this toolkit is based several notions. They are: 1) low income and minority
communities are still in need of effective channels for working within the “system”, 2) finding
solutions to issues that are central and urgent to the tenants of environmental justice promotes
a better a better understanding of the decision making process facilitates public participation
and leads to change, 3) the resolution of EJ issues will involve an intertwined and iterative
analysis process that focuses on collaboration rather than agitation and 4) that the complexity
of equity impact analysis overlaps with and is dependant on a complexity of the intertwined
issue off ecology, housing, public health and governance. Table 1 illustrates the mix of
analytical tools used to frame and evaluate the EJ impact analysis of issues used in the BREJT
Project and to guide the development of this toolkit.

Table 1: EJ Impact Analysis Tools

Kirk Ave
Community meetings, listening sessions, diary of concerns, chart bus pullouts, demographic
data, Evaluate, take noise air pollution readings and map homeownership and housing sales data.
Cherry Hill
Community meetings, listening sessions, map population, housing, transit and employment
statistics
Lexington Market
Community meetings, Measure vehicle and pedestrian traffic volumes, Evaluate changes to
travel time, Pedestrian counts
Highway to Nowhere
Community meetings Map congestion levels and travel forecast trips, Chart block census data,
Select link analysis
10
The tools used in the BREJT project four previous case studies, MTA Bus Depot, Cherry Hill,
Lexington Market and Highway to Nowhere combine lessons learned and several levels of
analysis techniques to demonstrate how issues associated with EJT issues can be systematically
evaluated using a store of traditional transportation planning impact measures and analytical
tools.

As such, in the Kirk Ave. case study the MTA Bus Depot concerns focus on the location and
operation of a bus depot in an older, inner-city working-class neighborhood along Kirk
Avenue.

The Cherry Hill case study evaluates a history of public transit service changes, reductions and
poor service delivery in a predominately African American, and low-income community with
a large number of residents who living in public housing.

While the Lexington Market case study analyzes the reaction to changes in transit service in an
historic shopping destination frequented by lower-income residents from surrounding
communities in central Baltimore.

The Highway to Nowhere studies the concerns 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 partially
abandoned I-170 which divided West Baltimore in the 1960s. Important lessons were learned
from using the above tools to evaluate the concerns of local residents, low income African
Americans, transit dependant populations and community leaders in the BREJT project. The
key lessons (Table 3) from the BREJT project informed the formulation of a fifth case study (I-
95 Corridor)

11
Table 2: Lessons Learned

•In these communities we found a common desire for a better living environment, a more
responsive government, and the demise of blight and decay
•The clear message that when individuals, neighborhoods and communities are motivated, well
organized, and better educated on transportation issues and improvement options a sense of
community ownership is created that can better influence project selection outcomes that reinforce
regional growth with healthier neighborhoods and stable communities
•That Environmental Justice Analysis informs the transportation planning process through the
introduction of a community based public participation framework that encourages low income
and minority communities to use performance measures and analytical tools
•That when used together by community organizers and planning professionals can result
in a more equitable way of assessing environmental justice and transportation issues
•That the low-income neighborhoods communities and the transportation maintenance
facilities they attract may need better protections to ensure equitable treatment
•Busses traveling through communities and passing near schools increase noise and exhaust
pollution. Further decreases property value leading to vacant homes that disenfranchises.
•Thirty years after the Highway to Now-where was constructed there is still a community memory
of the destruction and a palpable bitterness about what was done
•The public rightly felt that it had been marginalized by the decision-making process, and that
commercial interests (such as a parking lot adjacent to the Market) were given preference over
there well being. 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
•Light rail is too far away from community leading to difficulty of access for business, workers and
community use in general and it is difficulty for seniors and disabled populations to obtain access
to light rail station. Seniors have difficulty riding certain buses due to over- crowding.
•Planning tools are not fully employed to evaluate EJ issues
•Low Income Residents have a higher incidence of congested related illness

Table 3: I-95 EJ Impact Analysis Tools

I-95 Corridor
Community meetings, Listening sessions, map population, housing, transit and employment
statistics and conduct analysis of vehicle miles traveled

Need for Additional EJ Analysis Tools

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. Having completed the Baltimore Region Environmental Justice and
Transportation Project Toolkit (go to http://www.brejtp.org), this proposal presents our plan
for developing some Practical Approaches for Involving Traditionally Underserved
12
Populations in Transportation Decision Making (PAIUP). The case studies findings confirm
but not necessarily prove the community perception that that there has been an environmental
injustice. As a result of that analysis we concluded the need for a better defined approach to
tradeoff analysis to support informed dialogue and decision making.

Approach

This project is guided by using the six phases shown below to tease out what happened, who
was involved and what the community wants. Using this drill down process we focus on the
transportation impacts of public health, accessibility and travel demand on low income and
minority communities to move community based EJ concern toward a solution. Each phase
used in this approach is meant to be inclusive of both the EJ communities and the
transportation agency of responsibility.

Phase 1 - Community-Driven Intergovernmental Engagement and Cooperation


Phase 2 - Community Assessment and Citizen Input (Identify the Local Problems)
Phase 3 - Information Gathering and Analysis (Due Diligence)
Phase 4 - Developing a Community Profile (Analytical)
Phase 5 - Drill Down to Evaluate the EJT Issues (Evaluation)
Phase 6 - Being Heard (Communicating)

The above phases are a result of the BREJT project’s listening sessions and community
dialogue where over 120 individuals participated in an all-day workshop to share perceptions
with elected officials, national experts, and academic specialists. Members of the region’s
minority and low-income communities were particularly engaged in this neighborhood and
regional dialogue to gain input on the wide range of concerns that have environmental justice
implications.

The concerns expressed in the Community Voices, Section of this toolkit were used to define
the technical approach for analyzing the I-95 corridor environmental justice and transportation
impacts. The technical approach is designed to be compliant approach developed in the BREJT
project and expand the mix of tools for evaluating the range of EJ issues that were identified in
the BREJT project and range from the quality of bus service in poor neighborhoods (e.g.,
Cherry Hill) to exposure to transportation pollution (East Baltimore), traffic congestion
(Annapolis, Md.), and to overall patterns in regional transportation funding. Each of these
compelling issues were studied in detail because of there importance to the community, the
multiple dimensions to the problem, and the fact that the community had not found a way to
extend their voices into the planning decision making process to find acceptable solutions.

As well the accessibility calculator and travel diary is presented as tools that support
Environmental Justice analysis, evaluation and issue resolution.

13
Hypothesis

As a companion to the initial case studies the e I-95 corridors case study broadens the scope of
analysis by addressing the impact of future growth and offers an opportunity to add to the
collective experience by broadening the range of EJ issues studied in BREJT. The impact area
for Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission (BRAC) is the county of Harford,
Howard, Ann Arundel and Baltimore City. Within the impact zone of Aberdeen and Fort
Mead are low income and minority sub populations of Middle Branch, Cherry Hill and
Westport as well as other middle class communities. The hypotheses upon which this research
study is based are as follows:

 Low income and minority households concentrated in central-city Baltimore future


access to jobs, education and will challenged by regional growth and development.

 The public health risk of low income and minority residents n Baltimore is negatively
impacted by proximity to traffic congestion.

 The majority of jobs created by BRAC will be located outside the central city, and will
be less accessible for the transit dependant.

 In some cases development pressures take advantage of disadvantaged neighborhood


vulnerabilities and often result in pressures that lead to abandonment, dismay and
gentrification.

 Underserved population groups seek ways to create healthier living environments see
environmental justice planning as an opportunity to address what they perceive to be a
lack of universally accepted definitions and procedures for analysis and evaluation of
local issues.

Analysis Framework: Public Participation, Accessibility and Public


Health
The community voices described above is used to help develop the public participation
framework model presented below in the next section and is one of three core environmental
justice-planning components. The other two components are performance measures and
analytical tools. These components combine to provide environmental justice evaluation
methods and procedures that may be used to confirm or negate issues identified in low-income
communities. In particular the public participation framework is designed as the starting point
for vetting issues and developing analysis strategies for interrogating environmental justice
and transportation issues through a triage-type activity that has multiple screening levels and
explicit feedback loops.

The feedback from various experts and our sponsors in the Baltimore Region Environmental
Justice and Transportation was that a credible, systematic, comprehensive approach to address
Transportation Decision Making in transportation had not yet been developed. Based on this
feedback and an extensive literature review, we concurred that this goal had not yet been
14
realized. As a companion to the above vision we prepare this proposal to expand the
identification of effective practical approaches for involving underserved population in the
transportation decision-making process as a sequel doc to:

 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
 Baltimore Region Environmental Justice and Transportation Project
 Transportation Equity Cooperative Research Program

In laying a framework to quantify the measures of impact we consider more than one approach
in investigating a given issue as well as accessibility and public health risk factors, in order to
appraise the tradeoff between difficulty of application vs. accuracy of the response, for planning
purposes. These measures were selected using the criteria that: realistically reflect the central
concerns, may be used to measure and compare both current/unaltered conditions with solution
alternatives, can support enlightened dialogue on EJ topics, lead to resolution; and are based on
the results from community dialogue held in Baltimore, Pittsburg, Meaneapolis, Oakland and
Detrioit. Chart 1 demonstrate the importance of identifying and framing community issues.
The issues described below were framed by four groups of low income and minority
community participants. Approximately 100 issues were categorized into twelve major
categories (Figure 1).

Table 4 : Major Low Income Low Income and Minority Issue

M ajor Conce rns By Group

20
18
16 Group 4
14
12 Group 3
10
8 Group 2
6
4 Group 1
2
0
ts
re

ne

s
s

ce
in

al lity
lth ess

ut
nt ing

er
en
es

tu

io
tio

np

on
an

riv
od ibi

m
cc

uc

at
M und
ea cc
llu

C
I
en

D
rm

rm ss

l
A

tr

lic
A

i
A
po

us
F

e
fo

ub
b

ry
In Acc
te
Jo

ai

B
In
ir

to
P
A

ou

e
ra
H

ud
R

te

pi

R
es
R

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
15
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 TCERP
project speak to this breadth of coverage and specificity that will be 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 will attempt to provide its users with the ability to identify
the most appropriate measures and analyses to address a particular issue. Thus, the
simultaneous development of the measures of performance along with the analytic tool
options in the context of addressing specific issues in a case study context is the preferred
vehicle for understanding the salient impacts of environmental justice issues.
Environmental Justice Impact Analysis

Phase 1 - Community-Driven Intergovernmental Engagement and

Cooperation - I-95 Corridor Community Voices

16
For the 2007 – 2008 period community meetings were was called by the BCDP and the Cherry
Hill Trust members with community residents. The meeting participants provided written
comments to the BCDP on the draft of the Middle Branch Master Plan, rezoning issues and the
finalization of the Cherry Hill Master Plan.

Issues

There primary concerns are listed below:

Middle Branch Master Plan proposal


Notice of the Cherry Hill Master Plan submittal deadline
Area Rezoning
What will be the impact of the projected growth impact traffic congestion?
What additional transportation services will be needed?
How will other low income and minority communities be impacted?
Will transportation accessibility be improved?
What are the potential direct/indirect impacts on the Cherry Hill community?

Phase 2 - Community Assessment and Citizen Input Investigations


(Identify the Local Problems)

Resident’s Concerns

In response to the Middle Branch Master Plan, the community noted its intention to review the
plan and tailor its master plan accordingly. The participants rejected the deadline date to
complete its master plan. The BCDP noted a future date to meet with the community to extend
the community’s input and support. The Cherry Hill Trust and the community residents
agreed to meet immediately to formulate a plan to take before the Planning Commission on the
rezoning issue (BREJT, research assistant, 2007).

Where will the workers come from to fill these jobs, what are their socioeconomic
characteristics, and what travel time/cost burden will they have to bear to commute to the
corridor? Is there sufficient current or committed transportation capacity to support this level
of development and the anticipated travel patterns? What level of new investment will be
needed to maintain adequate levels of service? What was the planning and programming
process that led to the regional decision to support this growth concept in the regional long-
range plan and the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)? What planning discussions
and provisions have occurred to either provide housing and transportation to meet these
future worker needs and/or what concurrent plans/investments have been considered to
encourage new job creation nearer to the lower-income/minority worker base? How was
access to jobs by minority/low-income workers addressed by this plan?

