You are on page 1of 111

Environmental Justice Toolkit

Technical Documentation

Phase II of the Baltimore Region Environmental Justice in
Transportation Project

Prepared for

The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency in Conjunction with the
U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration
Cooperative Agreement XA-83085801-3
Contract DTF1161-06-P-00106


Project Director
Glenn Robinson
Research Scientist, Morgan State University

Baltimore Metropolitan Council – Transportation Planning Division

Institutional Support
School of Engineering and Institute for Urban Research, Morgan State University
Greater Baltimore Urban League
Environmental Justice Partnership, Inc
Johns Hopkins Center in Urban Environmental Health
Ohio State University - School of Public Health

Community Support
Art Cohen, Morgan State University (Historian, Highway to Nowhere)
Shirley Folks, Cherry Hill Public Housing Tenants Association
Diane Jones, Assistant Professor - Institute of Architecture and Planning, Morgan State University
Ruth Pitts, Cherry Hill Public Housing Tenants Association
Leon Purnell, Executive Director – The Men’s Center
Zelda Robinson, President - Westside Baltimore Coalition
Angela Wilkins, Graduate Research Assistant, Planning, Morgan State University (Cherry Hill)

Oversight Committee
Tony Brown, Maryland Transit Administration
Don Chen, Smart Growth America
Richard Lloyd, Morgan State University
Michael Mazepink, Peoples Homesteading Group
Dorothy Morrison, Maryland Department of the Environment
Paul Oberle, Maryland Department of Transportation
Carol Payne, Department of Housing and Urban Development
Dan Pontious, Citizens Planning and Housing Association
Andrew Sawyer, Maryland Department of the Environment
Scot Spencer, Annie E. Casey Foundation
Rich Stoltz, Center for Community Change



We would like to take this opportunity to thank the four community groups for their fine work,
the support they gave to this research, as well as their willingness to continue to share their
experience with us and with other communities. We wish them the best as they strive to ensure
accessible, affordable and reliable transportation for people with disabilities, low incomes and
others in their communities.

Also, we wish to express our appreciation to federal representatives for their support as well,
this includes: Victor McMahan (EPA), Sherry Ways (FHWA), and Gloria Shepherd (FHWA). A
note of thanks to an early contributor to this project, Rick Kuzmyak, is also warranted.

This final report is a compendium of the Task 2 Impact Measures, Task 3 Analytical Procedures
3, and Task 4 Analysis approach. The analysis approaches identified and used in this report
represents a few of the potential transportation analytical tools and impact measures for
evaluation of environmental justice issues.


or environmental consequences of the local. and performance measures that can be used by metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs). 4 . From the Baltimore experience the clear message is that when communities are motivated. BREJT’s goals are to advance the integration of EJ into the metropolitan planning process and to help low-income and minority communities and their planning agents better understand and more effectively deal with a wide range of urban transportation issues and problems. The toolkit provides a contextual framework. The EJ toolkit was developed to address these issues and to encourage government and communities to better work together to achieve sound solutions when addressing EJ concerns related to transportation. or mitigate the social. communities. and educated on the issues and options a sense of ownership is created that better influences the project selection outcomes. Case studies of four Baltimore communities—Kirk Avenue. and the Environmental Justice Partnership. The second of two EJ efforts. and other stakeholders to avoid. analytical tools. BREJT utilized community stakeholders to identify local concerns and potential remedies. Inc. BREJT has been listening to low-income and minority communities describe the impacts of transportation on their environment and in their lives. It is a vehicle for addressing community-based concerns through an informed public involvement process that is credibly responsive to public input particularly from low-income and minority communities. Cherry Hill. John Hopkins Bloomberg Center for Urban Environmental Health. Baltimore Metropolitan Council. minimize. is sponsored by the U. regional.S. evaluation criteria. well organized. Since 2003. economic. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to provide a systematic process for the integration of environmental justice (EJ) into the transportation decision-making process since there is no such approach currently in place. US 40 Highway–to-Nowhere. the Greater Baltimore Urban League. and statewide transportation planning decisions. and Lexington Market—are included to demonstrate the elements of EJ analysis.Executive Summary The Baltimore Region Environmental Justice in Transportation Project (BREJT) is a collaborative effort between the Morgan State University School of Engineering and the Institute for Urban Research.

......................................... 43 Introduction ....... 44 Case Study Issues................ 58 Case Study: Cherry Hill ...... 49 Characteristics of Impacted Community..................................................................................................................... 21 Atlanta Transportation Benefits & Burdens Study ..... 70 Transit Service Delivery ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 14 Section 1: Performance Measures ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 3 Executive Summary................. 40 Section 4: EJ Case Study Analysis......................................................... Vacancies and Home Value ........... 20 Research Review Findings... 38 Case Study #1 and #3........................................ 70 ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................... 17 Issues and Concerns .................................................................................................................... 27 Section 2: Analytic Tools ........................................................................................................................................................................... 74 5 ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 10 Case Study Report: Lexington Market .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 73 Case Study: Lexington Market............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 51 Impacts on Home Ownership................................... 28 Selection Criteria ......................................................................... 9 Case Study Report: Cherry Hill Issues ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 4 Overview . 53 Noise and Pollution Impacts ........................................................................... 28 Importance of Geographic Information System (GIS) Tools .................................................................................................................................. 44 Description of Setting and Concerns:................................................................................................................................................................................... 43 Case Study: Kirk Avenue Bus Yard.............................................. 65 Community Profile and Changes ........................................................................................................................................... 20 Analytic Tool Advances ............................................................................................ 17 A Focus on “Outcomes”..... 59 Impact of Changes on Regional Accessibility.......................................................................................................................................................................................... 34 Data Resources ......................................... Quantity and Adequacy of Transit Service ................... 7 Case Study Report: Kirk Avenue Bus Yard ................................................................................................................................................... 12 Case Study Report: US 40 Highway-to-Nowhere ........................................ 64 Changes in Transit Service Before/After Light Rail ........................................................................... 55 ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............. 48 Analysis and Findings............................................................................................ 21 NCHRP Report 532: Effective Methods for Environmental Justice Assessment...................................................................................................... Modified................... 28 Literature Review................................................................................................... 24 Candidate Performance Measures..................................................................... 17 Introduction................................................. 32 List of Analytic Tools Reviewed......................................... 59 Description of Setting and Concerns:............................................................................................................................................................................................................ or Considered for Use in Toolkit ....................................................... 45 Investigations................................................................................................ 28 Introduction ...... Table of Contents Acknowledgments .........................................................................

..................................... 76 ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................... 111 Charts Chart 1: Defining the Case Studies....................................................... 94 ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................... 87 Investigations.................................. 61 Figure 11: Bus Routes Serving Cherry Hill.............. 60 Figure 10: Cherry Hill Community/Land Cover (2000)........... 61 Figure 12: Cherry Hill 1990-2000 Peak Travel Time .............................................................................. 83 Case Study: U.... 84 Description of Setting and Concerns. 2000..............................................................102 Exhibit 10: Major Trip Origins & Destinations by RPD: Fulton and Monroe Streets @ US 40 – AM Peak.................................................................................................26 Exhibit 4: Bus Idling ........................................................................................................................................... 66 Figure 13: Off Peak Transit Travel Times .................................................................... 84 Recognition of Past Injustice ................................................. Real Estate.... 54 Figure 6.... 89 Transportation Facilities and Travel in the Corridor...................... Illnesses and Health Issues Reported by Households Adjacent to Kirk Depot ..............................................................................................................................5 um (PM 2............................... 109 Section 5: Summary .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................8 Chart 2: Scope of Analysis.................................16 Exhibits Exhibit 1: Overview of Concerns from Phase I Listening Sessions ....................................................................................................... 47 Figure 3: Daily Bus Pullouts by MTA Division ..................................................................................5) .......................100 Exhibit 6: Source of Trip Origins: US 40 @ Edmondson Village – AM Peak........24 Exhibit 3: Transportation Effects Addressed in NCHRP 532..... 2000................................................ 49 Figure 5: Kirk Ave............ 57 Figure 9: Cherry Hill Aerial Photo of Neighborhood Streets Identified ....................................... 46 Figure 2: Land Use Mix in the Extended Kirk Avenue Community............... Description of Setting and Concerns... 2000 ..............109 Figures Figure 1.................................................................................................................................................................... 2000 ...................................................................... Bus Yard.................................................. 56 Figure 8. Guidebook ................................................................................S................... Noise Level (dBA) by Day of Week and Hour of Day at the Fenceline of the Kirk Division Depot.................................................................................................................................................................................. 67 6 ........................................................19 Exhibit 2: Measures of Performance as Used to Assess Environmental Justice..........................................................57 Exhibit 5: : Emission Calculations ............................ 74 Investigations.........................................................................................................................................................................................101 Exhibit 8: Source of Trip Origins: US 40 @ MLK Boulevard – AM Peak.................... 40/Highway to Nowhere ..............109 Exhibit 11: Major Trip Origins & Destinations by County: Fulton and Monroe Streets @ US 40 – AM Peak........ 55 Figure 7.................................................... Integrated 24-hour Particle Mass Concentration <2.................................................................................................. 49 Figure 4: Kirk Ave..................................................................................................................................................................................102 Exhibit 9: Percentage African American Population and Median Family Income...... 76 Analysis and Findings......101 Exhibit 7: Source of Trip Origins: US 40 @ West Baltimore MARC – AM Peak........................... Kirk Avenue Bus Depot and Adjacent Neighborhood ................................ 89 Analysis and Findings............................................................................................................................................. 2000 ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