17
Phase 3 - Information Gathering and Analysis (Due Diligence)

The BCDP hosted a meeting to elicit community comments for the Cherry Hill Master Plan and
the community’s Capital Budget Program. This collaborative task force meeting held in
partnership with the Cherry Hill Trust organization presented viewpoints and ideas with the
community perspective to the forefront. The Cherry Hill Master Plan is a working document
with the BCDP as an active partner in the development and implementation of the plan
(BREJT, research assistant, 2007). The Cherry Hill community voiced disappointment of the
lack of information provided prior the meeting. The rezoning issued was only handled with
the participants of the Middle Branch community. The participants agreed to meet later to
brain-storm a strategy to take before the Planning Commission on the appointed date (BREJT,
research assistant, 2007).

Short term recommendations by the community were made and put into the budget to address
excessive loitering in front of the community’s Town Center area. Further, the BCDP provided
funding for the distribution of fliers for community safety initiatives, and for the efforts of
promoting shopping in the Town Center by working in partnership with the local business
associations. The BCDP acknowledged the community’s recommendations, informed the team
that further investigations for program feasibility will be required. An emergency community
meeting was called by the BCDP and the Cherry Hill Trust members with community
residents. A majority of the community voiced opposition towards the Cherry Hill Master
Plan deadline date, stating that they were not forewarned or allowed time to respond.
Secondly, a request for review of the Middle Branch plan is also needed time to allow
comments to be incorporated in Cherry Hill’s plan if necessary.

The meeting participants provided written comments to the BCDP on the draft of the Middle
Branch Master Plan, rezoning issues and the finalization of the Cherry Hill Master Plan. In
response to the Middle Branch Master Plan, the community noted its intention to review the
plan and tailor its master plan accordingly. The participants rejected the deadline date to
complete its master plan. The BCDP noted a future date to meet with the community to extend
the community’s input and support.

Phase 4 - Developing a Community Profile (Analytical) Mapping


Analysis

As in any analysis this evaluation begins by framing a series of drill down questions that once
answer defines to what extent low-income residents are impacted by dynamic growth and
development of an expanding urban area. The residents of West Port and Middle Branch like
many other low – income and minority residents fear that they will be displaced and
unconvinced by growth. With the understanding that transport enables societal objectives to
be pursued, such as access to various sorts of opportunities the EJ question then become not
only which but how societal objectives are pursued and how the distribution of services dictate
the nature and level of services that are provided to assist disadvantaged persons. The
question then becomes are these fears justified or unjustified. Our approach to answering this
18
question is to first attempt to reasonably determine understand whether minority/low-income
households will continue to be concentrated in central-city Baltimore and if so will their future
access to jobs, education, health care and other opportunities will be as limited, or even more
limited, than they are today.

Figure 1: Cherry Hill Community/Land Cover (2000)

19
Table 5: Typical Demographic Profile for I-95 Low Income Residents, 1990 and 2000

20
Typical Demographic Profile for I-95 Low Income Residents, 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.)

21
Illustration 1: I-95 Corridor Transit Access

22
Illustration 2: African Americans and Hispanic/Latino Communities

23
Illustration 3: Median Household Income and Household Density

24
Illustration 4: Change Median Household Income and Number of Office Workers

25
Illustration 5: Change in Other Workers and Population

26
Illustration 6: Change in Worker Density and Total Number of Workers

27
Phase 5 - Drill Down to Evaluate the EJT Issues (Evaluation)

Accessibility Calculator

The Environmental Justice in Transportation Project is developing an integrated approach for


calculating and analyzing accessibility and travel that will enable impacted groups, MPO’s,
CBO’s citizens and city planners to conduct a preliminary analysis of current problems and
future plans and offer some evaluative insights. The first phase of the toolkit includes two basic
modules: an Accessibility Calculator and a Community Travel Survey. Beta versions of both of
these tools have been completed, and are presented in this paper with the hope of updating the
environmental justice community about the progress of this project and to facilitate feedback
and discussion about its direction.

Task I-3D of the Environmental Justice in Transportation Project is underway, and what has
emerged is an integrated approach for calculating and analyzing accessibility and travel that will
enable impacted groups, MPO’s, CBO’s citizens and city planners to conduct a preliminary
analysis of current problems and future plans and offer some evaluative insights. The tool will
be developed in three phases: a first phase will generate cumulative opportunity measures from
selected neighborhoods or for certain demographic groups, combined with community self-
survey capabilities. A second phase will add further details, such as access measures to certain
transportation infrastructure, etc. A third phase will combine travel data with environmental
information to measure public health risks and exposure from travel. This document deals with
the development of the first phase. The first phase of the toolkit includes two basic modules:

 Accessibility Calculator
Understand accessibility to certain land uses (jobs, schools, education) from a given
neighborhood or all neighborhoods with a certain demographic characteristics (e. g.
low-income) and compare that accessibility to other neighborhoods
 Community Travel Survey
Allow individuals or communities to record and map their own travel patterns and
compare this to the regional transportation investment plans

An introduction to these two modules is covered in this report. For more detailed information
about the development of the tools, see: [TERP Technical Docs]

Motivation
The calculator can be accessed at: http://www.brejtp.com/travel-diary .

Accessibility measures the ability to reach a desired destination within a time, distance, or cost
limit. Threshold measures analyze who can reach a desired destination within some threshold
of time, distance, or cost. The prototype tool will take the Cumulative-Opportunity approach
and will measure the number of essential destinations reachable within various times or
distance bands by transit and automobile. This is particularly useful in describing how well the

28
transportation network works in relation to the distribution of transportation improvements
and how they serve total transportation needs for particular sub-groups. It is also perhaps the
most simple and direct to set-up with the typical datasets available from city or regional
planning agencies.

There are two basic accessibility measures included in the first phase of the tool development:

1. For a specific neighborhood:


a. Calculate the total number of important destinations (jobs, jobs of certain types,
schools, medical facilities, etc) reachable within certain time bands (15, 30, 45
minutes) by public transit and automobile.
b. Compare this measure with all other neighborhoods
c. Compare this measure for the various future regional transportation scenarios

2. For a specific Demographic group:

a. Calculate the total, and average, number of important destinations (jobs, jobs of
certain types, schools, medical facilities, etc) reachable within certain time bands
(15, 30, 45 minutes) by public transit and automobile from all neighborhoods
with the specified representation of the demographic under study (e.g. >50%
Low-Income)
b. Compare this measure with the balance of the neighborhoods and all
neighborhoods
c. Compare this measure for the various future regional transportation scenarios

Accessibility Calculator Structure


The accessibility calculator will use transportation and demographic data and output
accessibility measures for each neighborhood. These outputs will be assembled in a database
that will allow users to look at the accessibility of different neighborhoods (using the TAZs). It
will be accessed with a front-end interface that supports user query. The interface will then
display output through result tables and statistical comparisons. Figure 1 shows the overall
layout of the accessibility calculator. The sections which follow will present the basic structure
of the databases, the four sections of the accessibility calculator, and the overall web interface.

29
Web-based interface
Basic Tabular and Statistical Output

Accessibility Calculations

Accessibility for
Accessibility for a
Particular
Particular
Neighborhood
Demographic
(TAZ ‘I’)

Basic
Accessibility
Analysis (AA):
Accessibility for
Particular TAZ ‘I’

Figure 2 Overall structure of accessibility calculator and interface

Data Requirements
For simplicity, the urban area is divided into traffic analysis zones (TAZs), which therefore
becomes the basic unit of analysis in the tool. The data requirements fall into two types: the
demographic and land-use data for each TAZ (called TAZ data) and the TAZ to TAZ travel
times for Transit and Automobiles, called Transit and Auto Skims.
Each of the these databases are needed for each future planning scenario. The TAZ Data
contains all of the information concerning demographics and numbers and types of land-uses
contained in each TAZ. The Skims data set is a square set of size TAZ by TAZ with the TAZ to
TAZ travel time for every TAZ to TAZ O-D pair.

Basic Accessibility Calculation


At the core of the tool is the measure of accessibility to destinations from each reachable TAZ
within a given time, T. Those reachable TAZs contain certain numbers of jobs, etc (desirable
destinations). The core accessibility calculator will generate a database of the reachable
destinations within the time bands specified (15, 30, 45 minutes) for each TAZ. The basic
accessibility analysis calculations steps are shown in Figure 2 below.

30
Figure 3 Basic Accessibility Analysis Calculation

The output from the Basic Accessibility Analysis Calculation is a dataset for each scenario,
showing the total destinations reachable for each TAZ. This output is used in the later
calculations in the tool. From there, the calculation will depend on whether the analysis is done
for a particular neighborhood or for neighborhoods with a particular demographic. We look at
these two options now.

Accessibility for Particular Neighborhood (TAZ ‘I’)


To analyze the accessibility for a particular neighborhood, the accessibility database generated
from the basic calculator will be queried for the accessibility measures from the selected TAZ,
and all TAZs. Comparisons and maps can then be produced. When the TAZ number is shown,
it can be entered into the menu shown circled in Figure 3.

31
Figure 4. Menu to select specific neighborhood for analysis
After you click “Go” the output page is given, an example of which is shown below in Figure 4.
Several different kinds of tabular and graphical outputs are presented from top to bottom, and
each is discussed in the following sections.

32
Tabular Accessibility Output

Graphical Accessibility Output

Figure 5 Example output from specific neighborhood analysis

33
1

3 4
2

6
Figure 6 Tabular output for particular neighborhood accessibility analysis

Figure 5 shows the top of the output with numbers pointing to particular parts. Each
numbered part will be described now. Item 1 refers to the tabs across the top of the output. The
database of accessibility includes various types of “essential destinations.” These different
types of destinations correspond to these tabs. So, in any analysis, one can look at the
accessibility to Food Stores, Heath facilities, Social Services, Elementary Schools, etc. Some of
these “essential destinations” are actual facilities, such as Elementary Schools, and others, such
as “Trade” are types of jobs. For facilities, two kinds of outputs are given – the number of jobs
in those facilities, and the number of facilities.a

Item 2 is pointing out the title of the section: “Food Stores – Number of Jobs.” If you
scroll down, there is another section below with the same output for “Food Stores – Number of
Facilities.”

Item 3 is referring to the columns of accessibilities for the selected neighborhood, TAZ
#10. The top row of numbers: 5,028 , 14,724 , 26,306 , etc. refer to the number of jobs in food
stores accessible by automobile within 15, 30 and 45 minutes, respectively. This is for the 2000
Base scenario, to be explained in a moment.

a
Both are important because the number of facilities shows the availability of the service, but the number of jobs
indicates the size of the facilities. For example, the number of food stores indicates availability, but doesn’t indicate
whether they are corner “beer and wine” stores or larger full service groceries. That is better understood by the
number of jobs in food stores, as larger facilities have more jobs. In communities of concern, there is often a
lacking of larger full service groceries, the inclusion of both measures is important. The same measures are
produced for schools and other services.
34
Item 4 refers to the columns of accessibilities for all 1400 neighborhoods in the region, in order
to facilitate a comparison with the selected neighborhood. The top column refers to the same
measures, averaged for all neighborhoods.

Item 5 is the five “scenarios” included in the database. These are five different
transportation plans, each of which has different characteristics. The 2000 Base scenario is the
present day (at the time the travel model was made) and includes existing projects, including
highway, road and public transit. The Financially Constrained scenario is the regional
transportation plan for 2025 with a set of new investments (including highway, road and
public transit) included up to a projected budget (i.e. “Financially Constrained”). The “No
Project” scenario is a projection for 2025 which assumes certain population and job growth
with no new investments in any transportation projects (including highway, road and public
transit). The “Project” scenario is the regional transportation plan for 2025 with a set of new
investments (including highway, road and public transit) included up to a larger, more liberal,
projected budget than the Financially Constrained scenario. Finally, the Transdef, is a regional
transportation plan for 2025 with a different set of new investments (including highway, road
and public transit) which places more emphasis on “smart growth” options and public transit
investments than the Project scenario.

Item 6 is showing how the results of a particular scenario are presented in terms of
auto, transit and “composite” accessibility. These are the numbers of destinations reachable
within the different time bands by these travel modes. The composite accessibility takes into
account a neighborhood’s automobile availability. The database of accessibility for each
neighborhood is stored in two ways – the number of opportunities reachable by public transit
and the number reachable by automobile. This is done because of the amount of time it takes a
public transit users to reach a destination will often differ from the amount of time an
automobile user will take. The composite number takes into account the ownership level of
automobiles in a particular neighborhood and computes one accessibility number from a
combination of the automobile and public transit numbers. The more households with
automobiles in a neighborhood, the closer the neighborhood’s accessibility number will be to
the automobile number. The fewer automobiles in a neighborhood, the closer the
neighborhood’s accessibility will be to the public transit number. For example, for a
neighborhood where all households have automobiles, the composite would equal the number
of reachable destinations by automobile, while for a neighborhood where half of households
have automobiles; the composite would be an average of the number of reachable destinations
by automobile and by public transit.

Below the table and the eight graphs described thus far, are one more table and eight more
graphs presenting the accessibility information for neighborhood #10 for food stores by
number of facilities. The destinations which have both number of facilities and number of jobs
will have this “double-length” output. The ones with only number of jobs, will only have one
set.

Analyzing a Selection of Neighborhoods by Characteristics


To analyze the accessibility for a particular demographic, the TAZ database is used to generate
a list of TAZs which meet the required demographic, such as “>50% Low-Income” or “<25%
35
White.” Once the TAZs, which qualify, are flagged, the accessibility database generated from
the basic calculator will be queried for the total desired uses within the travel time bands for
those flagged TAZs, non-flagged TAZs and all TAZs. Comparisons and maps can then be
produced.

For the most part, the analysis by selection is similar to that for one neighborhood. The two
menus #2 and #3 in the calculator are both used for analyzing selections. Here, we will step
through an analysis and discuss the various outputs. The same menu shown in Figure 3 above
is used to perform a selection by racial/ethnic group. Using the first menu, you can choose the
percent of the neighborhood population you wish to represent the racial group you want to
investigate in order for the neighborhood to be included in the selection. The next menu allows
you to choose in the racial group you want to investigate. In the example, 40% and African-
American are chosen, which means that any neighborhood where 40% or more of the
households are African-American will be included in the selection. Once the choices are made,
press “go” and the output is produced. Unlike for the single neighborhood analysis, the
output for neighborhood selections is only in table form.

Figure 7 below shows the output for the 40% African-American selection made above. The first
table shown is accessibility to Food Stores (by number of jobs). The tabs across the top (Item 1)
show the same categories of destinations as discussed above. Item 2 shows the tab selected and
how the measure is shown. Here, accessibility to Food Stores (by number of jobs) is show.
(Scrolling down the page shows the table for the Food Stores by number of facilities.) Note also
that “68 TAZ have more than 40% households that are African American out of all 1454 TAZ”
tells us how many neighborhoods ended up in the selection made.

36
1

2 3 4 5 6

Figure 7 Output for analysis of neighborhoods with at least 40% African-American


households

Item 3 refers to the column of average accessibility measures for the 68 selected neighborhoods.
These numbers have the same meanings as those discussed above. For example, for the 2000
Base scenario, the 68 neighborhoods in the selection have an average of 2,315 food store jobs
reachable to them within 15 minutes by automobile. Item #4 refers to the column of
accessibility averages for all of the neighborhoods not in the selection. There are 1454-68 = 1386
such neighborhoods. Item #5 refers to the column of accessibility averages for all of the 1454
neighborhoods in the Bay Area. This is similar to the column shown in the individual
neighborhood analysis.

Item 6 refers to a column of “T-scores,” which show the statistical significance of the
differences between the accessibility measures for the neighborhoods in the selection and all
neighborhoods. The statistical test is performed to see if the selected group of neighborhoods is
significantly different from all of the neighborhoods in the Bay Area. The details of how the T-
score is generated are unimportant. What is important, is that the larger the absolute value of
the T-score (positive or negative), the more the difference between the group of neighborhoods
is significant. A “*” is placed next to T-scores which are significant at the 90% level, meaning
they are significant. Two “*” s are placed next to T-scores which are significant at the 95% level,
meaning they are even more significant. Three “*” s are placed next to T-scores which are
significant at the 99% level, meaning they are extremely significant. T-scores with no stars
mean that the differences between the selected neighborhoods and all neighborhoods are not
37
very great. A positive T-score means that the selected neighborhoods enjoy a higher
accessibility to the destinations than all neighborhoods. Item 7 and 8 show again the same
scenarios and travel modes which were explained in the last section. Scrolling down the page
shows the table for the Food Stores, by number of facilities instead of by jobs. The output is
read in the same manner as above.

Going to the “Manufacturing” tab (shown in Figure 8), shows the table for accessibility to the
number of “Manufacturing” jobs. For example, – Item 1 points to the T-score of -3.04 for the
difference in “composite” accessibility within 45 minutes between the selected neighborhoods
and all neighborhoods, for the 2000 Base scenario. Item 2 points to the T-score of -2.90 for the
difference in “composite” accessibility within 45 minutes between the selected neighborhoods
and all neighborhoods, for the Project scenario. Both scores show that the 45-minute
“composite” accessibility to “Manufacturing” jobs is significantly lower for the selected
neighborhoods than all neighborhoods.

Figure 8: Table of accessibility to “Manufacturing” jobs for neighborhoods with at least 40%
African-American households

Returning to the main accessibility calculator menu, we can also chose neighborhoods by
income levels and automobile-ownership levels. These menus work in the same way that the
demographic characteristic choice menus work. Again, the percent of households is chosen
first, followed by the characteristic. In this example, we seek to analyze all neighborhoods with
at least 50% of households below 200% of the federal poverty line.

38
Going to the “Manufacturing” tab (shown in Figure 9 below), shows the table for accessibility
to the number of “Manufacturing” jobs. For example, – Item 1 points to the T-score of -3.69 for
the difference in “composite” accessibility within 45 minutes between the selected
neighborhoods and all neighborhoods, for the 2000 Base scenario. Item 2 points to the T-score
of -3.10 for the difference in “composite” accessibility within 45 minutes between the selected
neighborhoods and all neighborhoods, for the Project scenario. Both scores show that the 45-
minute “composite” accessibility to “Manufacturing” jobs is significantly lower for the selected
neighborhoods than all neighborhoods.

Figure 9 Table of accessibility to “Manufacturing” jobs for neighborhoods with at least 50%
households with incomes below 200% federal poverty line

Assessing Low Income and Minority Travel Behavior

Motivation
For a variety of reasons, it is likely that unique characteristics of this population’s
transportation needs and patterns are not well known, and this is an important disadvantage
when trying to better account for these needs in the transportation planning or funding
process. Low income and minority populations often experience greater separation from jobs
and other needed services and activities, as those activities increasingly shift in number and
quality from the center city to outlying areas. Difficulty in accessing these opportunities is

39
magnified by lower rates of vehicle ownership and public transportation systems that are not
well suited to serving reverse-flow travel patterns.

This research combines a variety of survey data collection techniques into a single instrument
to aim at better understanding the transportation challenges and needs of low income and
minority individuals. In this project we identify categorical situations where data are
insufficient for planning and decision-making purposes, and subsequently investigate and
combine a different survey and market research approaches for obtaining the appropriate data
into a single tool. The all in one survey data collection application technique enhances
community understanding of transportation equity issues, provide useful data for transit
agencies seeking community input, and further the efforts of the local participating groups to
secure job training and internships for minority and low-income residents under the
provisions of the 2005 SAFETEA-LU federal highway funding bill.

The initial purpose of the questionnaire is to provide support to EJ communities that the
project has connected with as well the random user. The BREJT Project and TECR Program
provided an unique opportunity to explore survey approaches that are appropriate to
particular problems in depth in one area (Baltimore), while obtaining original information on
minority/low-income travel behavior and needs from a cross-section of metropolitan areas
using a common survey instrument and administrative approach. It attempts to recognizes
how low income and minority user of the public transportation infrastructure are more likely
to think of their experience in terms of their overall time and accessibility, i.e., the total time too
two arbitrary intermediate service points. The travel diary tool attempts to get a handle on
“satisfaction during the trip along the arterial”. In terms of transit this would suggest (bus
cleanliness, seat comfort, security cameras, degree of crowding (as measured by number of
passengers on board or standing). And for highway this would measure usage (vehicle miles
traveled VMT). It has often suggested the VMT is a rich folk performance measure.

Thus addressing situations that range from sufficient representation of key population
segments in regional household travel surveys to application of special methods to statistically
ascertain unmet needs and the potential effectiveness of various alternative solutions, as well
as measuring the impact of an existing or proposed transportation project or policy.
Subsequently, this survey will be administered to a significant sample of households (or
individuals) in the Baltimore region using a variety of administration media, ranging from
electronic/web-based approaches to contact and personal administration through an
intermediary, such as one of the community outreach organizations. The survey was intended
a three pronged drill down process. From the Community Assessment the user would see
three choices:

Level 1 Neighborhood Profile


Level 2 Travel Profile
Level 3 Activity Based Travel Profile

Methodology
The survey techniques were developed and tested in the Baltimore area the primary site for
development of the Toolkit. In particular, a range of survey techniques were identified for

40
appropriate application to specific types of issues in Baltimore, ranging from comprehensive
household travel surveys to more targeted market studies and needs assessments. Ongoing
case studies already defined for the project served as test beds for testing this alternative
survey technique. Each area, however, will test the application of the household travel survey
and needs assessment, making use of the special capabilities represented in the outreach
groups. This group-wide activity will support the overall objective of obtaining better base
information on the travel characteristics and special needs of minority and low-income
households, when viewed across a variety of settings. Subsequently, the techniques will be
made available for review and possible application in the other participating areas.

The survey methods developed and tested anticipate the full range of situations where
improved market research data is desired. At the top of this list is the need for improved data
on the travel behavior patterns and needs of low income and minority populations. The survey
instrument obtains a reliable and in-depth profile of current travel behavior via a travel diary
approach. The intent of this diary will be to capture the full schedule of trips, regardless of
purpose or mode, made by all members of the household. Often, trips for non-essential
purposes, or those made on foot, are imperfectly recorded in travel surveys. It is important to
know about these trips when describing travel mobility, and it is also important to know about
trips or destinations that could not be made due to limitations in travel options or affordability.
We made an overt effort in designing this approach to ascertain “unmet needs”, employing a
combination of objective assessments of accessibility to different types of activities, teamed
with contextual information derived from the household which helps describe economic or
other limitations to travel.

The diary can be accessed at: http://www.brejtp.com/travel-diary . The form has been split
up into 3 pages—the other questions have been moved to pages 2 and 3. The first page is the
trip specs—time/cost/location information for each leg. The second page is questions about
the whole trip, not a specific leg. The third page is general questions about the user, not about a
specific trip. If the user already has a profile saved they can skip the last page, unless
something about their profile has changed. The first page allows up to 10 legs of a trip to be
added by clicking the “continued your trip” button, and the arrival location and time are pre-
populated in the departure location and time of the next leg. This high-level survey is intended
to fill some important gaps in our knowledge of the travel patterns and needs of the
populations which are the subject of environmental justice concerns. A similar survey will then
be administered in each of the other four BOSMP locations (Pittsburgh, Saginaw, Oakland and
Minneapolis) drawing upon the team outreach capabilities at those sites. From this
information, we should be able to begin to trace a more enlightened profile of the actual travel
opportunities and constraints facing the low income traveler. Ideally, this is information that
can be used to support both regional and national debate on travel needs, and help shape
existing and upcoming planning and decision-making exercises in the respective areas.

41
Figure 9 Trip entry page

42
Figure 10 Personal Information Entry Page

Results: Sample Report


Sample report that pulls profile and trip data from the database. It sorts by create data in
descending order so you can use it to monitor new data as it comes in. There is also a link to

43
download it to Excel. The report is set up to show 20 rows at a time, but when you click the
download to Excel link, you’ll get all the data.

Table 6 Sample report that pulls profile and trip data from the database

Variable

Starting Location: ,
Departure Time: 8:00 AM
Final Destination: ,
Arrival Time: 8:00 AM
Trip Cost: $0.00
Trip Distance: 0 miles
Method of Travel: train
Trip Purpose: work Auto, Public Transportation,
Mobility Limitations: Land Use and Public Health
Traveling Alone? Performance Measures
Intermediate Stops:
Is auto travel cost affecting travel?
Were transfers required?
Was your travel time reasonable?
Do you have any health related issues that affect
your travel?
Did the conditions of the streets and roads cause
any problems?
Is the transit usually on time and reliable?
Are you able to reach essential services and
recreational activities?