........................................................................................................................................... Lexington Market Location Map........ 1990 vs 2000 – Off Peak ............ 82 Figure 22: West Baltimore and the Highway to Nowhere........... 107 Figure 35.......... Baltimore MARC...................................................... 90 Figure 25.......... 80 Figure 21: Lexington Market Peak Travel Time and Racial Composition................... 107 Figure 34: Productions and Attractions by RPD US 40 @ Edmondson Affecting Volumes on Fulton and Monroe Streets @ US 40........................................................................................... 99 Figure 29.............................................. 68 Figure 15: Cherry Hill Transit Access ...... Bus Services in the US 40 Corridor .................................................................................................. 77 Figure 19: Peak Transit Travel times From Lexington Market..................... 90 Figure 24: US 40 Corridor Median Household Income................... 74 Figure 17............................ AM and PM Peak – 2000................85 Tables Table 1: Analytic Approaches Recommended by NCHRP Report 532................................................................ 92 Overview 7 .............................................................. 52 Table 6: Population by Race ................................ 96 Figure 27: 2000 AM Peak Hour Traffic Congestion in the US 40 Corridor . 84 Figure 23: US 40 Corridor Racial Composition ................................................................. 87 Table 9........................................................... AM Peak ........................................ Select Link Traffic FlowMap – US 40 @ Edmondson Village.......................................................................................... 86 Table 7: Rates of Population Decline ...............................................................2000.............................44 Illustration 2: Neighborhood Proximity ........................... 95 Figure 26......................................................................2000 ..................... 69 Figure 16................... AM Peak ................ Demographic Characteristics of US 40 Corridor (1990 and 2000) ......................45 Illustration 3: West Baltimore and the Highway to Nowhere Census Tracts 1940-2000.................... 86 Table 8: Migration out and Immigration by Race US Census Year ........................................................................................... Baltimore Regional Planning Districts (RPDs).................... AM Peak and PM Peak – 2000....................... 79 Figure 20: Transit Travel Time from Lexington Market.............................................. Preliminary Assessment of Analytic Needs: Case Study #2 – Congestion and Environment ..................... 105 Figure 32....................................................... 41 Table 4: Case Study #4 – Public Involvement.........2000..................................... 2000 Number and Percent ................................................................................................................................................ AM and PM Peak ...... 42 Table 5: Population.................................................................... 98 Figure 28:2000 PM Peak Hour Traffic Congestion in the US 40 Corridor ............... Movement of Bus Stops at Lexington Market ............................................................................... 103 Figure 30: Select Link Traffic Flow Map – US 40 @ W........................................... 31 Table 2: Preliminary Assessment of Analytic Needs: ......... 40 Table 3.............. 1990 vs.................................................................... 104 Figure 31: Select Link Traffic Flow Map – US 40 @ MLK Boulevard...................................................................................................... Traffic Volumes in the US 40 Corridor................................................... 75 Figure 18: Vehicle and Pedestrian Volumes in Vicinity of Lexington Market (1996) ..............................................................Figure 14: 2000 Employment Opportunities by TAZ and Change in Travel Time since 1990 .... Housing and Economic Profile of Kirk Avenue and Expanded Community (Source: US Census)................................... 108 Illustrations Illustration 1: Proposed Expansion Area........................ AM Peak and PM Peak – 2000 .................. Select Link Traffic Flow Map – Fulton & Monroe Streets @ US 40................................................................................ 106 Figure 33: Productions and Attractions by RPD Affecting Volumes on Village.........................

Effective transportation decision-making depends upon understanding and properly addressing the unique needs of different socioeconomic groups. on minority populations and low-income populations. or significant delay in the receipt of benefits by minority and low- income populations In current practice. reduction in. minimize. regional and local partners to be creative and innovative in developing methods of meeting their Title VI obligations and to utilize best practices that are tailored to addressing the particular needs of their communities. and 3) prevent the denial of. A third and equally important objective is to format the analytic tools for use in assisting previously targeted community groups who participated in the community dialogue and who are in high-risk areas. They are: (1) to be responsive to the concerns raised by the community in Phase I (2) work toward identifying reasonable solutions and (3) to gain sufficient experience and insight in addressing these concerns to be able to create a planning guide or. State. for use by others locally or nationally. FHWA wants to ensure that transportation practitioners are aware of and can use state-of-the-art techniques when analyzing potential high and adverse disproportionate impacts and public participation processes. This is more that a desktop exercises. Chart 1: Defining the Case Studies D e fin in g th e C a s e S tu d ie s C o n g e s ti o n & T r a n s it P u b l ic E nv i ron m e n t A d e q u ac y I n v o lv e m e n t N e ig h b o r h o o d / K irk A ve . The BREJT project has three primary objectives. Toolkit. B us C h e rr y H il l L o ca l D ep o t C o rri d or/ R e d L in e S u b ar ea R e gion a l L e x in gt o n M a rk et 8 . This will be used in continuing the dialogue of defining remedial solutions. 2) ensure the full and fair participation by all potentially affected communities in the transportation decision-making process. Title VI and environmental justice in transportation decision making. They are to: 1) avoid. it requires involving the public to ensure inclusion of the three fundamental principles of Civil Rights. or mitigate disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects. To accomplish the three objectives four case studies were chosen because they are cross cutting different issues and spatial detail (see chart below). including social and economic effects. As such a flexible approach will encourage our State. regional and local transportation agencies are applying a wide variety of techniques for assessing the outcomes of transportation decisions on minority populations and reaching out to traditionally underrepresented groups.

Noise levels were higher during night hours. especially on weekends.  Residents are concerned about the impact of the bus yard on property values. that seem to have somewhat receded over time. A number of residents have asthma and some have died of cancer. even considered.  All 4 of MTA’s bus yards have had a significant decrease in bus pullouts between 1997 and 2007.  Quality of life has declined for many residents due to an inability to fully use their homes because of exhaust and noise. Community Concerns  Residents complain that the noise levels at the bus yard are too high and are causing physiological health impacts. Community Impacts:  Noise pollution noted at bus yard: Announcements over loud speakers. No one with any respiratory problems can sleep in the back rooms.5%). The Kirk Avenue bus yard is 1 of 3 MTA bus yards located in or near residential areas. 9 . as the bus yard is perceived as having a negative impact upon the community. Analysis and Findings Bus Operations:  In terms of daily pullouts. high levels of stress.Summary of case studies and community concerns Case Study Report: Kirk Avenue Bus Yard The Midway Community is one in which residential and industrial uses collide. The bus yard is located between industrial land to the north and east and residential neighborhoods to the west and south. the Kirk Avenue bus yard is the 2nd largest MTA bus facility.  There are concerns about the impacts of engine idling on residents’ respiratory health.  Some of the bus routes leaving from Kirk Avenue directly serve the Midway Community. Repairs and servicing. The Kirk Avenue bus yard has been a point of contention between the surrounding community and the Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) for some time. etc). Examples cited were: Not being able to open windows in rooms facing bus yard. The primary complaints have to do with the impact of noise and emissions from bus operations on the community and its residents. Of the 12 bus routes that leave the Kirk Avenue bus yard. This could affect residents’ health (loss of sleep. Engines running throughout day and night. however Kirk Avenue has experienced the largest decrease (22.  Community representatives have appealed to the MTA on numerous occasions to address these conditions but feel their concerns are not being resolved or at time. 4 are within a 1/2 mile radius of Kirk Avenue and 2 are within 1 mile. and No backyard cookouts. What is not clear is the extent to which the operations at the Kirk Avenue bus yard have directly caused the decline of the neighborhood.  The bus yard is too close to homes. nearly every day tested.  Recorded noise levels exceeded Baltimore City ordinance levels during both day and night.

particularly given the houses are larger units than those in the surrounding area. new operational procedures have been put in place. south of the Inner Harbor/Central Business District of Baltimore City. no neighborhood in the city was available for an influx of African Americans.  The community should have ongoing. and public housing projects. how can the overall EJ concern of minorities be addressed within the existing transportation system? What practical solutions can be implemented?  How can future transportation systems be designed in a way to facilitate movement while minimizing distributional economic. etc). a new structure is replacing the old structure. Some of the 10 . Related illnesses and doctor/hospital visits were documented and mapped. planned facility and pursue mitigation for impacts from construction and implementation of the new facility. environmental and health outcomes across communities? Case Study Report: Cherry Hill Issues The Cherry Hill community is located in the southern section of Baltimore City. the 2 week average indicates that the annual standard may be exceeded. Assessment and Recommendations:  MTA is currently responding to the community’s concerns with some mitigation measures (all new hybrid buses are located at the Kirk Avenue bus yard rather than diesel fueled buses.  Property values are lower in the 1/4 mile residential areas surrounding the bus yard. 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. row houses. negotiations with MTA regarding near-term and long-term strategies that will begin to provide some relief from the impacts which are substantially attributed to the bus yard. structured.  The community should ask the MTA for a clear statement of the likely impacts of the new. Cherry Hill is a mostly residential area with apartment complexes. In those days of segregated housing. that was made available to the team  Community meetings  Map of bus routes  Socio-demographic profiling  Homeownership and property value analysis  Map of reported illnesses and health concerns  Indoor and outdoor air pollution measurements Key Policy Questions  Should damage assessment fees be considered for transportation systems that disproportionately impact communities?  Scaling upwards.  The effects of air pollution put residents at an increased risk for adverse health effects. Tools Used in this Case Study:  Residents maintained a Diary of concerns.  Although the daily average of air pollution didn’t exceed the federal standard. Today .