Public Health Rationale as a Transportation Decision-Making Factor

A primary consideration to be addressed by the toolkit is public health risk impacts that
include accessibility and includes the recurring issue of service by transportation service
providers including a discussion of services dedicated by medical condition vs. pooling of
transportation resources and reservations/dispatching. This is a first and particularly
important step in improving participation among traditionally underserved populations and it
is equally important in helping to determining who these populations are, where they live and
travel, how best to communicate with them and how best to serve them. We argue through the
demonstration below that:

•Public health has evolved out of a history recognizing and remedying health disparity and
environmental justice. Some of the approaches and strategies used in public health are likely
relevant here.

44
•Transportation has a significant impact on public health and there is strong evidence that the
impact is disproportionate among communities of color that are socio economically
disadvantaged.

As summarized in the literature there is extensive proof which: 1) delineates the significant
impact of traffic on community health and 2) provides evidence that the health burden is
disproportionately born by communities of color that are socio-economically disadvantaged.
Therefore, we can argue that public
health is one of a couple primary
considerations to be addressed in the
toolkit. Other considerations include the
impact of accessibility underserved
citizens. Appropriately, these interests
and views are represented both
upstream down stream of transportation
decisions.

Figure 11 Underserved Comunities

The goal of the current project is to present a practical approach, i.e. a toolkit, for providing
underserved populations with greater influence over transportation decisions so that there
interests are better served by those decisions (Figure 11). This is important since it is this
population that is both disenfranchised from, and most strongly impacted by, the decision
making process.

Background and Rationale

Traffic-related air pollution has been implicated as a serious public health threat by a growing
and increasingly convincing body of epidemiologic literature, which has linked traffic
pollutant exposure with non-specific mortality (Friedman et al. 2001), cancer (Pearson et al.
2000; Knox 2005), and a variety of cardiovascular (Bigert et al. 2003) and respiratory effects
(Friedman et al. 2001; Brunekreef et al. 1997; Wjst et al. 1993; Weiland et al. 1994). In addition,
risks from this exposure are disproportionately borne by racial minority and socio-
economically disadvantaged subpopulations (Green et al. 2004; Apelberg et al. 2005; Gunier et
al. 2003). While the adverse health consequences, epidemiology, and social disparities are
already compelling, it is clear that further elucidation is necessary of the magnitude, chemical
composition, and variability of human exposure, and source-to-effect mechanisms.
Community exposure to a complex array of traffic-related pollutants is determined by vehicle
volume, as well as varied emissions characteristics of vehicles, such as differing tailpipe
emissions, heat soak, tire and brake wear, and road dust re-suspension. This underlying
variability in emissions drives highly dynamic concentrations of traffic-related pollutants,
which are further modified by meteorology, source proximity, and human time-activity
patterns.

45
Automobiles and trucks are a major source of air pollution including such toxins and irritants
as carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NO), volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
particulate matter, and particle-bound polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). In the urban
environment, high-density traffic is brought in close proximity to densely populated
communities. This is particularly true in some older East Coast cities like Baltimore where row-
house neighborhoods are within a couple of meters of heavily traveled urban corridors.

Environmental justice is a term used to describe the movement concerned with inequities in
the distribution of adverse environmental and health consequences of industrial activities and
environmental policies (U.S.EPA 2004a). The movement grew from early observations that a
seemingly unequal burden of pollution fell on disenfranchised and disadvantaged
communities, often characterized by lower incomes and high proportions of minorities (Brown
1995). With the issuance of Presidential Executive Order 12898 in 1994, achieving
“environmental justice” was integrated into the missions of all federal agencies (Clinton 1994).
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines environmental justice to mean that
“no group of people, including a racial, ethnic, or a socioeconomic group” should be
disproportionately affected by “industrial, municipal, and commercial operations or the
execution of federal, state, local, and tribal programs and policies” (U.S.EPA 2004a).

There is ample evidence that minority and low-income communities bear a disproportionate
burden of exposure to many environmental contaminants (Brown 1995; Institute of Medicine
1999), including air pollution (Samet et al. 2001; Schweitzer and Valenzuela 2004). Because
nationwide ambient monitoring data are available for the criteria air pollutants (carbon
monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide), we have some
means for assessing exposure and risk in disadvantaged and minority communities. However,
considerably less is known about the distribution of exposure to and risk from the wide range
of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs or “air toxics”) identified by Congress in the Clean Air Act
Amendments (1990), because nationwide ambient monitoring is not possible due to the sheer
number of pollutants and their diverse chemical properties (Caldwell et al. 1998; Morello-
Frosch et al. 2000; Woodruff et al. 1998).

A recent analysis of modeled national estimates suggests that ambient concentrations of HAPs
exceed benchmark risk levels for cancer and non-cancer endpoints in many areas of the
country (Caldwell et al. 1998; Woodruff et al. 1998; Woodruff et al. 2000). Furthermore, several
recent studies have documented a disproportionate burden of air toxics exposure and/or risk
falling on minority and low-income populations. These studies have included varying sources
of exposure, including high traffic density (Green et al. 2004; Gunier et al. 2003), location of
Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) and other treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (Morello-
Frosch et al. 2002; Pastor et al. 2001; Perlin et al. 2001), and modeled estimates from EPA’s CEP
(Lopez 2002; Morello-Frosch et al. 2002).

Given the compelling evidence of a health threat that is exacerbated by environmental


injustice, we have developed a strategy for identifying communities at risk using available
public data. The identification of such communities is a necessary first step to empower
communities, design epidemiological studies to further elucidate the threat, and implement
intervention studies to address the threat.

46
Assessing Transportation-Related Health Risk in Baltimore, Maryland

As discussed earlier, the impact of transportation on public health is a growing concern in


many metropolitan areas world-wide. Here we focus on Baltimore, Maryland a major
metropolitan area in the United States to illustrate how existing information can be used in
identifying communities at risk. Baltimore is typical of many old large east coast cities with a
housing stock that is dominated by row homes built in close proximity to busy urban arterial
roadways. In this section we describe existing relevant data and their analysis for the purpose
of identifying communities at risk from transportation-related air pollution. Using these
existing data, we have developed a risk index to identify communities at risk due both to
socio-economic status and proximity to traffic emissions.

Data
Central to identifying communities at risk is the acquisition and analysis of data sources that
can be used to derive indicators known to influence community exposure to transportation
activities. Several such indicators include proximity of residential locations to transportation
infrastructure (and related activity) as well as some measure of socio-economic status.
Increased proximity to transportation activity is thought to increase health risk posed by
transportation while decreased socio economic status is thought to increase risk of health
impacts to effected populations. Several types of geographic information are required for
calculation of these risk indicators. First, one must account for the location of residential
locations as well as how they are to be represented in the analysis. Residential locations can be
represented as either the sites of individual buildings (provided the availability of this data) or
as some aggregation of residential locations such as a zip code area, census block group or a
transportation analysis zone (TAZ). In this application, a geographic information system (GIS)
database containing building footprints for all areas within the city of Baltimore was obtained
from (2000).

To compliment the building footprints, another GIS dataset detailing the location, extent, and
land use for land parcels in the city was also obtained from (2000). Second, geospatial
information on the location and usage of transportation infrastructure is needed. In this case,
the regional planning transportation network from (2005) was used to facilitate this task. This
planning network was developed to model and assign transportation activity between TAZs in
the region and as such, various types of inter-TAZ traffic for the year 2005 had been already
assigned to road segments in the network. That is, the volume of cars and trucks using each
road segment in the network had already been estimated and attributed to each segment by
(2005). Finally, socio-economic information (e.g., race, median income, education, etc.) on the
study area’s population must be known to characterize socio-economic status. Here, year 2000
median income for each U.S. Census block group was used as a proxy for socio-economic
status. Block group data was selected since it is the smallest spatial unit for which census
tabulations of household income data are available.

Methodology
Two indicator variables are used to characterize community health risk due to traffic exposure:
1) proximity and 2) socio-economic status. One way of assessing proximity to traffic is to
compute the total vehicle miles (# vehicles on road segment*length of road segment) within a
47
threshold distance (e.g., 300 feet) of a residential structure or within a tabulation area (e.g.,
TAZ). As discussed earlier, socio-economic status can be represented in a variety of ways (e.g.,
median household income). Thus, using these two basic indicators of health risk associated
with traffic exposure, a simple index (RIi) can be computed representing the level of risk
associated with each residence or a tabulation area (i.)

RI i  TVMTi  SES i (1)


Where,

i = unit of analysis (e.g., building or tabulation area)


RIi = Risk index for unit i
TVMTi = Total Vehicle Miles Traveled (# of vehicles * length of road segment) within some
proximity threshold of unit i
SESi = Socio-economic status for unit i

Obviously, an issue with this index is that both variables are of a ratio nature, thus it is
necessary to convert them to ordinal measurements to facilitate their integration and
comparison. One way to accomplish this is to consider the range associated with each variable
and split the range into bins of equal intervals. Thus, both TVMT and SES variables can be
split into 10 intervals of equal size indexed 1 through 10, such that a value of 1 indicates the
least risk and a value of 10 indicates the greatest level of risk. For example, those residences
with the lowest levels of TVMT would be assigned a value of 1 while those with the highest
TVMT would be assigned a value of 10. Similarly, those residences with the highest levels of
SES would be assigned a value of 1 while those with the lowest SES would be assigned a value
of 10. Therefore, computing RIi using the transformed ordinal variables results in a RIi with
values ranging between 2 (lowest TVMT and highest income) and 20 (highest TVMT and
lowest income).

TransCAD, a GIS specifically oriented toward the analysis of transportation data was used to
facilitate analyses of the datasets discussed above to compute the components of the risk index.
Although TransCAD is primarily oriented toward transportation analysis, it is also well suited
as a general purpose GIS and, hence, has proven useful in addressing broad and diverse
research questions such as those involved in deriving meaningful discoveries related to traffic,
health, and environmental justice.

First, TransCAD was used to derive a variable indicating proximity to transportation activity.
Proximity for each residential building is defined here as all transportation activity falling
within 200 feet of the building. Proximity to transportation was derived using the following
GIS methodology:

a. Select buildings falling within city parcels denoted as residential.


b. Calculate vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for each road segment in the transportation
network. Here, VMT relates to daily vehicle (cars and trucks) use of a road
segment.
c. Generate a 200 foot buffer for each residential building polygon.

48
d. Overlay buffer polygons with transportation network to compute the total VMT
(TVMT) falling within 200 feet of each residential building.

Again, it should be noted that while residential buildings were used in this analysis, larger
spatial units of analysis could also be used as well. For instance, one could use TAZs and
compute an overlay with the transportation planning network as is done above with each
building and compute total VMT for each TAZ.

Next, TransCAD was used to attribute each residential building in the building footprint
dataset with the median income of the census block group the building falls within. This
measure of socio-economic status was integrated with the building data by first attributing
each residential building polygon with the median income of the census block group in which
the building’s centroid is located.

Results
The environmental justice risk modeling was applied to four Baltimore communities (Cherry
Hill, Federal Hill, Kirk Avenue, and Highway to Nowhere) to exemplify it as a tool as a part of
the Baltimore Region Environmental Justice in Transportation Project (BREJTP).

Figure 12. Risk index applied to Cherry Hill


49
Figure 13 Risk index applied to Federal Hill

50
Figure 14. Risk index applied to Kirk Ave

51
Figure 15. Risk Index applied to "Hightway to Nowhere

These maps identify building-level “hot spots” within communities where it would be
reasonable to hypothesize that individuals are at risk due to the combined influence of low SES
and proximity to high levels of traffic. This index is effective in differentiating neighborhoods
that are both socio-economically disadvantaged and in close proximity to busy roadways. As
would be expected, it can be observed that the highest index values are associated with homes
in close proximity to highways and busy urban arterials (Figure 14), however, this influence and
risk can be offset by blocks with high income (Figure 15).

We recognize that SES and roadway proximity are not independent. The scatter plot in Figure
49 illustrates the relationship between median income and proximity to transportation activity
for households in Baltimore. As hypothesized, the plotted relationship between these two
variables does appear to indicate a general trend whereby traffic exposure is decreasing with
increasing income.

52
Figure 16. Scatter plot of vehicle miles within 200 feet of Baltimore residences in relation to
median household income.

Now that TVMT and SES have been generated for each building, the ratio data can be converted
to ordinal measurements and the risk index RIi for each building can then be computed. Figure
6 shows a scatterplot of the relationship between the new ordinal measurements of median
household income and proximity to transportation activity. In this case, smaller values for
income represent groups of households with higher median income levels. Smaller vehicle mile
values indicate households with lower proximity to transportation activity. Thus, those
households in higher vehicle mile intervals and in higher median income intervals are those at
greatest risk for transportation health related impacts.