8%) and Hispanics (+99%). 11 . Here are some of the findings:  Overall population declined 21. Recommended studies and actions are listed below. residents are highly dependent on transit  People miss appointments or are left stranded  Employers see Cherry Hill residents as unreliable  Complaints go unanswered Analysis and Findings Impact of Changes on Regional Accessibility:  Decreased transit access overall  Major areas of east Baltimore are inaccessible within 1 hour of travel time  Access to substantial areas of northeast Baltimore are no longer reachable without at least one hour of travel time  Light rail service has improved travel time to jobs in the BWI corridor  Overall access to jobs for transit dependent households in Cherry Hill has declined Community Profile and Changes: Between 1990 and 2000 there was a marked change in the size of the Cherry Hill Regional Planning District (RPD). the largest decreases were seen among 18 to 44 year olds (-31.9% decline in the number of households  The largest decreases in households were seen among married couples with children (-51. sidewalks are poorly maintained  Paratransit vehicles are poorly equipped  Drivers are impolite  As a poor community.1%.8%) with the largest increases among non-whites (+77.5% of total labor force – well above the national average Assessment and Recommendations  An initial review shows the Cherry Hill community has experienced deferential treatment with regard to transit service. Community Concerns  Residents feel there are too few buses  The buses do not run on schedule  Bus stops. however additional investigations should be undertaken to quantify and legitimize residents’ claims.  There was a 12.3%.6% and the unemployment rate was 15. with the largest population decrease among whites (-46.8%  By age.7%) and in children under 5 (-29.6%)  The total reduction in housing was 9. but percent change in vacant homes increased by 113%  The number of employed residents fell by 28.public housing has been demolished leaving large tracts of land in the middle of the community that can be redeveloped in the future.4%)  Single person households increased by 15. shelters.

Community Concerns  The public felt it had been marginalized and left out of the decision-making process  Commercial interests were given preference over community well-being  Shoppers complained they had to walk longer distances to connect with buses  The public expressed concerned about exposure to vehicle exhaust as they walk to buses  Pedestrians have to navigate busy traffic to visit the market or transfer between transit services. freshness and tradition. The market is not only a major tourist attraction. providing fresh produce. meats. Analysis and Findings Changes in Regional Transit Access:  Historically. and a variety of vendors selling items in a large.  Implement a process to report back to the community about the status of investigations into complaints. what is the associated impact on community socio-economic performance?  What lessons can be learned from the Cherry Hill study to integrate in transit service decisions regarding the socio-economic impacts of route decisions?  How can the socio-economic concerns of communities be addressed through participatory public transportation system decision making process? Case Study Report: Lexington Market Lexington Market is a major commercial destination in downtown Baltimore. including any changes implemented as a result. historic building. the City of Baltimore Police Department. Beginning in 2001. who prize its selections.  Consider developing an independent monitoring and assessment program to document community concerns regarding both transit and paratransit services.  Create a community advisory board. housing. a large number of the city’s minority and low-income residents have traveled to the market by public transportation 12 . system wide reduction in services due to financial restrictions Tools Used in This Case Study  A Listening Session  Maps showing changes to transit travel times  Regional travel model analysis  Population. the Market Authority. and the MTA introduced a set of controversial changes when they moved the stops for several of the bus routes. and employment statistics  Map of available transit in area Key policy questions  In the face of decline in bus service quality and frequency. but also a mainstay for a large portion of Baltimore’s minority community.  Establish that the reductions in bus services after the Light Rail service that began in 1992 were not part of a much larger. seafood.

This amounts to one vehicle every 4 to 6 seconds.  Improvements in transit access to the market are seen in the communities to the north and west of the market. these high volumes of pedestrians and vehicles make for congested conditions. Transportation statistics:  The crosswalks at Lexington Street are not signalized. a much higher percentage of the region is within a 1-hour travel window of Lexington Market in 2000 over 1990. Recommend the following to address these concerns: o Collect updated traffic counts to determine current safety issues between pedestrian and vehicle traffic. However.  A 1996 City of Baltimore traffic report documents that 600 to 800 vehicles travel every hour along Eutaw Street in front of Lexington Market.  In general.  The net effect of the added rail services seems to have improved transit access to the market. Given the narrow sidewalks.  Pedestrian counts taken at the same time show over 500 pedestrians crossing Eutaw Street. pedestrian safety remains a concern for both transit riders and visitors. making crossing without a signal difficult and dangerous. This “issue of process” is more a concern from an environmental justice perspective than the movement of the stops themselves.  What is evident is the community was not included in the decision-making process of moving the bus stops. A significant improvement was also noted for Westport residents (-11 minutes). since they show a lack of consideration for an inclusive process. The crosswalks supports major pedestrian traffic made up of visitors and transit users. Recommend the following: o Research ways to improve decision-making process o Implement improved process for notifying and involving transit riders of proposed changes to bus stops  Due to high traffic volumes. Tools Used in This Case Study  Community meetings  Measure vehicle and pedestrian traffic volumes  Study changes to travel times Key policy questions  What are potential distributional impacts of transit stop changes on minorities and low income riders?  How can potential community concerns with transit stop changes be addressed through a participatory public hearing?  What are the long-term impacts of transit changes on users and long-term uses? 13 . due to the addition of Metro and light rail. Assessment and 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 assess the actual impacts. o Identify and evaluate alternatives to improve pedestrian safety and access.

000 per year.3% are living below the poverty level o 28% of housing is vacant o 57% of homes are occupied by renters. which terminates at the Baltimore Beltway (I- 695) in the west. Baltimore’s White population fell 70%.000 per year. especially drug-related. o 15% of homes are owner-occupied.  The HTN corridor is mostly comprised of minority families with low-to-moderate incomes. the highway would have been called as I-170. and a 39% decline in the western area from 1960 to 2000.  Fulton and Monroe Streets also experience congestion. 14 .  The city and state have allowed the area to decay over the last 30 years and nothing significant has been done to help correct the mistake of the highway. Analysis and Findings Demographic Characteristics and Changes:  In the 3 main communities affected by the Highway to Nowhere (HTN). Lafayette Square and Rosemont. Once the starting point of an ambitious plan to connect I-95. while its Black population more than doubled (rising 253%). with I-70. Air Quality. Congestion.4 miles long. and Transit:  Some portions of the HTN corridor show congestion.  Residents living closest to the eastern end of the HTN have a median-income of less than $15.  The creation of the Highway to Nowhere led to a decline in property values and in increase in abandoned buildings.  From 1940 to 2000. However.  Residents of the hard-hit eastern section also show signs of economic and social distress: o 48% of residents over 25 have less than a high school education o 43. significant shifts in population were noted: a 67% decline in the central area and an 80% decline in the eastern area from 1950 to 2000.  There has been an increase in crime.  How do transit changes impact local businesses through impact on volume of passengers to a particular location? Case Study Report: US 40 Highway-to-Nowhere The “Highway to Nowhere” is a massive section of roadway that begins on the western edge of downtown Baltimore and heads due west out of the city as part of US 40 through the neighborhoods of Poppleton. and thus it remains to this day–almost 30 years after it was opened to traffic – a grade-separated superhighway that is only 1. as they are major arteries bringing substantial traffic through the west Baltimore neighborhoods.  Residents fear being displaced again when new improvements are introduced. particularly where the “expressway” ends. the plan ran out of momentum and support before it could proceed beyond the railway line. many earning less than $30. Community Concerns  The Highway to Nowhere is a ditch that cut the community into two halves. Harlem Park. as it passes through Baltimore.

9 tons a year of NOx. minority community.5% just since 2000. Assessment and Recommendations  It is clear that the communities in the W. with MTA bus routes No. Tools Used in This Case Study  Map congestion levels  Regional travel forecasting model  Review of U.  The HTN remains 30 years later as a daily reminder for residents of “planning gone wrong. while the commuters from Baltimore.  The principal population subgroups that use the HTN corridor appear to be of a very different socio-economic mix than those live along the corridor.  A substantial amount of traffic on the HTN comes from outside Baltimore City.  There is access to a commuter train.S.2 tons a year of Hydrocarbons and 26. Census data Key policy questions  An assessment of the distribution of opportunities and burdens of proposed road projects needs to be communicated to communities to generate public support. and various cross-routes providing north- south connection. Howard.west from downtown to Social Security. but no local rail transit in the corridor. generating an estimated 1/4 ton of ozone-producing pollutants each day. the proposed Red Line would occupy or parallel the US 40 right-of-way along much of its length.  Along the 1. However.000 vehicles a day passing through their communities.  Bus transit service is good in the corridor. daily production of emissions equal 39.”  The local residents bear the burden of 36. Baltimore neighborhood adjacent to the HTN have had a difficult time. What are the mechanisms through which proper information on the distribution of the impacts associated with new road projects be communicated to communities?  How do transportation planners and decision-makers integrate potential economic and environmental distributional impacts of transportation systems?  How can communities be engaged and well-informed to make choices about transportation routes in and near their communities? 15 . Frederick and even Montgomery Counties have the benefit of access. 10 and 40 providing frequent east .  Baltimore City and the MDOT have initiated planning processes in West Baltimore related to the Red Line transit project and West Baltimore MARC station improvements.  A significant community planning effort is needed to address the disproportionate burden that is borne by this predominately low-income. This traffic stream is growing each year – daily volumes have increased by 24. The dislocation of several thousand residents left the remaining African America homeowners and communities struggling to sustain a proud past.4 mile HTN corridor. It will be key for residents to work closely together with planners to ensure community needs are met as planning moves forward on these two projects.

secondary Select link analysis Lexington Market and cumulative effects (based (VMT and VHT) select link analysis on Traffic & population Crime statistics and traffic flow data Time.Chart 2: Scope of Analysis Questions To Ask Cherry Hill Kirk Avenue Lexington Market US 40 Overall Transportation Access to and from Interstate Noise Barriers Pollution from busses Intercity mobility Issues Pedestrian & bicycles barriers Air Quality Diesel exhaust Regional mobility Safety Public Participation Removal of bus stops Safety Substandard intersection Age of Facility Increased walking interchange distances Suitability Annapolis/Waterview Proximity to Narrow and obstructed with neighborhoods utilities Regional Access Points I-95 & McComas Greenmount Avenue All Points CBD Route 40. I-95 & Hanover Harford Road Boulevard I-895 & Potee Loch Raven Boulevard I-295 & Waterview Pedestrian Activity Cherry Hill Light Rail Station Kirk Avenue Automotive Citywide Schools Generators body shops Westport Light Rail Shopping Main Traffic Street Waterview Avenue Kirk Avenue Eutaw Street Edmonson Avenue (Minor Cherry Hill Avenue 25th Street Paca Street Monroe Street Arterials/Collectors) Hanover Street/Potee Route 40 Fulton Avenue Impacted Communities Middle River Homewood Avenue Appleton Mid-Town Edmondson West Port Bartlett Avenue Harlem Park Harlem Park Orowso Midtown What Government Economic Development Inner City Bus Facility TOD TOD Wants Enhanced Transit Access Reduced Operating Cost Reduce CBD Red Line Points Congestion Economic Market Priced Housing Development What the Community Better transportation Keep Homes Improve Transit & Better transportation Wants Better transit services Find Land Use Transportation Better transit services Low income affordable Clean Environment Low income. indirect. MLK. and forecast population proximity Collect data from Employment accessibility and analyses adjacent service accessibility communities. I- 295. affordable housing for residents of public public housing Community Community Cohesion housing Cohesion Bus Facility Moved Economic Development Impact Measures Land use impacts Accessibility Individual Analyze accessibility accessibility to using Direct. I-95. 16 . distance.

An essential element to any analytic or evaluation procedure is the set of measures used to describe and quantify the particular issues or impacts under review. an EJT Toolkit should be capable of looking at a broad range of issues and concerns that have environmental justice implications. The original Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 has shaped this process with its recommendations for the adoption of various Planning Factors into the state and MPO transportation planning process. all too often transportation plans. and to a certain extent be within the limits of reasonably available analytic tools and data to estimate. These performance measures (also referred to as performance indicators or measures of effectiveness) are critical to both visualizing the problem under study and to evaluating potential solutions. regular populations and across alternative planning scenarios. recommendations tended toward the most meaningful measures for the analysis and were not limited by current capabilities. and air pollution. measures were selected with the criteria that:  They realistically reflect the central concerns  They may be used to measure and compare both current/unaltered conditions with solution alternatives  They can support enlightened dialogue on the topic and lead to resolution. impacts and potential outcomes that are likely to be encountered in environmental justice studies. safety. noise. Prior to ISTEA. Since the intent of the Toolkit is to develop a mechanism for improving the voice of disadvantaged populations in the regional planning and programming process. plans and programs were required to 17 . While the capabilities of existing data and analysis tools were used as an initial guide in framing the performance measures. policies and spending priorities were guided by a narrow set of performance criteria and political concerns. For the BREJT Project. both as the impact EJ vs. Issues and Concerns Ultimately. presumably the measures of impact should bear some identity with the goals and objectives that are addressed by the metropolitan planning process. the performance measures designed into the Toolkit must be capable of reflecting the broad array of concerns.which may range from highly localized to regional in focus – the time frame in question. they must be appropriate to the scale of the particular study -. In addition. Moreover. The intent of the Planning Factors was to draw into consideration the many objectives that transportation either supports or influences when framing the goals and objectives of a comprehensive transportation plan. and exposure to transportation-related impacts such as traffic.Section 1: Performance Measures Introduction The performance mesures identified in this section represent a store of universally accepted impact measures routinely used by transportation planners for various analytical tasks. In the context of the Environmental Justice in Transportation (EJT) Toolkit. measures were also selected that allowed for comparison of access and safety to jobs and other activity needs. ISTEA ushered in a new planning ethic where transportation policies.

affluent areas. particularly if the problem is widespread and/or is the result of shifted funding or program priorities. Correspondingly. 18 . condition of transportation infrastructure. and improve quality of life  Enhance connectivity and integration across modes for people and freight  Manage existing transportation system for maximum efficiency  Preserve the existing transportation system Based on the ISTEA Planning Factors. and a higher level of assessment and intervention may be required. data resources. in this case it may be sufficient to simply reestablish the communications link between the community and the agency. 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. their causes. Fittingly. funding or operations. it may likely be necessary to deepen the assessment and intervention to better understand the nature of the problem or to investigate alternative solutions. but which leaves open the option to “dig deeper” if the problem proves to be more complex or difficult to resolve with simplistic methods. other needs. and the application of this information in the planning and decision making process. the Toolkit attempts to provide its users with the ability to identify the most appropriate measures and analyses to address a particular issue. A perusal of the concerns summarized in Exhibit 1 suggests an abundance of concern in the following major areas:  Delivery of transit service: Frequency. these comprehensive transportation-planning goals should also serve as the policy framework for evaluating Environmental Justice needs and concerns in the context of both metropolitan planning as well as more perfunctory or topical issues and concerns. the problems may not be simple in nature or source. and the potential responses. Given this “hierarchy” of issues. individual health. proximity. In other cases. 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. particularly by transit  Funding parity: priorities in poor vs. air pollution  Quality of Life: Community health.demonstrate a stronger link with economic and societal goals that transportation is used to support. noise. 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. quality. Ultimately. conserve energy. however. it seems. professionalism  Access and mobility: ability to reach jobs. inclusion in decision making  Environmental: Exposure to traffic. The issues and concerns elicited from the Baltimore community during Phase I of the BREJT project speak to this breadth of coverage and specificity that are required of the Toolkit and the tools and performance measures it contains. reliability. In such a case. rail transit. health care. bus vs. metropolitan transportation plans now reflect a more comprehensive vision and understanding of the role of and impacts resulting from transportation. the measures of performance have also broadened. including:  Support economic vitality and competitiveness  Safety and security for motorized and non-motorized travelers  Increase accessibility and mobility options for people and freight  Protect the environment. as have the capabilities of analytic tools.

budgets have been cut on aides  Access to transit service via local streets and sidewalks in poor condition. Exhibit 1: Overview of Concerns from Phase I Listening Sessions Quality & adequacy of transit service:  Complaints don’t get heard  Too few buses to serve demand. air conditioning  Stops. uninviting. dirty. stations and nearby infrastructure is poorly maintained – broken. service (frequency) has declined  Buses are frequently overcrowded.  Buses don’t run on time. drivers surly or uninvolved  Equipment on buses is frequently broken – lifts. limited opportunities to cross safely  Insufficient parking opportunities near transit stops/stations Funding/Equity:  No way to find out if funds are being allocated fairly  Perception that funding and service is going to more affluent areas  Fear that transit will continue to be underfunded and service will continue to degrade  Perception that regional rail service is taking resources away from local bus service Congestion & Environment:  Primary concerns seem to be localized exposure to traffic. making east-west travel difficult Accessibility:  Underlying concern with transit is trying to reach jobs in outlying locations – adequate routing. plus schedules are out of date  Area is hooked on rail transit service. noise and pollution associated with MTA bus yards Public Participation:  Generally judged to be inadequate  Important decisions have already been made by time of involvement 19 . noise. scheduling. passengers unruly. and pollution  Construction related traffic noise and pollution  Traffic. unsafe for seniors. information on system connections  Getting to health care via public transportation seen as a significant and unique problem – paratransit service is horrible. which has taken away from resources available for bus service  Principal service orientation is north-south.