Figure 17. Scatter plot of ordinal transformation of transportation and socio economic status
indicators for Baltimore households
53
Discussion

Although there is strong evidence that proximity to heavily trafficked roadways and SES
conspire to place communities at risk for health threats that range from cardiovascular disease
to cancer, research is needed to fully elucidate the nature of the risk and develop strategies
mitigation. The current analysis provides a strategy for identifying communities at risk. This
strategy relies on publicly available data combined using a GIS platform that accommodates
assessment of both community-level traffic and demographics. Using this platform, we
developed a risk index that accounts for factors known to place communities at risk including
level of traffic, roadway proximity, and SES. The identification of such communities using this
approach is a necessary first step to fully evaluating the risk and developing strategies for
mitigating that risk. Furthermore, this analysis tool can be used to empower communities.

Vehicle Miles of Travel Drill-down Analysis

Over the last many decades, vehicle miles traveled has increased significantly in the
U.S. There are numerous contributing factors to this rise, including the rise in real income,
sprawl and expansive land uses, the rise in car ownership, historically lower gas prices (until
recent years), the rise in population, and so on. Among these factors, such factors as income
and population are still projected to increase, and are expected to further contribute to VMT
increases in the future.

Table 7: Total Vehicle Miles Traveled

Projected increases in VMT have a number of implications, ranging from infrastructural


investment to accommodate rising VMT, to environmental pollution, health effects and

54
environmental justice as a result of the nature of the spatial distribution of pollution. In the
Baltimore metropolitan area, the pollution implication of rising VMT is indicated in the table
below. From highway to local roads, rising VMT has numerous contributions to pollution, and
some places could have disproportionately more environmental and health effects than others.
Given that most-low income families are concentrated in dense and urban areas, the
distributional effect of VMT related pollution on low-income communities is particularly an
environmental justice concern.

Table 8: Baltimore Area VMT and Emission Summary by Functional Class

The main goal of this brief report is to: (1) identify some of the factors that determine the level
of VMT and its growth overtime in the Baltimore metropolitan area and the study areas of
Kirk, Lexington Market, Highway-to-Nowhere, and the I-95 Corridor. These study areas
constitute a significant concentration of low income and minority communities, hence
understanding of the factors that determine the growth rate of VMT will provide insight into
the potential implication to these case study area low-income and minority communities; (2) to
assess growth patterns in income, population, households and workers in the Baltimore
metropolitan region and the study areas; and (3) to provide a scenario analysis of how
projected growth indicated in (2) are projected to affect VMT levels in the future.

2. VMT Generation – What Influences VMT Trends?

VMT generation by a transportation zone is an important indicator that can provide


information on such factors as: (1) the distribution of VMT generation in the Baltimore
metropolitan region and specific study areas; (2) association of VMT with environmental
pollution and other social costs; (3) the distribution of externalities (environmental and other
unaccounted costs to society) as a result of such distribution and environmental justice
implications; and (4) an understanding of the relationship between zonal VMT distribution

55
and its association with other socioeconomic factors that can potentially explain VMT
generation.

The above questions have significant implications to environmental justice related to


transportation system design and resultant distribution of pollutants across communities. This
section focuses on analysis of the above mentioned four factors based on a regional and
specific case study area analysis. A regional analysis sheds some light on VMT generation
across transportation zones in a region and perhaps the factors that explain observed regional
VMTs. The study-area-specific information sheds light on VMT generation in specific areas,
and how they compare with the overall regional pattern. Such observation can inform on
unique VMT patterns and their implication to environmental justice concerns.

Understanding VMT – What Influences VMT Trends

VMT generation by a transportation zone is an important indicator that can provide


information on such factors as: (1) the distribution of VMT generation in the Baltimore
metropolitan region and specific study areas; (2) association of VMT with environmental
pollution and other social costs; (3) the distribution of externalities (environmental and other
unaccounted costs to society) as a result of such distribution and environmental justice
implications; and (4) an understanding of the relationship between zonal VMT distribution
and its association with other socioeconomic factors that can potentially explain VMT
generation.

The above questions have significant implication to environmental justice related to


transportation system design and resultant distribution of pollutants across communities. This
section focuses on analysis of the above mentioned four factors based on a regional and
specific case study area analysis. A regional analysis sheds some light on VMT generation
across transportation zones in a region and perhaps the factors that explained observed
regional VMTs. The study-area-specific information sheds light on VMT generation in specific
areas, and how they compare with the overall regional pattern. Such observation can inform on
unique VMT patterns and their implication to environmental justice concerns.

The focus of this section is particularly to address the following questions:

1. What factors determine differences in regional VMT generation?


2. How are case study area VMTs different from the overall region?
3. Do low income communities generate more or less VMT?
4. Do high population (households) communities generate more VMT?
5. What type of economic activity (retail, office, industrial, etc) has more propensity to
contribute to VMT?

Based on the above five questions, the analysis can inform on the policy implications and
environmental justice considerations.

56
VMT Reduction – Econometric Model
To address the goals specified in section 1, it is important to develop an econometric model
that helps answer the 5 indicated questions. To do so, a model that relates VMT at the regional
and case study level with other relevant socioeconomic factors at the transpiration zone level is
important. For the regional analysis, the following model can be specified:

VMTi   0  1TPOP   2 D( Low _ Inc)  3 D(Med _ Inc)   4 Re t  5Off  6 Ind   i (1)

VMT refers to the vehicle mile travels for communities in the region (i), the parameters
 0 to  6 are values to be estimated to indicate the relationship between variables and the
dependent variable (VMT), TPOP refer to zonal total population, Low_Inc and Med_Inc refer
to low income transportation zone (if median income is below $25,000) and medium income
transportation zone (if median income is between $25,000 and $75,000), Ret refers to zonal
retail employment, Off refers to zonal office employment, and Ind. refers to zonal industrial
employment. Note that the D indicates a dummy variable, i.e., the D for low income, for
instance, identifies transportation zones that are identified only as low income (in that case will
have a value of 1), otherwise will carry a value of 0 for zones that are not classified as low
income.

An econometric model that investigates the relationship of case study VMT patterns with the
regional VMT patterns can be specified as:

VMTi  0  1TPOP   2 D( Low _ Inc)  3 D(Med _ Inc)   4 Re t  5Off  6 Ind 


(2)
7 D(Ch _ Hill)  8 D( Kirk)  9 D( Lex _ Mkt)  10 D( Hwy _ to _ NW )   i

Where all variables remain as defined previously, and D(Ch_Hill) refers to transportation zones
in Cherry Hill study area, Kirk refers to transportation zones in Kirk study area, D(Lex_Mkt)
refers to transportation zones in Lexington Market study area, and D(Hwy_to_NW) refers to
Highway-to-Nowhere study area.

Estimation of equations (1) and (2) provides answers to questions (1) through (5) in the
previous section. The above two models are estimated by using an Ordinary Least Squares
method. In estimating these models, econometric tests are conducted, and corrected when
needed, for basic econometric problems in cross-sectional data.

Steps Followed to Generate Estimations (Results)

Section 3 provides a model that can help understand the relationships between zonal VMT and
other socioeconomic factors, such as zonal median household income, number of workers, and
population (households). Such analysis would provide information on the relationship
between these factors and VMT generation, and consequently potential policy implications to
manage regional and local VMT.

57
To conduct the analysis based on the model indicated in section 3, the following steps are
followed:

 First, data on VMT by transportation zone is collected. Then, data on socioeconomic


factors, such as income, population and employment levels are matched with VMT data
for each transportation zone.

 Next, data is identified both for the entire transportation region and for specific case
study areas through an identification variable, called a dummy variable. A dummy
variable is a 0 and 1 code that labels 1 if the data is for a specific case study area and 0
otherwise. This helps identify regional and case study data.

 Next, the data is checked for completeness and consistency. This data is then brought to
LIMDEP econometric software to estimate the relationship between VMT and other
socioeconomic variables (factors).

 Finally, the result is summarized and presented for analysis.

Based on the model in section 3 and the steps outlined in this section, the results from the
analysis are provided in section 4. Note that section 4 also includes the following additional
analysis:

 Detailed examination of the relationship between income and VMT generation. First,
the relationship between general income and VMT is considered. Next, to examine the
impact of different income classes on VMT, median zonal income is categorized into
low income, medium income and high income categories. Low income zone is defined
as one where the medium income is below $20,000 per year. Medium income zones are
defined as on where income is between $20,000 and $75,000 per year. High income
zones are defined as those with income above $75,000 per year. This helps analyze the
role of income in VMT determination by income class.

 Detailed examination of shifts in VMT generation by case study area compared to the
overall region. To analyze whether case study areas have a distinct VMT generation
pattern compared to the overall transportation region, a case study comparison with
the region is conducted.

Analysis of results is presented next in section 4.

Regional Impact Analysis

Focusing first on regional transportation zones, the analysis considered 1,123 transportation
zones in the region. Consider, first, a basis analysis that explains differences in VMT generation
across transportation zones based on zonal differences in total population, median income, and
retail, office, and industrial employments. Econometric results are provided in the table below.

58
The following key results are observed:

 Transportation zones with more population generate significant amount of VMT. The
result was highly statistically significant. For every 1 person difference across zone,
VMT generation differs by 529.

 Median income has a statistically significant impact on VMT generation. Zones with
higher median income generate more VMT. For every $1 rise in median income in a
zone, zonal VMT is expected to increase by 8.68.

 In terms of employment types, the result suggests that retail businesses contribute
significantly higher VMT, followed by office employment. However, zones with
predominantly industrial employment have a lower VMT compared to non-industrial
employment zones. Additional retail job difference across zones is related to a
corresponding VMT difference of 2,835. The number is 2.592 for office jobs.

Table 9: Regional Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis

Regression Results – Regional Analysis


Variable Description of Variable Coefficient P-Value
(% of error)
Constant Intercept of the model -2,154,054.75 0.00
TPOP Total Population 528.97 0.00
MEDINC Medina Income 8.68 0.00
RETAIL Retail workers 2,834.83 0.00
OFF Office Workers 2,591.62 0.00
IND Industrial Workers -2,894.17 0.00

R-Squared 66%

The model’s R2 (predictive ability) is 66%. For limited number of variables considered in the
analysis, the result is robust.

One important question at this juncture is whether low income communities contribute higher
or lower VMT. This questions has significant implications to environmental justice concerns.
By estimating equation (1) with further categorized income data, the result from the
econometric estimation is provided in the table below. The results can be summarized as
follows:

• As discussed in the previous result, transportation zones with higher population and retail
and office jobs have significantly higher VMT generation.

• Focusing on the impact of income on VMT generation, the result is interesting. Two income
groups are included in the estimation (low and medium income) and high income group is
excluded to hold it as a comparison group. The result suggests that while low income
transportation zones have significantly lower VMT generation, there is no much difference
59
between medium and high income zones. The implication of this finding at the regional level is
that low income areas generate low VMT, but if they are located close to medium or high
income areas, they will experience more VMT generated from outside their region. The
environmental justice implication across income classes is thus clear from this finding.

Table 10 Regional Analysis with Income Classes

Regression Results – Regional Analysis with Income Classes


Variable Description of Variable Coefficient P-Value
Constant Intercept of the model -1,419,003.71 0.00
TPOP Total Population 519.86 0.00
Low_Inc Low Income Zones -877,516.29 0.00
Med_Inc Middle Income Zones -113,556.01 0.50
RETAIL Retail workers 2,800.33 0.00
OFF Office Workers 2,596.57 0.00
IND Industrial Workers -2,918.59 0.00
R-Squared 66%

The model’s R2 (predictive ability) is 66%. Again for limited number of variables considered in
the analysis, the result is robust.

Low Income and Minority Community Area Analysis

This section focuses on analyzing the VMT generation by zone by specifically separating
attributes of the following case study areas: Cheryl Hill (TAZ codes 871, 875, 877, 864, and 335),
Kirk (TAZs 432, 477, and 935), Lexington Market (TAZs 970, 969, and 968) and Highway-to-
nowhere (TAZs 122, 117, 116, 133, 1005, 1038, 1061, 1072, 1050, 1027, 1016, 1127, 1116 and 1105).
For the purpose of identifying VMT generation comparison between the region and the case
study areas, model (2) is utilized. The econometric analysis results for case study specific areas
are provided in the table below.