or the initial results of that effort in terms of the product delivered. These measures are often harder to quantify. and might be expressed in terms of bus route miles. these traditional transportation planning tools have numerous identified shortcomings when applied to more complex – but typical – modern planning and impact questions. Analytic Tool Advances Outcome-based performance measures place more stringent requirements on the analytic tools and data used for conventional transportation planning. or it can be some combination of various modes providing service to the same user. a very revealing measure in evaluating the effectiveness of a transportation investment is the concept of “accessibility”. but essentially it represents the number of opportunities that are made available to an individual or a group through the transportation system. outcome-based measures might be:  Change in transit ridership  Change in transit modal share in a particular travel market  Change in the time or cost to reach particular destinations by transit. economic or environmental goal. Fortunately. the task is to determine the number of opportunities that are within a specified travel time from a selected origin point. To measure accessibility. At the same time. As a measure of outcome. as well as a developing body of research on defining and using these techniques in transportation- related situations in general and in application to environmental justice questions in particular. it is much more meaningful than. the gradual movement of the profession to adopt meaningful measures of performance has been met with improvements in the analytic tools and data needed to create them. This measure can be rather easily calculated with information from a standard four-step transportation planning model. Early attempts to adopt performance-based methods to transportation planning or program evaluation focused more heavily on gauging the “effort” taken to achieve an objective.A Focus on “Outcomes” Closely related to the use of particular measures to address issues of a particular scale or nature is the notion of measuring performance “outcomes”. For example. if one more properly tries to focus on what impact the policy or investment is having on the customer. but provide much more useful information to support decision-making on projects or programs. or average headways. The former is regarded as a measure of “input”. and might be measured in terms of dollars spent. and is very effective at demonstrating how well the transportation system – or a proposed change to that system – actually helps people travel. measuring distance to the nearest bus stop (since the bus may not go to particular destinations) or average speed on a given roadway. However. which. This is particularly true with regard to measures that require accounting for geographic location or proximity. Because of the 20 . of course. Accessibility can be measured in different ways. is a central concern with environmental justice analyses. say. say auto or transit. The Toolkit will be able to take advantage of these improvements in tools and data. while the latter is generally regarded as an “output”. then it is necessary to try to define and measure the practical “outcome” that occurs. That travel time can be in relation to a given mode. In the case of transit. or on some primary social. as well as the change in those opportunities as a result of a change in the transportation system (or some related policy).

FTA. This frame may be a TAZ.structure of conventional planning models. Southern Organizing Committee for Economic and Social Justice. Through use of “layers”. or it may be a census tract. Advances in geographic information systems (GIS) methods offer to greatly expand the flexibility and capability of conventional travel analysis methods. as well as to study the most effective ways to impact those conditions. Transportation Benefits & Burdens in the Atlanta Region. this complexity can be relatively easily recast into measures of travel time to reach particular destinations. transit routes. Three earlier studies. With this capability to slice demographic and land use features into smaller units. and provide a substantive foundation for the measures and analytic approaches that will be used in the development of the Toolkit. and Georgia Coalition for a People’s Agenda) to conduct a study of environmental justice in the Atlanta 1 USDOT. since the transportation facilities constitute a “network” of links and nodes that provide connecting paths to places and activities. Atlanta Transportation Benefits & Burdens Study1 This project was the result of a 1997 agreement between the USDOT and a coalition of non-government agencies (Environmental Defense. where it is necessary to identify and isolate particular population subgroups and then ascertain the degree to which they are currently served or impacted by transportation service or programs. it is clear that much valuable thought has already been invested in the subject of analytic approaches and measurement techniques. be it highways. focused intensively on the measurement and tools aspects of environmental justice. even supplied from different sources. land use and the transportation system are “lost in the average”. This not only restricts the types of policies that can be looked at. Moreover. The scope and principal findings of these three important studies are summarized below. and conveniently interrelate transportation system elements and changes. And this value is particularly apparent with regard to environmental justice. since it allows relatively efficient calculation of the proximity of populations (or activities) to these facilities. or TAZ. zip code. GIS presents an ideal capability for transportation planning and policy evaluation. May 2002 21 . down to individual households if desired. the level of analysis is restricted to the Traffic Analysis Zone. and at this level of aggregation many important characteristics of households. Final Draft. but casts doubt upon the accuracy of those situations where it is used for such an application. A particular strength is the ability to overlay features that have the characteristics of “lines” onto the spatial layers and derive relationships from the subsequent identities. This is particularly valuable in relation to transportation system features. FHWA. Research Review Findings While this project is attempting to lay new ground in terms of the insight it provides to both practitioners and community interests in how to approach environmental justice issues. or point features like terminals. upon one another such that they can be viewed and manipulated in a common geographic frame. or some other geographic level. This scale of geography is generally much greater than a neighborhood. These studies were:  Atlanta Transportation Benefits and Burdens Study  NCHRP Project 8-36(11): Technical Methods to Support Analyses of Environmental Justice Issues  NCHRP Report 532: Effective Methods for Environmental Justice Assessment. GIS makes it possible to superimpose data on different variables. in particular.

NCHRP Project 8-36(11): Technical Methods to Support Analyses of Environmental Justice Issues2 This project was undertaken as a special study for AASHTO’s Standing Committee on Planning to provide assistance to state DOTs. For each measure the study documented: Description and importance of the measure.  Incidence of transportation costs. ethnicity and income. the following received the study’s recommendations:  Population within walking distance of transit  Percent of employment accessible within 60 minutes by transit for lower income groups  Average congested travel time by income  Potential impact to historic areas Other measures that were evaluated included:  Transit load factors (as a surrogate for service quality).  Effect of congestion on neighborhood safety. 2000 Census) were not available. MPOs. Phase I served to solicit the community’s input on appropriate benefits and burdens to measure.  Proximity of population to point source emissions (represented by bus yards). 22 .  Proximity to mobile source pollution (population near major highways as proxy). demographic characteristics. and why. which was somewhat a function of the fact that the timing of the study meant that some key data sources (e.  Quality of transportation system maintenance.region. important technical considerations. and that no single measure would provide a complete answer. The study team recognized that it didn’t have the tools or data to address all the questions that were raised.g. The primary focus was on 2 Cambridge Systematics. While numerous measures were reviewed. NCHRP Project 8- 36(11) (April 2002). transit agencies and others attempting to address environmental justice requirements in planning and project studies. transportation system attributes and model data would have to be synthesized from different sources. Technical Methods to Support Analysis of Environmental Justice Issues. GIS was the key tool used for this synthesis. measurement tools.  Distribution of crashes. It was clear that the dimensions of geography. and for presenting the information in understandable formats. The main purpose of Phase II was to identify and evaluate quantitative measures of transportation impact on disadvantaged population segments. lessons learned/areas for further consideration. and alternative approaches not taken. levels of aggregation or even points in time in order to portray travel patterns or impacts by race.. The project consisted of a Phase 1 assessment of public participation followed by a Phase II assessment of the distribution of transportation benefits and burdens on minority and low-income populations. the measures that were not recommended for further use were limited by the available data or analytic methods. which would then be compared with conditions likely to occur over the next 25 years due to demographic trends and transportation investments. In most cases.  Effect of taking property for transportation on community cohesion. Consultants retained by FHWA developed a framework that first established a baseline of current distributions of benefits and burdens. Inc.

by neighborhood. the correct mix of public involvement and technical analysis. Lists of each type of measure are provided. The report describes methods. agencies that have used the measures and their experiences. and the manner in which environmental justice should be treated during systems planning. but the study also makes note of other methods that are currently in use which may be valuable in environmental justice applications. alternatively travel-time weighted indices were also used. average age of vehicles. average travel times by trip type. defining measures of benefit and burden.  Proximity to projects: location of RTP. defining disproportionate impacts. Its primary strength. Boston MPO considered quality measures such as frequencies. and responding to environmental justice issues. along with descriptions on how they may be calculated. The existing practice review confirmed that the approaches in use for project planning are much better defined and accepted than they are for statewide or regional systems planning. An emphasis is placed on currently available methods that can be applied immediately without further research. and also collected information on current practice and challenges from a large number of practicing agencies. TIP or STIP projects in relation to population subgroups (assumes that a neighborhood actually benefits from a project)  Characteristics of the users of projects: overcomes the ambiguity of proximity above. Based on interviews with 15 state DOTs. and the procedures for assessing disparate benefits. It provides both a solid overview of the definitions of benefits and burdens. Measures of “Burden” which are also listed and described in the report include:  Community cohesion/disruption: identified Community Impact Assessment procedures developed by FHWA in 1996  Economic: reduced business revenue and employment  Fiscal Decline: tax base and property values  Costs borne by taxpayers: SCAG approach noted which analyzed sources of tax revenue used to finance the long-range transportation plan and the incidence of each source by income quintile. 21 MPOs. Measures of “benefit” which are identified and discussed in the report include:  Accessibility to jobs or other activities: Used by at least 8 MPOs in their regional plan.  Maintenance: condition and/or expenditures on maintaining pavement.  Travel times: Similar function to accessibility measures. is in its description of methods for identifying and examining the distribution of risks. benefits and burdens. have included average travel times to regional activity centers. stop of station). the study determined considerable uncertainty among agencies as to the appropriate level of analysis that is necessary.identifying and developing an inventory of technical approaches that could be in both systems-level and corridor/subarea planning to quantify benefits and burdens and their distribution across individual population groups. sidewalks. To perform this review. landscaping. bridges. 23 . the study both articulated and offered interpretation for the array of existing environmental justice laws and policy directives. but which are not being routinely applied in that context. however. and three transit agencies. and travel time resulting from a particular project. etc. including examples. percent of vehicles with air conditioning. generally measuring the number of jobs within X minutes of the average person.  Provision and quality of transportation service: proximity to transit service (route. conducting public outreach and involvement. load factors. for defining and identifying population groups.

and whether they are typically quantitative or qualitative measures.g. J. as well as whether they are deployed at the project vs. and implementing transportation projects. businesses. O Fiscal (local government) +/- Displacement . the planning (systems) level. where anticipated impacts on different population groups are described from a qualitative standpoint. emissions. Thus.J. and local planning agencies who must consider environmental justice impacts in planning. # Aesthetics +/. and Sheeley. projected-oriented NEPA process. D.3 (page 4-23) + = Benefit (positive impact of transportation) # = Quantitative analysis .. 24 . Transportation Research Board (2004). the distribution of these impacts is usually not compared among population groups. Exhibit 2 from the NCHRP study report does a good job of summarizing what measures are used to represent benefits or burdens (some used for both). air quality and health: found to not normally be compared among population groups  Noise  Diminished aesthetics The study issued the important finding that most agency appraisals of transportation burdens tend to follow the traditional. the measurements of impact on the “burdens” side of the ledger do not appear to be treated as concertedly as are many of the measures of “benefit”.= Burden (negative impact of transportation) O = Qualitative analysis NCHRP Report 532: Effective Methods for Environmental Justice Assessment3 NCHRP Report 532 is a guidebook designed for planning practitioners in state DOTs. O Source: NCHRP 8-36(11). O Air Quality . Exhibit 2: Measures of Performance as Used to Assess Environmental Justice Measure Benefit (+) or Systems Level Project Level Burden (-) Accessibility/travel times + # # Transportation Services + # Maintenance + # Fiscal (transportation finance) . Table 4. programming. While property takings. It presents as a step-by-step guide that provides technical 3 Forkenbrock. distribution of benefits of the plan were then compared by monetizing travel time savings and accident cost reductions  Displacements: of residents. NCHRP Report 532: Effective Methods for Environmental Justice Assessment. pedestrians) or areas  Reductions in safety or personal security  Emissions. # Noise . # Community cohesion +/. air quality and noise impacts are typically quantified. # Safety & security +/. O Economic development +/. MPOs. public amenities  Restricted access: to other transportation modes (e.

25 . more detailed information  References: lists the sources that used in compiling the chapter NCHRP Report 532’s primary value is in helping practitioners select the most appropriate analytic tool and approach for their particular analysis. there are eleven topic categories. book and other sources with additional. The methods in the handbook are organized by topic. In particular. The guidebook is a continuation of research begun in NCHRP Project 8-36(11). scaled to level of focus and type of decision pending  Methods: discusses each alternative method in detail  Resources: cites articles. As illustrated in Exhibit 3. per se. It does not add significant new information on measures of impact. it offers important insight on ways in which health impacts from pollution exposure might be measured. with a focus on modifying existing methods or developing new methods as needed.assistance in selecting appropriate methods of analysis for calculating any of a number of relevant impacts. each presented as a stand-alone chapter with the following information:  Overview of the measure: the effect being addressed and why it would have EJ implications  State of the practice: how the effect is evaluated by the profession and used for EJ  Selecting an appropriate method of analysis: guidance on which method to use for particular situations. but is helpful in illustrating what effort (tool) would be necessary in order to use a particular measure or to conduct a particular type of analysis with that measure.

maintenance. and operation activities of transportation facilities. Community cohesion (Chapter 8) – This topic is often raised as an environmental justice concern. or the view of pleasant settings or landscapes to be obscured. and Cultural Effects Transportation user effects (Chapter 7) – Transportation user effects can be classified into five groups: (1) changes in travel time. and (5) changes in accessibility. (2) changes in safety. but are discussed here because they are related to water quality. but nuisance effects are much more common. (4) changes in transportation choice. and the quality of life in general. Transportation safety (Chapter 6) – Changes in public safety resulting from a transportation project or program can be classified into three groups: (1) traveler safety. Social. the vitality of the natural environment. (2) safety of pedestrians and users of non-motorized transportation. Economic. especially children. Water quality and drainage (Chapter 5) – Impaired water quality may have environmental justice implications if it affects public or private water supplies or resources more highly valued by protected populations. (3) changes in vehicle operating costs. the elderly. Economic development (Chapter 9) – One of the most positive effects of transportation projects is that reduced transportation costs can make businesses more competitive. Guidebook Human Health and Safety Air quality (Chapter 3) – Air quality is important to human health. and (3) safety of the general public.Exhibit 3: Transportation Effects Addressed in NCHRP 532. commonly related to displacement of persons or severing of transportation linkages that connect community members. Hazardous materials (Chapter 4) – Hazardous materials are used in the construction. particularly for road users. Drainage issues are commonly social or economic. Land prices and property values (Chapter 12) – Land use and property values are discussed together because changes in the demand for land is a key driving force behind changes in property values. Cultural resources (Chapter 13) – Resources that may be of cultural value to protected populations can be adversely affected by transportation system changes. older structures to be torn down. Transportation changes can have beneficial and adverse economic development effects. There is also concern over spills when hazardous cargo is transported through populated areas or sensitive environmental areas. and the disabled. Visual quality (Chapter 11) – Transportation system changes can have a significant visual effect when they require new structures to be built. 26 . Noise (Chapter 10) – Traffic noise and the noise associated with rail and air transportation can have harmful health effects.

of course. typically in conjunction with the regional Transportation Improvement Program. used for geospatial cross-referencing with or without transportation modeling extension.Candidate Performance Measures In light of the issues identified by the public outreach activity in Phase I of the BREJT project and the concepts discussed in the key literature sources. These goals nominally reflect the earlier-mentioned ISTEA/TEA-21 Planning Factors. in which funding priorities and allocations are established. (2) Regional Model. Note that the performance measures cited in Exhibit 4 are not intended to be brought into use for any and all analyses. For simplicity. the long-range RTP). of the type that might have been identified in the Phase I Listening Sessions or. or be supplemented by additional measures that provide further insight. Those measures marked by asterisk (*) are those likely to be used in the broadest set of applications and issues). it is envisioned that the performance measures might either become more focused/specific. and achieving the comprehensive goals and objectives of the plan (typically. Four different applications are envisioned:  Investigation of a Current Concern or issue. typically in the context of assessing impacts or developing a mitigation plan. or TIP. The list has been compiled by planning goal area.  In relation to a proposed Project. and available resources. investigation of a Current Concern could well blend over to the Planning or Programming activities. the following performance measures were considered during the development of the EJT Toolkit. (3) Geographic Information System tools. Also shown in the table is an attempt to qualify these measures based on where in the planning process they might be utilized. over time. Use of the respective analytic tool will depend on the measure. the level of detail required by the given analysis. Transportation 2030. In this event.  In relation to Programming activities. and (4) Emissions Modeling tools. which consists of acquiring. that any of these application activities could lead to an investigation in one of the other applications areas. in the context of identifying and addressing longer-term population needs. four generic methods are cited: (1) Data Analysis. For example. arise outside of the standard planning process. but rather should be custom-selected based on the needs of the situation (as directed by the Triage Committee). implying the use of the adopted regional transportation planning model and associated data of the metropolitan planning organization. An initial list of measures is provided in Exhibit 4. It is entirely possible. 27 . mitigating impacts.  In relation to the metropolitan Planning process. manipulating and drawing various conclusions from available or new data. which spans a range of procedures from MOBILE6 type emissions factor models to use of pollution monitoring data in health exposure analyses. and also correspond closely to the goals in the Baltimore Regional Transportation Board’s 2005 long-range transportation plan. Also noted in Exhibit 4 is an initial depiction of the analytic method or methods that might be used to quantify these measures.

Section 2: Analytic Tools Introduction This section describes the process and criteria which have been used to identify the set of analytic tools used in the study. This is primarily because of their focus on the identification of analytic tools and procedures in specific application to EJ issues. or alternative long-term scenarios. They should allow forecasting or prediction of impacts or effects in relation to a transportation system change. Moreover. They should attempt to make maximum effective use of existing methods. at the same time. Literature Review As with the Task 2 review of performance measures. the three studies identified in the Task 2 memo once again proved to be the most relevant source documents for our review. the population as a whole. Selection Criteria The following factors should be taken into consideration when identifying and evaluating analytic tools: They should constitute a range of capabilities which are appropriate to the level and needs of the analysis. While other EJ literature may refer to analytic procedures used in conjunction with specific EJ issues (e. a desired capability of the package of tools is the ability to increase focus and detail on a particular issue as more insight is gained or as definition of the issue is refined.g. We drew both upon team expertise for this inventory and such key resources as the Atlanta Benefits and Burdens Study. these core studies provide a structured synthesis of the techniques in relation to how and 28 . databases. and organizational expertise. They should offer the capability to visualize conditions or impacts in order to facilitate understanding and meaningful dialogue toward resolving the problem. problem solution alternatives. The tools should be capable of dealing with distributional effects: A primary consideration in environmental justice analyses is whether the incidence of a benefit or an impact falls disproportionately on one population group vs.. While key analysis questions or impact measures will not be decided solely by the current capabilities of tools and data. a targeted review of literature was conducted to provide insight and support for the types of analytic approaches that were considered in addressing the issues framed by this study. Simple methods should be available for analyses that do not require a high degree of detail and provide quick response. another. In this regard. more complex methods should be available to address issues of greater substance or more complex impact measures. NCHRP Project 8-36(11) and NCHRP Report 532. or vs. leverage in creative and effective use of commonly available resources will be an objective highlighted in this study. SCAG’s development of accessibility or tax burden measures). and provide insight into the practical experience of application.