60
Table 11: All Case Study Areas vs. Region.

Regression Results – All Case Study Areas Compared to the Region


Variable Description of Variable Coefficient P-Value
Constant Intercept of the model -13,837,666.98 0.00
CH-HILLD Cherry Hill 246,559.85 0.81
KIRK_D Kirk 107,785.10 0.94
LEX_D Lexington Market 156,236.96 0.91
HTONW_D Highway-to-Nowhere -204,399.57 0.01
TPOP Total Population 514.88 0.00
Low_Inc Low Income Zones -892,417.26 0.00
Med_Inc Middle Income Zones -127,104.20 0.45
RETAIL Retail workers 2,790.67 0.00
OFF Office Workers 2,611.99 0.00
IND Industrial Workers -2,949.56 0.00
R-Squared 67%

The results suggest the following:

 All of the previous regional analysis still holds when the data is separated between the
region and case study areas. The fact that transportation zones that have more
population, more retail and office jobs, and middle and higher income generate more
VMT is still confirmed in this model.

 In terms of VMT differences by geographic location, the result suggests that Cherry
Hill, Kirk, and Lexington Market do not have remaining systematic difference with
regional VMT once we account for income and population differences across zones.
However, even after accounting such factors, the Highway-to-Nowhere case study area
still has significantly lower zonal VMT generation.

 The results overall suggest that socioeconomic factors have more explanatory power
than location differences. Thus, low income and low population areas have lower VMT
generation, but if they are located close to high income and high population areas, they
may experience larger VMT from outside their zone.

The model’s R2 (predictive ability) is 67%. Again for limited number of variables considered in
the analysis, the result is robust.

The analysis is repeated by testing each case study area individually. The results were the same
as above. The results are provided below:

61
Table 12: Cherry Hill Study Area Growth Patterns

Cherry Hill Study Area Growth Patterns


TPOP
TPOP1
TAZ 877
TPOP2
TAZ 875 HH
HH1
TAZs

TAZ 871 HH2


MEDINC
TAZ 864
MEDINC1
TAZ 335 MEDINC2
WORKERS
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 WORKERS1
WORKERS2

Table 13 Econometric Analysis Results for Cherry Hill

Regression Results – Cherry Hill Compared to the Region


Variable Description of Variable Coefficient P-Value
Constant Intercept of the model -1420616.05 0.00
CH-HILLD Cherry Hill 264496.58 0.81
TPOP Total Population 520.11 0.00
Low_Inc Low Income Zones -876808.03 0.00
Med_Inc Middle Income Zones -114319.58 0.49
RETAIL Retail workers 2801.22 0.00
OFF Office Workers 2596.74 0.00
IND Industrial Workers -2919.15 0.00

R-Squared 66%

The results suggest the following:

 Similar to previous findings, high population, retail and office jobs expansion, and
higher income zones generate higher VMT.
 The evidence suggests that Cherry Hill case study area does not have a significantly
different VMT generation compared to other zones in the region after accounting for
the impact of income, population and job differences in the region.

Scenario Analysis

Cherry Hill is expected to have the following growth patterns from 2005 to 2015 and 2030:

 Population is expected to grow by 718 between 2005 and 2015, and by 1,376 from 2015
to 2030.
62
 Median income is expected to increase by $3,601 between 2005 and 2015 and by $14,924
from 2015 to 2030.
 The number of retail workers is expected to increase by 52 between 2005 and 2015 and
by 228 from 2015 to 2030.
 The number of office workers is expected to increase by 343 between 2005 and 2015 and
by 897 from 2015 to 2030.
 The number of industrial workers is expected to increase by 124 between 2005 and 2015
and by 228 from 2015 to 2030.

Based on the above scenarios, the projected impacts on VMT can be generated by using the
regional regression estimates. These estimates provide the following relationships:

VMT = 529*POPULATION + 9*INCOME + 2,835*RETAIL + 2,592*OFFICE –


2,894*INDUSTRY

By utilizing the above estimation equation and utilizing the average estimated impact for
growth of workers, the following VMT scenario can be predicted for Cherry Hill:

 From 2005 to 2015: VMT is expected to rise by 287,229.


 From 2015 to 2030: VMT is expected to rise by 901,172.

Table 14 Kirk Ave. Bus Depot Study Area Growth patterns:

Kirk Study Area Growth Patterns

TPOP
TAZ 935 TPOP1
TPOP2
HH
HH1
TAZs

TAZ 477 HH2


MEDINC
MEDINC1
TAZ 432 MEDINC2
WORKERS
WORKERS1
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000 160000 WORKERS2

63
Table 15 Econometric Analysis for Kirk Ave

Regression Results – Kirk Compared to the Region


Variable Description of Variable Coefficient P-Value
Constant Intercept of the model -1,419,572.91 0.00
Kirk_D Kirk 125,611.37 0.84
TPOP Total Population 519.89 0.00
Low_Inc Low Income Zones -877,127.41 0.00
Med_Inc Middle Income Zones -113,512.19 0.50
RETAIL Retail workers 2,800.58 0.00
OFF Office Workers 2,596.58 0.00
IND Industrial Workers -2,918.44 0.00
R-Squared 66%

The results suggest the following:

 Similar to previous findings, high population, retail and office jobs expansion, and
higher income zones generate higher VMT.

 The evidence suggests that Kirk case study area does not have a significantly different
VMT generation compared to other zones in the region after accounting for the impact
of income, population and job differences in the region.

Scenario Analysis

Kirk is expected to have the following growth patterns from 2005 to 2015 and 2030:

 Population is expected to grow by 125 between 2005 and 2015, and by 116 from 2015 to
2030.
 Median income is expected to increase by $3,818 between 2005 and 2015 and by $15,788
from 2015 to 2030.

 The number of retail workers is expected to increase by 2 between 2005 and 2015 and
by 10 from 2015 to 2030.

 The number of office workers is expected to increase by 8 between 2005 and 2015 and
by 15 from 2015 to 2030.

 The number of industrial workers is expected to increase by 5 between 2005 and 2015
and by 6 from 2015 to 2030.

Based on the above scenarios, the projected impacts on VMT can be generated by using the
regional regression estimates. These estimates provide the following relationships:

64
VMT = 529*POPULATION + 9*INCOME + 2,835*RETAIL + 2,592*OFFICE –
2,894*INDUSTRY

By utilizing the above estimation equation and utilizing the average estimated impact for
growth of workers, the following VMT scenario can be predicted for Cherry Hill:

 From 2005 to 2015: VMT is expected to rise by 93,700.

 From 2015 to 2030: VMT is expected to rise by 218,219.

Table 16: Lexington Market Study Area Growth Patterns


Lexington Market Growth Patterns

TPOP
TAZ 970 TPOP1
TPOP2
HH
HH1
TAZs

TAZ 969 HH2


MEDINC
MEDINC1
TAZ 968 MEDINC2
WORKERS
WORKERS1
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000 WORKERS2

Table 17 Econometric Analysis for Lexington Market

Regression Results – Lexington Market Compared to the Region


Variable Description of Variable Coefficient P-Value
Constant Intercept of the model -1,419,677.75 0.00
LEX_D Lexington Market 170,482.44 0.89
TPOP Total Population 519.84 0.00
Low_Inc Low Income Zones -876,989.41 0.00
Med_Inc Middle Income Zones -113,478.70 0.49
RETAIL Retail workers 2,800.55 0.00
OFF Office Workers 2,596.65 0.00
IND Industrial Workers -2,918.27 0.00
R-Squared 66%

The results suggest the following:

 Similar to previous findings, high population, retail and office jobs expansion, and
higher income zones generate higher VMT.

65
 The evidence suggests that Lexington Market case study area does not have a
significantly different VMT generation compared to other zones in the region after
accounting for the impact of income, population and job differences in the region.

Lexington Market is expected to have the following growth patterns from 2005 to 2015 and
2030:

 Population is expected to grow by 135 between 2005 and 2015, and by -39 from 2015 to
2030.

 Median income is expected to increase by $3,994 between 2005 and 2015 and by $16,528
from 2015 to 2030.

 The number of retail workers is expected to increase by 20 between 2005 and 2015 and
by 36 from 2015 to 2030.

 The number of office workers is expected to increase by 38 between 2005 and 2015 and
by 30 from 2015 to 2030.

 The number of industrial workers is expected to increase by 9 between 2005 and 2015
and by 7 from 2015 to 2030.

Based on the above scenarios, the projected impacts on VMT can be generated by using the
regional regression estimates. These estimates provide the following relationships:

VMT = 529*POPULATION + 9*INCOME + 2,835*RETAIL + 2,592*OFFICE –


2,894*INDUSTRY

By utilizing the above estimation equation and utilizing the average estimated impact for
growth of workers, the following VMT scenario can be predicted for Cherry Hill:

 From 2005 to 2015: VMT is expected to rise by 147,065.


 From 2015 to 2030: VMT is expected to rise by 217,480.

66
Table 18: Highway-to-Nowhere Study Area Growth Patterns
Highway-to-Nowhere Growth Patterns

TAZ 1127
TAZ 1116
TAZ 1105
TPOP
TAZ 1072
TPOP1
TAZ 1061 TPOP2
HH
TAZ 1050
HH1
TAZ 1038
TAZs

HH2
TAZ 1027 MEDINC
MEDINC1
TAZ 1016
MEDINC2
TAZ 1005 W ORKERS
TAZ 133 W ORKERS1
W ORKERS2
TAZ 122
TAZ 117
TAZ 116

0 20000 40000 60000 80000 10000 12000 14000 16000


0 0 0 0

The econometric analysis results for Lexington Market case study area are provided in the
table below.

The results suggest the following:

 Similar to previous findings, high population, retail and office jobs expansion, and
higher income zones generate higher VMT.

 The evidence suggests that Highway-to-Nowhere case study area does have a
significantly lower VMT generation compared to other zones in the region, even after
accounting for the impact of income, population and job differences in the region.

Table 19 Econometric Analysis Lexington Market

Regression Results – Highway-to-Nowhere Compared to the Region


Variable Description of Variable Coefficient P-Value
Constant Intercept of the model -1,381,123.86 0.00
HTONW_D Highway-to-Nowhere -2,045,794.10 0.01
TPOP Total Population 514.63 0.00
Low_Inc Low Income Zones -893,908.73 0.00
Med_Inc Middle Income Zones -126,512.48 0.44
RETAIL Retail workers 2,789.42 0.00
OFF Office Workers 2,611.75 0.00
IND Industrial Workers -2,949.49 0.00
R-Squared 67%

67
Highway-to-Nowhere is expected to have the following growth patterns from 2005 to 2015 and
2030:

 Population is expected to grow by 2,795 between 2005 and 2015, and by 5,003 from 2015
to 2030.

 Median income is expected to increase by $2,549 between 2005 and 2015 and by $10,599
from 2015 to 2030.

 The number of retail workers is expected to increase by 85 between 2005 and 2015 and
by 267 from 2015 to 2030.

 The number of office workers is expected to increase by 58 between 2005 and 2015 and
by 2,800 from 2015 to 2030.

 The number of industrial workers is expected to increase by 356 between 2005 and 2015
and by 1,065 from 2015 to 2030.

Based on the above scenarios, the projected impacts on VMT can be generated by using the
regional regression estimates. These estimates provide the following relationships:

VMT = 529*POPULATION + 9*INCOME + 2,835*RETAIL + 2,592*OFFICE –


2,894*INDUSTRY

By utilizing the above estimation equation and utilizing the average estimated impact for
growth of workers, the following VMT scenario can be predicted for Cherry Hill:

 From 2005 to 2015: VMT is expected to rise by 953,620.

 From 2015 to 2030: VMT is expected to rise by 1,122,049.

68
Table 20: Sensitivity Analysis Changes in Socioeconomic Factors on VMT (2005-2030)

Study Area Factors Considered VMT Impacts


Years 2005-2015 Years 2016-2030
Total Population Change
Cherry Hill Change in Median Income
Change in Retail Workers 287,229 901,172
Change in Office Workers
Change in Industrial Workers
Total Population Change
Kirk Change in Median Income
Change in Retail Workers 93,700 218,219
Change in Office Workers
Change in Industrial Workers
Total Population Change
Lexington Market Change in Median Income
Change in Retail Workers 147,065 217,480
Change in Office Workers
Change in Industrial Workers
Total Population Change
Highway-to-
Nowhere Change in Median Income
Change in Retail Workers 953,620 1,122,049
Change in Office Workers
Change in Industrial Workers

I-95 Corridor Analysis

Focusing on the I-95 Corridor transportation zones, a separate econometric analysis is


conducted to project VMT in this corridor. The analysis followed similar procedure as in the
above discussed cases. VMT generation is, among other things, determined by growth in
population, income, and job opportunities in a region. Projected growth in of each of these
growth factors in the I-95 Corridor is reflected in the graphs below.
From the analysis of the impact of growth in population, income and jobs on VMT increases,
the following key results are observed:

 Population in I-95 corridor is positively related to VMT generation. The result was
highly statistically significant. For every 1 additional people in the zone, VMT is
expected to increase by 331.

 Median income did not have a significant relationship with VMT in this Corridor.
 In terms of employment types, the result suggests that office workers significantly
higher VMT, followed by retail workers. However, zones with predominantly
industrial employment have lower VMT. For every additional job in the office and
retail sectors, VMT is expected to increase by 5,949 and 4,246 respectively.
69
Table 21: Regression Results – I-95 Corridor

Regression Results – I-95 Corridor


Variable Description of Variable Coefficient P-Value
Constant Intercept of the model -911,965.59 0.10
TPOP Total Population 331 0.00
INCOME Median Household Income -2.89 0.66
RETAIL Retail workers 4,246 0.00
OFF Office Workers 5,949 0.00
IND Industrial Workers -10,980
R-Squared 99%

The model performance is indicated by the R-squared, which stands at 99%. This indicates a
robust model performance.

Scenario Analysis

I-95 Corridor is expected to have the following growth patterns from 2005 to 2015 and 2030:

 Population is expected to grow by 12,433 between 2005 and 2015, and by 20,707 from
2015 to 2030.

 Median income is expected to increase by $3,707 between 2005 and 2015 and by
$15,373 from 2015 to 2030.

 The number of retail workers is expected to increase by 1,378 between 2005 and 2015
and by 3,996 from 2015 to 2030.

 The number of office workers is expected to increase by 4,401 between 2005 and 2015
and by 21,587 from 2015 to 2030.

 The number of industrial workers is expected to increase by 958 between 2005 and 2015
and by 3,105 from 2015 to 2030.

Based on the above scenarios, the projected impacts on VMT can be generated by using the
regional regression estimates. These estimates provide the following relationships:

VMT = 331*POPULATION + 4,246*RETAIL + 5,949*OFFICE –


10,980*INDUSTRY

By utilizing the above estimation equation and utilizing the average estimated impact for
growth of workers, the following VMT scenario can be predicted for Cherry Hill:

 From 2005 to 2015: VMT is expected to rise by 25,629,020.


 From 2015 to 2030: VMT is expected to rise by 118,149,196.
70
Table 22: I-95 Corridor Study Area Growth Patters

I-95 Corridor Study Are a Growth Patte rns

873

872

860

859

857

856

855

853

852

850

847

846

351
RETAIL2

350 RETAIL1
RETAIL
IND2
349
IND1
IND
348
OFFICE
OFF1
TAZs

347
OFF
MEDINC2
346
MEDINC1
MEDINC
337
TPOP2
TPOP1
336
TPOP
TAZ
335

334

333

332

331

330

329

328

327

326

325

324

323

0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000

71
I-95 Corridor Stuy Area Growth Patterns

1106

1022

1021

1020

1019

1015

1014

1013

1012

1011

1010

1009

1008

1007

1006

978
RETAIL2
RETAIL1
973
RETAIL
IND2
956
IND1
IND
955
OFFICE
TAZs

OFF1
953
OFF
MEDINC2
952
MEDINC1
MEDINC
951
TPOP2
TPOP1
950
TPOP
TAZ
924

897

896

895

894

893

892

891

890

886

883

881

879

878

877

874

0 50000 100000 150000 200000

72
Summary

This report focused on understanding the relationship between VMT generation of


transportation zones and the potential association with other socioeconomic characteristics
inherent to such zones. The report focused on the following key questions that would have
implications to environmental justice:

1. What factors determine differences in regional VMT generation?


2. How are case study area VMTs different from the overall region?
3. Do low income communities generate more or less VMT?
4. Do high population (households) communities generate more VMT?
5. What type of economic activity (retail, office, industrial, etc) has more propensity to
contribute to VMT?

To answer the above questions, a model that lings VMT to key socioeconomic variables, such
as income, population and employment is developed. Based on data gathered for each
transportation zone in the region, the relationship between VMT and the factors that generate
VMT are tested and analyzed. In general the results of this work demonstrate that work in the
following areas is still needed to advance the objectives of National Environmental Justice
Policy. These areas consist of:

Public Outreach and Involvement: An open and ongoing process through which active effort
is made to sample and extract concerns from the EJ community, to inform them on key issues,
and to provide feedback throughout and closure at the end of an EJT review on a particular
issue.

Triage Process: This is a unique institutional element which functions as the nerve center of
the EJT process, serving as an independent Review Board which screens and conducts
objective review of identified EJT concerns.

Analytic Tools: Introduction to a range of Techniques and Procedures for evaluating EJT
issues in the context of regional transportation plans or projects, scaled to the size and
complexity of the particular concern.

Evaluation Framework: How to identify and use relevant Performance Indicators to quantify
EJT concerns, and their application in Tradeoff Analysis to support informed dialogue and
decision making

With respect to the I-95 Corridor the main findings of the analyses are the following:

1. Transportation zones with high population have more VMT levels. This may further
indicate that high population growth areas can potentially generate increasing VMT.

2. In general, high income transportation zones are likely to generate more VMT. The
findings suggest that low-income zones contribute less to VMT. However, if low
income zones are located close to high income and high population zones, they may
73
face higher VMT generated from outside their zone. This can have serious
environmental justice implications to low income zones since outside zone VMT rises
can cause higher pollution, health problems and property value impacts.

3. Transportation zones with high office and retail jobs generate higher VMT. However,
more industrial job based zones have lower comparative VMT.

4. The higher R square along the i95 corridor provides some evidence that the 4-step
gravity model is less accurate when it comes to non-corridor travel impacts.

5. The models are probably understating and possibly not representing travel impacts in
low income communities accurately which raises some interesting possibilities.

Phase 6 - Being Heard (Communicating) Policy Implications

The focus of this component of the toolkit is on potential environmental justice implications of
our finds. Based on the summary of results in the previous section, the potential policy
considerations and implications can be summarized as follows:

1. High population and high population growth areas are likely to cause majority of the
VMT increases over the coming years. A comprehensive integrative transportation and
growth management policy will be needed. Attempts at managing growth at the local
and regional level, through such instruments as land use regulation, transportation
investment, and urban and regional planning need to consider the VMT implications of
alternative growth scenarios for optima growth and VMT management. As such
environmental problems as pollution, environmental health, and quality of life in
general have increasingly become relevant, such comprehensive growth and
transportation integrated management schemes seem very important.

2. Transportation and travel behavior is significantly tied to income profile. Particularly,


high income communities are more likely to generate significantly higher VMT and
consequent pollution, while low income communities generate lower VMT but could be
affected by high VMT of neighboring high population and high income communities.
Since sprawl particularly created an environment where low income-low, VMT
communities absorb high VMT from the demand of sprawling residents, the potential
environmental justice implications are numerous. Low income communities that are
next to high population or population growth, or that are next to middle and upper
income communities are particularly at risk as such zones are likely to generate higher
VMT that can be passed to lower VMT zones. Since higher VMT means more pollution,
the potential health and property value impacts could be significant.

3. Places with growth retail and office employment are likely to generate higher VMT.
Thus, low income community zones that are in the way of major local and regional
retail and office job opportunities are likely to be impacted by VMT increases from

74
outside their zone. As such, the impact of regional job growth and job markets on VMT
of other low income communities need to be carefully considered.

4. The findings in this report overall suggest that higher increases in VMT are expected
from high population growth, high income, and high job growth transportation zones.
As such, effective long-term VMT reduction policies will be most effective if
implemented with a focus in such communities. However, the cost to low-income and
low VMT communities should be gauged in assessing the potential cost-saving and
other benefits of such policies.

75
Conclusions

Reported in this summary document are the key research components of the community
guide, EJ Toolkit and its technical documentation. The TCERP Project was very successful in
gathering and analyzing information from low-income and minority communities on
transportation and environmental justice in a “bottom up” manner. The challenge now facing
transportation planners in the Baltimore region will be how best to incorporate the anecdotal
information gathered during the TCERP Project into the transportation planning process. The
TCERP Project Team has proposed that the public participation process should be expanded
and a quantitative, data driven analytic tool be developed to accomplish that goal.

Building upon the findings in Phase I, Phase II of the project developed and organized the EJ &
Transportation Toolkit through selected case studies of the most relevant accessibility and air
quality related issues in highly impacted and representative environmental justice
communities in the Baltimore region. The overall methodology and approach to each case
study will involve a series of steps that will revolve around the cooperation and participation
of community stakeholders and various agencies.

All of the anecdotal information and data from the Listening Sessions and the Community
Dialogue indicate that low-income and minority communities in Baltimore share the
perception that: 1) transportation resources and services are not equitably distributed
throughout the Baltimore region; 2) the public participation process for transportation
planning needs to be improved; 3) transportation problems (air quality, access to jobs and
health care, etc.) have a direct impact on low-income and minority communities; and 4) more
information should be available to the general public on how transportation planners decide
where resources and services should be targeted.

Two of the “lessons learned” from the Public Dialogue project were that: 1) developing a
good database of community leaders, local ministers and community activists is time
consuming; and 2) conducting sustained outreach to community leaders, local ministers and
community activists is essential for achieving a good turnout for public hearings like the
Listening Sessions, 3) coordinate meetings with the community at times and locations advantageous
to the community and 4) continue efforts such as this one to enlightening low-income and minority
communities through a process of education.

The higher R square along the i95 corridor provides some evidence that the 4-step gravity
model is less accurate when it comes to non-corridor travel impacts. The models are probably
understating and possibly misrepresenting travel impacts in low income communities.

76
Appendix 1: Bottom up Categorization and Discussion of EJT Issues
Kirk Ave Bus Depot

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.

Problems

- Residents suffer from respiratory ill nesses and some have died
- Residents have a significant increase in asthma
- Negative impact on resurgence of neighborhood
- Residents complain of physiological health impacts and respiratory health impacts
- Enhancements as alternate land use scenarios that strengthen rather than continue the cycle
of decline
- impact upon the community and has had no aesthetic improvement in the last 50 yrs.
- Adjacent to a bus yard
- Noise and air pollution Problems
- Depot is perceived as having a neg.
- Residents have appealed to the MTA on numerous occasions to address these conditions
and nature of bus operations

Analysis and Findings

- Kirk Ave. Depot is the 2nd largest facility in terms of daily bus pullouts. - All 4 four bus
depots have had a significant decrease in bus pullouts in 97-2007, however -Kirk Ave. has
had the largest decrease (22.5%)

- Routes from Kirk Ave. are primarily suburban commuter routes and do not serve the local
community. - Lack of accessibility options for the Kirk Ave. residential community.

-Noise pollution from Depot: 1) Announcement over loudspeakers 2) Engines run all day 3)
Repairs and servicing -research by Hopkins found that noise levels exceeded the ordinance
level during day and night, nearly every day. This could result in loss of sleep, high levels of
stress, affecting the health of the resident population. Although the daily average of air
pollution didn’t exceed the USEPA standard, the 2 week average provides indication that the
annual federal health standard may be exceeded
-Effects of air pollution put residents at an increased risk for adverse health effects. -measured
air pollutants were: Black Carbon (BC) Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)

77
Assessment & Recommendations

-Community should have 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 depot. -MTA has attempted to respond to the community’s concerns with
mitigation measures: *new operational procedures in response to idling *suggestion of newer
and cleaner alternative fuel busses

-Community should pressure the MTA to get a clear statement of the likely impacts of the new
facility, and to obtain meaningful mitigation in the time between -Burdens created by the Kirk
Ave. Depot *property values are lower *busses at Kirk Ave. provide little benefit to residents
*noise levels (documented cases of psycho- logical impacts *emissions from bus pullouts and
idling

Cherry Hill

The Cherry Hill community geographically 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 avail- able 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 public housing has been
demolished leaving large tracts of land in the middle of the community that can be
redeveloped in the future

Problems

-Residents fee there are too few busses


-The busses do not run on schedule
-Bus stops, shelters, sidewalks are poorly
-Para transit buses are poorly equipped
-Poor community depends on transit
-People miss appointments or are left stranded
-Employers see Cherry Hill residents as unreliable

Analysis & Findings

Impact of Changes on Regional Accessibility

-Decreased transit access overall


-Major areas of E. Baltimore inaccessible with 1 hour of travel time.
-BWI corridor has major improvements in travel time.
-Overall access to jobs for transit dependent households in Cherry Hill has declined.