NCHRP Project 8-36(11): Technical Methods to Support Analyses of Environmental Justice Issues. For example. Because of its position in the sequence of studies. Cambridge Systematics.e. et al for USDOT (May 2002). project level. Forkenbrock and Sheeley (2004). Perhaps the most compelling aspect of NCHRP Report 532 is its structure for packaging and recommending tools and procedures in conjunction with the setting. ranging from “screening” to “highly detailed”  The planning context in which it is most appropriate. For each impact category they describe:  The method or methods  The conditions under which it should be used  The type of analysis it should be used for. However.or should be -- addressed. NCHRP Report 532 is the most complete and comprehensive guide to the set of tools and their applications. ranging from Low to High  The type of expertise that is required to apply the method. These core studies were previously described in the Task 2 memo. corridor level. and in relation to the full range of EJ issues that are -. a shift to other measures of impact or sharper levels of geographic separation or a need for more accuracy in an estimated impact cause a shift in the complexity. are best served by quick and easy screening tools. They are: Transportation Benefits and Burdens in the Atlanta Region. the question. although there are important details in the other studies that warrant separate attention. i.. which may not be in current or common practice. wherein different issues – based either on geographic scale. NCHRP Report 532: Effective Methods for Environmental Justice Assessment. NCHRP 8-36(11) provides considerable detail on the use of GIS tools and complementary applications. The other major difference between Report 532 and NCHRP 8- 36(11) is that the latter was designed intentionally to look at the capabilities of existing tools and procedures. data and expertise of the analytic tools which are necessary. while the former also has the objective of identifying tools. when the investigation moves into more specificity. or the stage of the investigation – will have different analysis needs. This is similar to the way in which we have envisioned the EJ Toolkit from the beginning. Report 532 suggests approaches for particular types of questions and different levels of detail. and the level of detail needed for the analysis. For each of 11 impact areas (Transportation has been split into Accessibility and Choice subcategories).where they would be used. system level. but could be drawn upon for particular applications. Table 1 provides a simplified overview of the type of guidance in analytic tool selection provided by NCHRP Report 532. Initial investigations. Cambridge Systematics (April 2002). the type of decision being supported. or community level  The data requirements. including familiarity with particular software tools or models 29 . when the problem is being diagnosed and the underlying factors identified. including population synthesis and household micro simulation approaches.

Because this resource covers more than 300 pages. pollution. Generalizing from guidance provided by Report 532. or PECAS) 30 . UrbanSim. or focus groups Moderate Detail:  Standard four-step regional transportation planning model  Use of GIS procedures to create maps for locating projects or impacts in relation to population subgroups at a TAZ or census tract level  Corridor traffic flow simulation models and analyses  Transportation emissions forecasting models  Physical measurement of noise. runoff impacts  Visual preference surveys  Formal surveys or operational data collection Most Detailed:  Enhanced travel forecasting models (including activity-based methods)  Population synthesis and household micro simulation approaches using detailed GIS  Pollution surface models to gauge air pollution exposure  Regression or other advanced statistical analysis methods to isolate and quantify contributing factors  Integrated transportation/land use models (such as DRAM/EMPAL. and is hereby incorporated by reference for use by the EJT Toolkit. it can only be described here at a very summary level.The report not only provides a convenient tabular summary. the set of tools and procedures associated with the three degrees of application detail may be broadly summarized as follows: Screening Level:  Assembly and review of existing data or forecasts  Published reports and tables  Creation or analysis of maps  Visual (field) inspections  Simple surveys. such as has been presented in reduced fashion here. interviews. but written step-by-step instructions on each approach.

Barrier Effect analysis Transportation Travel demand between TAZs Travel dem and reflecting Travel dem and reflecting Accessibility using standard travel model protected populations. Pedestrian Danger index. and distances using physical opportunity using GIS-supported deliberative polling. but protected populations. Identification of assume distribution uniform assume distribution not uniform congested links using HERS within TAZ or census tract -. dynamic traffic microsimulation simulation for congestion Transportation Modal use from existing travel Travel dem and model mode Mode choice analysis with Choice model output. but output. Focus groups. Groundwater quality checklist. enhanced GIS with population synthesis and household microsimulation Community Map work. travel model and GIS Visual Quality Analysis of existing Visual preference surveys. Bicycle Com patibility focus groups index. and Drainage degree to which protected Surface water quality/runoff populations will be impacted checklist or displaced. Conduct surv eys or index. GIS materials Water Quality Land acquisition checklist -. workers or Development impact assessment markets using travel model with GIS to ascertain com munity impacts Noise Maps and field inspection of Measure noise exposure lev els Project impacts from future current impact locations from existing highway or transit volum es or projects using FHW A projects noise model. travel volum e/flow simulation. PECAS Property Values opinion of experts model Cultural Map and secondary source Site visit and survey with Stakeholder and expert charette Resources review to create inventory com munity leader(s) 31 .Table 1: Analytic Approaches Recommended by NCHRP Report 532 Impact Category Screening Moderate Detail Most Detailed Air Quality Review existing monitoring Micro-scale modeling at project Development of pollution surface data or forecasts or corridor level. Market analysis or appraisals Hedonic regression.use model GIS procedure with standard GIS procedures and household travel model.use within TAZ or census tract -. household or choice application with allowance allowance for population user travel surveys for population differences using differences using GIS. Evaluate pedestrian travel times Evaluate changes in travel Cohesion personal interviews. Impaired access checklist Transportation Analysis using national data. measurement transportation modeling Economic Maps and v isual business Surveys or focus groups Accessibility to jobs. comparison with groups distributive effects alternatives Land Prices & Review appraisal data. Com pare similar facilities in the Statistical analysis of data using Safety Com parision of comparable same region. focus GIS methods to analyze conditions. Initial assessment of detected tree and other risk analysis transport routes for hazardous methods. Visual quality checklist. Regional forecasting model and targeted travel forecasting model monitoring data com bined with emissions model for regional em issions estimates Hazardous Simple assessment of Use of GIS and statistical Risk modeling of hazm at Materials presence of hazardous waste analysis when waste sites are exposure or release using fault- sites. Bicycle Safety regression analysis facilities. involving traffic model using GIS.

manipulating and displaying data. GIS is most commonly used for querying spatial databases to find locations that fit criteria. it cannot extract much value from this more focused input. or some other defining variable. displaying trends or historical data. This unrealized potential is not to diminish the many valuable uses for GIS in EJ-related analyses. visualizing areas and points of capital investment. To assemble the characteristics it either accumulates data at a smaller level of detail by adding up parcel (or point) information. Maps are always an important first step in analysis. Simple choropleth. In most EJ studies. or where they are located in relation to transportation facilities or centers of opportunity. its integration into mainline transportation planning is still evolving. 32 . GIS is still only coming into its own as a legitimate planning tool. it tends to overlook the often-significant differences that may occur within a TAZ based on where particular households actually live. This is also a convenient way to show how the location of these groups may have shifted over time. Slightly more complex maps can be developed that combine different variables into a single display. say. GIS can be used to compile information on the characteristics of an area circumscribing a ¼ or ½-mile radius around. and there are methods in use that are already taking advantage of the greater spatial resolution of GIS in transportation planning. or by interpolating from a larger unit of geography. i. However. Drawing upon NCHRP 8-36(11). Mapping and Visualization. and choice of mode (via pie chart). such as travel flows by origin/destination (using desire lines). The ability to juxtapose layers of demographic information onto layers which detail the transportation system (or other prominent physical or socioeconomic feature) makes it possible to directly link transportation or travel-related information with the areas and people who are affected by it. listed below are various GIS applications that will be considered in pursuit of the BREJT case studies and development of the EJT Toolkit. a transit station. maps of racial or economic characteristics by block group or even TAZ can make it easy to discern spatial patterns in the location of key population subgroups – an essential starting point for EJ analyses. For example. NCHRP 8-36(11) does a very good job in detailing the capabilities of GIS for performing EJ analyses. income. revealing patterns that may not be obvious from numerical data. mapping demographics. or graduated color. For well over a decade. They also facilitate in the formation of hypotheses for statistical testing. through geo-referencing with the respective layers upon which that buffer is imposed. planners and demographers have used GIS as a tool for storing. if the travel model is designed to function at a TAZ level.Importance of Geographic Information System (GIS) Tools Perhaps transcending all of the other analysis tools and procedures.e. However. as well as providing insight into a substantial number of application strategies. auto ownership. The principal reason for this is that the ability to spatially identify the location of population subgroups is paramount to dealing addressing distributive effects of a policy. such as a census tract or TAZ. displaying assets like transportation infrastructure.. GIS technology is critical to effective review and evaluation of environmental justice issues. protected populations are identified based on the average condition of the TAZ. the ability offered by GIS to picture conditions down to the level of an individual parcel is beyond the practical use range of most current travel models. While this is a good start toward accounting for distributional effects. Because virtually all conventional transportation (4-step) planning models operate at traffic analysis zone (TAZ) level of geographic detail. volume (variable line width). where the percentage of persons or households in that TAZ exceeds a specified threshold for race. plan or service.