78
-Access to substantial areas of N.E. Baltimore are no longer reachable without a one hour of
travel time.

Community Profile and Changes

-1990-2000 saw a marked change in the size of Cherry Hill community Here are some of the
findings:
-Population decline of 21.1% half of which were white.
-12.9% decline in the number of households. *indicates larger h0useholds-primarily married
couples with children left in larger numbers
-51.4% decrease in households with married couples and children.
-Single person households increased by 15.8%.
-31.7% decline in population aged between 18 to 44 years.
-29.6% decline in population of children under 5 -10.3% decline in population over 65 years.
-9.3% reduction in the number of housing. 11% increase in the number of vacant homes.
-37% decrease in unemployment *these numbers are still well above average levels of
unemployment in the population at large

Assessment & Recommendations:

- Initial review shows Cherry Hill community has experienced deferential treatment with
regard to transit service–several additional investigations should be undertaken to quantify
and legitimize their claims.
- Establish that the reductions in bus services that occurred at the time when Light Rail ser-
vices were in 1992 were not part of a much larger, system wide reduction in service. *produce
a list to access thes changes
- An independent monitoring and assessment program should be undertaken to document the
concerns regarding service reliability, up- keep of equipment and facilities and driver conduct.
*number of ADA compliant housing units *number of physically challenged tenants
-MTA should undertake an independent assessment of service complaints and delivery to
Cherry Hill community. *address concerns/improve services *develop monitoring/reporting
practices

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 warehouse
building. The market is not only a major tourist attraction for visitors, but also a mainstay for a
large portion of Baltimore’s minority community, who prize its selections, freshness and
tradition. 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.

Problems

- Public felt it had been marginalized and left out of the decision-making

79
- Commercial interests were given preference over community well-being
*parking lots
- Shoppers complained they had to walk longer distances to connect with busses
- Public are exposed to walk to connect to busses
- Public are exposed to vehicle exhaust as they walk to connect with busses
- Public has to navigate busy street traffic, and street activity whilst carrying shopping bags
and shepherding small children
Analysis & Findings

- Historically, a large number of the city’s minority and low-income residents have traveled
to the market by public transportation.
- The net effect of the added rail services seem to have improved transit access to the market.
- Improvements in transit access to the market are improved in the communities to the north
and west of the market, along Liberty and Reisterstown Roads
Changes in Regional Transit Access

- The northeastern corridor shows a decline in transit service between 1999 and 2000.
- Absence of rail services and reductions in bus services in this corridor that are mainly African
American residents

Chronology of events and Transportation Statistics

-On June 12, 2001 Fayette Street (farside) stop was disconnected
-On January 23, 2002 the Marion Street (farside) stop was established
-On March 4, 2002, the Lexington Street (nearside) stop was disconnected *Marion St. is half-a
block south of the Lexington Market Eutaw St. Entrance
-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 south of the Market Entrance
at

Lexington Street

-The crosswalk at Lexington Street is not signalized. This crosswalk supports major pedestrian
traffic ade up from visitors and transit users
-1991 City of Baltimore traffic reported revealed a combined vehicle volume of 601 vehicles per
hour. *amounts to one vehicle a second–making crossing without a signal difficult
-Saratoga Street carries a combined vehicle volume of 525 vehicles per hour in the A.M. and
884 vehicles per hour in the P.M. *pedestrian volumes counted at the same times indicated 443
persons attempting to cross Saratoga Street along North Eutaw going north in the A.M. peak
hour, only 68 crossing to go south, 141 crossing Eutaw going east, and 392 heading west

Assessment & Recommendations

-Some hardship may have been visited upon riders to Lexington Market as a result of the
movement of bus stops. *further information is needed to access the actual impacts -What is
evident is the community was not included in the decision process of moving the bus stops.

80
-These “issues of process” are a concern from an environmental justice perspective than the
movement of the stops themselves. -While bus services have been reduced over the past
decade, overall transit access to Lexington Market appears to have actually improved.
-Bus riders are being forced to walk away from the front of the market to reach relocated bus
stops. *streets are crowded and street intersections are busy

Highway to Non-where

The “Highway to Nowhere” is a massive section of roadway that begins on the western edge
of Baltimore and heads due west out of the city as part of US Route 40 through neighbor-
hoods 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 badged 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.

Problems

•The Highway separated and isolated neighborhoods


•Increase in drug-related crime.
•The creation of the Highway lead to a decline in property values
•A continued and systemic lack of political willingness at both the city and state levels to
invest in these neighborhoods.
•Substantial white population decline between 1950 and 2000 with the highest total population
decrease after 1980.
•Substantial black population increase between 1950 and 1960.
•Negative impact on all neighborhoods
•Residents feel isolated and neglected.
Analysis and Findings

•US/40 Highway to Nowhere corridor is comprised of minority; low-to-moderate ate


incomes
•Residents within a quarter of a mile of Highway are predominantly (more than 80%)
African American
•Low Median Household Incomes that surround Highway are between, $15,000 to $45,000 per
year
•48% of persons over 25 with less than a high school education
•21% unemployment rate
•13% married couple households
•43.3% of persons below the poverty level
•15% homes are owner occupied
•57% homes are renter occupied
•28% housing are vacant congestion, air quality, usage
•The Highway to Nowhere is congested at peak weekday times.

81
•Concentrated daily emission productions of 39.2 tons a year of Hydrocarbons and 26.9 tons a
year of NOx.
•A substantial amount of traffic n US40 comes from outside Baltimore City.
•It is clear that the communities in the W. Baltimore neighborhood adjacent to the Highway to
•Now-where have had a difficult time.
•Community relies on public transportation.
•Community can only use public bus transportation. *Busses run late and are overcrowded
•Bus operators get the blame for the quality of service

Assessment & Recommendations

-The Highway to Nowhere remains a testimony to poor planning and a waste of public tax
dollars.
-The Highway to Nowhere destroyed African American neighborhoods and dislocated several
thousand residents in its wake.
-The dislocation of residents left the remaining African America homeowners and
communities struggling to sustain a proud past.
-30 years after the fact, the ‘ditch’ still stands as a monument to how a community could be
destroyed in the name of progress.
-The area continues to have high drug and crime activity
*despite the fact that many long-time residents remain committed to making the community
work
-A bona-fie community planning effort is needed.
-The local residents bear the burden of 36,000 vehicles a day passing through their
communities whilst the commuters from Baltimore, Howard, Frederick and even Montgomery
Counties have the benefit f access.

Appendix 2: Performance Measures, Analytic Tools, and Distributive Impacts

NCHRP reports 8-36(11) and 532 are excellent resources on the concept of benefits and
burdens, measures which can be used to quantify those elements, and technical assistance on
availability and use of analytic tools and data. NCHRP 532 even attempts the important next
step of suggesting when the use of particular tools and measures is most appropriate, i.e., at
what level of the planning process. These reports (which build upon the initial benchmark
efforts of the Atlanta Benefits and Burdens study) offer substantial aid to practitioners (chiefly
planners and modeling specialists) on the tools for performing EJ analysis.

There are also issues in how the analytic capabilities are used. As a primary example, most
regional planning agencies have GIS capability, and most are now attuned to use of GIS tools
to perform buffer analysis showing the location of target populations in relation to
transportation system features or service envelopes. However, the use of GIS as a serious
planning tool is still largely in the early stages. When combined with population synthesis
techniques and household micro-simulation methods, GIS can be a powerful tool for analyzing
impacts and their distribution across discrete population segments.

82
Appendix 3: Look Up Guide to Support Application of an EJT Analysis

In general, transportation projects are evaluated using performance metrics for their effectiveness
(how well a proposal meets its objectives), efficiency (the cost of a project relative to its benefits)
and equality (how equal are the burdens and benefits spread across geographic, income, racial
and ethnic lines). Table 5 provides guides for using performance measures to evaluate equity.

To better understand and frame community-based issues and to inform the decision-making
process we recommend that goal-oriented performance measures be used to focus how
investments in the transportation system impact on low-income and minority communities and
that objective - oriented metric measures show how improvement plans enhance transportation
system performance in terms of accessibility gains associated community strategies.

Table 23: Measuring Equity


Community
Issues Community Driven Public Participation
Goal Objectives Performance Measures
Job Access Economic Vitality and Encourage Employment Work Opportunities within 15, 30 and 45 minutes by
Competitiveness Opportunities Urban car and transit door-to-door. Percent of transit-
Communities dependent riders who can access jobs with 45 minutes
by fixed route of transit
Maintenance Safety and Security Stop the Use of Old Percent and characteristic of out of service buses
(Motorized and Non) Equipment in Low coming into and area.
Income Neighborhoods Pedestrian/bicycle injuries & fatalities
Vehicle Crashes, Age of Fleet
Increased Increase Accessibility Access to Jobs Proximity to transit
Accessibility and Mobility Options Level of Service
Accessibility to health care facilities
Accessibility to educational facilities
Reduce Air and Protect Environment, Clean Environment Air pollution Concentrations, Incidence rates of
Noise Pollution Conserve Energy and Respiratory disorders, Number of Households exposed
Improve Quality of to noise. Asthma rates in communities adjacent to
Life large transportation facilities,

Improved Transit Enhance Connectivity Access to Shopping and Number of fatalities


Route Structure and Integration Across Services locations improved per million passenger miles
Modes for People and
Freight
Need Assessment Manage and Preserve Advocate for project Condition of roads and streets
Existing funding to improve local Condition of side walks
Transportation System conditions. Ratio of uncontested travel time between origins and
destinations
Funding Equity Local Fairness in Transit Per Capita Transportation expenditures
Regional Funding Per Capita Operating Expenses
Statewide Number of fatalities
Identity of user who benefit
Locations improved per million passenger miles

83
Table 24: Performance Measures by Planning Goal Area
Performance Measures Application Analytical Method
Economic Vitality and Competitiveness
Accessibility to regional jobs C PL F RM GIS
Accessibility to entry-level/semi-skilled jobs PL F RM GIS
Employer accessibility to workers PL F RM GIS
Number of jobs by type and location PL DA GIS
Business receipts by location PL DA GIS
Property values by location
Safety and Security for Motorized and non-Motorized
Travelers
Pedestrian/bicycle injuries & fatalities C PL F PR DA GIS
Vehicle Crashes C PR DA GIS
Increase Accessibility and Mobility Options
Proximity to transit by type (bus, rail, etc.) C PL F PR RM GIS
Level of service (headways, days/hours of service C PL F PR DA RM GIS
Average travel times for selected O/D pairs by mode C PL RM GIS
Accessibility to regional educational institutions PL F GIS
Accessibility to regional healthcare facilities PL F GIS
Average age/condition of buses by area served C F DA GIS
Protect the Environment, Conserve Energy, and Improve
Quality of Life
Number of households living with X-feet of busy highway C PL F PR DA GIS
Air pollution concentration by type pollutant C PL PR RM GIS EM
Incidence rates of respiratory disorders C PL DA GIS
Number of households exposed to noise exceeding X-decibels C PL PR DA RM GIS
Number of households living within X-feet of a bus terminal C PL DA GIS
Percent of buses servicing area which use alternative fuels C PL F DA GIS
Percent takings, household dislocations, access restrictions PL F PR DA GIS
Enhance Connectivity and Integration Across Modes
Number of transfers required for transit trips between select
origin/destination pairs C PL RM GIS
Percent of travel time accounted for by transfers in select
origin/destination pairs PL F RM GIS
Manage Existing Transportation System for Maximum
Efficiency
Percent of congested to un-congested travel time between select
origin/destination pairs PL RM GIS
Preserve the Existing Transportation System
Condition of roads and streets PL F DA GIS
Condition of sidewalks PL F DA GIS
Funding Equity
Transportation capital expenditures per capita PL F PR DA GIS
Transportation operating expenditures per capita PL F PR DA GIS
Identity of users benefiting from new project or program PL F PR DA GIS
C=Current Concern, PR=Project, PL=Planning, F=Programming, DA=Data Analysis, RM=Regional Travel
Models, GIS=GIS-Aided, EM= Emission Models

84