a transportation facility – and use GIS to accumulate information from the respective layers falling within that geography to create a profile for that space. income. In this case. such as household size.. which measures the degree to which two variables are distributed differently over space. say subtracting level of transit access from a surface of percent minority population. with densely-populated areas represented by much smaller TAZs. Unfortunately. but in this case they represent the magnitude of some demographic or transportation variable in relation to an x. using orthographic projection techniques. Surface Mapping. was used to gauge the degree of racial segregation in the Atlanta area. buffer analysis is not useful for travel demand analyses. Techniques are applied by transportation planners to stratify key conditions in a TAZ. In the end. and signal the need for a closer inspection. However. and the magnitude of that relationship. a household. An index of “dissimilarity”. Household Micro-simulation Modeling. it would suggest that transit access is poorer in minority areas. Among the shortcomings this approach imparts are that 33 . While TAZs vary in size.y location on a map. The degree to which the spatial distribution of minorities and non-minorities is similar or different can help assess the degree to which transportation needs are being addressed by the existing or proposed system. often ¼ or ½ mile for transportation purposes. Mathematical tests can be applied to these paired relationships also to determine whether there is a statistical pattern inherent in the display. Combined with census information. it is possible to begin to see if patterns of service have a systematic relationship with the demographic variable. the majority of current travel demand models are based on the concept of traffic analysis zones. if the peaks for minority population are increased. as will be discussed below. These spatial statistics can be calculated to describe the location. the TAZ becomes the unit of analysis in transportation modeling. but this additional detail is only for the purpose of improving the estimates of trip generation or auto ownership for the TAZ. this can be a way to determine the location of populations with EJ characteristics in proximity to an existing or proposed transportation facility or service.g. centrality or dispersion of a spatially distributed variable. By co-locating more than one variable. This provides immediate visual recognition of the differences in the variable by geographic location. showing differences in elevation corresponding to hills and valleys. A simple but effective mapping tool is to define a “buffer”. The typical buffer consists of an area within a particular radius from the point of interest. Also described is a “nearest neighbor” statistic that describes how clustered or spread out a population is. travel analyses based on individual survey households or using population synthesis methods can take advantage of this higher degree of resolution. or select subarea. NCHRP 8-36(11) gives the example of a “population-weighted centroid” measure to describe how the distribution of the black population in Atlanta changed between 1980 and 1990. and transportation service levels. or TAZs. GIS can be used to create measures of dispersion or concentration of a characteristic in an area. since the conventional travel demand models cannot deal with geographic breakdowns smaller than a TAZ. and whether that pattern is random or reflects a discernable trend. particular population groups. There are many such measures that can be used to explore the connection between spatial location. such as defining the walkshed for transit. Spatial Indices. the general characteristic is that the TAZ is an aggregate representation of the characteristics of the population (and employment) located in that spatial area. These surface maps might resemble topographical relief maps. which depict conditions not only two dimensions but in a vertical dimension as well. or auto ownership.Buffer Analysis. adjacent to some item of interest – e. using indices that relate the characteristics of a given point with that of those surrounding it. An interesting application of GIS is in creating surface maps. As earlier discussed.

or local transportation or planning agencies Regional Transportation Planning Model . Historically.500 households represented. Often the decision to use the synthetic sample approach is to create a larger sample. Modified. or to create a larger synthetic sample using information from the Census’ Public Use Micro-data Sample (PUMS). or Considered for Use in Toolkit Screening Tools: The following tools were reviewed and considered:  Existing schematic maps portraying the minority and low income communities.(1) the socioeconomic differences among the households in the TAZ are important factors differentiating travel needs and demands. Statistical weighting methods are then used to “enumerate” the effects determined through the sample to the overall population.). disabled. and boarding. in addition to greater accuracy in modeling (through use of more complex logit or activity-based models) is that the travel benefits (or impacts) associated with a transportation change can be tracked across any population characteristic that is included in the sample used for the model. and also to provide a revised trip table for use in running travel assignments. along with plans for future transit service modifications or new services (ongoing rail transit studies)  Information on volumes and congestion of existing streets and highways. elderly. In applying household sample micro simulation. Micro simulation modeling approaches attempt to overcome these limitations of aggregation by basing analysis and forecasts on a sample of households or individuals that represent a larger population group.  Accessibility analyses and graphics developed by BMC for use in its latest Regional Transportation Plan “Transportation 2030”. and extensive GIS information has already been compiled for this sample). List of Analytic Tools Reviewed. the characteristics of the sample can quite easily be broadened to include characteristics of race and ethnicity as well as other variables of interest. Use of the household survey is relatively straightforward.The Baltimore Metropolitan Council (BMC) uses a conventional four-step TAZ based model for analyzing transportation plans. ridership. along with plans for enhancements in LRP and most recent TIP. coverage and composition that it supports the types of analysis desired (Baltimore has a 2001 survey with 3. The advantage of this approach. policies and projects in the 34 . this has been done for income level. of sufficient size to support a statistically reliable analysis of the issue in question.  Aerial photos of the Baltimore region  Funding breakdowns for transportation projects and programs by location  Accident and fatality statistics  Myriad reports and studies prepared by BMC. since income is a key travel prediction variable. A population synthesizer routine is used to create the synthetic population of households from the source census files. and (3) among these key characteristics are the attributes of the protected populations (race. as developed for a 2005 review of a regional bus service restructuring plan. A “synthetic” sample would be composed of a hypothetical set of households with characteristics that as a whole match those of a larger population group. vehicle ownership. etc. (2) even within the same TAZ. however. assuming that the sample is of sufficient size.  Information on transit routes and schedules. Maryland state agencies. income. availability of transportation alternatives can be quite different. a choice is to use either a sample of households obtained from a recent regional household travel survey.

5. The MOBILE model takes inputs from the regional transportation model conveying traffic volumes and speeds on regional transportation facilities and computes resultant emissions in relation to information on the age and mix of the regional vehicle fleet. safety. Air quality in the Baltimore region exceeds the national standards for 8-hour ozone and for fine particulate matter (PM 2. linked to spatial information from GIS as to the location of minority and low income populations. Part of the reason for this review is that BMC was engaged in analysis of a proposed new rail transit line (Red Line). Baltimore. 2020 and 2030. and climatic conditions. Journey at Work.421 zones and projects trip making in relation to seven trip purposes: Home-based Work. and Other-based Other. Emissions Models: Transportation emissions in the BMC region are estimated by BMC using the latest version of EPA’s emissions factor model. Based in the TP+/Viper software environment. Corridor Simulation Models: Certain investigations may find it important to examine the impacts of a transportation system change on traffic flow in a corridor. Such simulations not only provide a means for estimating the impacts of system changes or events on traffic congestion and speeds. inspection and maintenance programs. and Howard. particularly in the areas of trip generation. but also are a vital input to estimating air pollution impacts since certain emissions are sensitive to speed/acceleration parameters or have pronounced localized effects. Its uses are primarily for evaluating congestion conditions and congestion mitigation strategies. and the region is in a “maintenance” phase with regard to the carbon monoxide (CO) standard. the model was used to analyze changes in travel time and accessibility due to the restructuring. vehicle technology. MOBILE6. air quality conformity.5). Home-based School. distribution and mode choice. the region must demonstrate conformity of its regional Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and its Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) with the standards for 8-hour ozone. During 2004-2005. and numerous tasks typical for an MPO. One option to fill this analysis need is the CORSIM model which is maintained and operated by BMC. however. BMC completed important enhancements to the model. As a result. The model has been used for past EJ analyses in conjunction with the regional long range plan and in a special study of the impacts of the Maryland Transit Administration’s Greater Baltimore Bus Initiative.2. Montgomery. but it may find application for accessibility analysis. taking advantage of new data from its 2001 regional household travel survey. The combination regional travel model and MOBILE emissions model may be used to analyze any of a wide range of mitigation strategies. evaluation of projects for the regional Transportation Improvement Program. it was possible to ascertain whether the burdens from the service adjustments (mainly cuts) were equitably distributed. Home-based Shop. and wished to ensure that the model would meet the stringent requirements necessary to submit an application for federal New Starts funding. Carroll. In this latter case. a major restructuring of the regional bus system. Subsequent to receiving the recommendations of the TMIP panel. BMC initiated a state-of-the-practice review of its model by a TMIP expert panel. by first determining the effect on travel (changes in VMT or speed) and then reapplying the emissions factor relationships. for reasons of compatibility with the travel or emissions models. as well as the Washington region jurisdictions of the District of Columbia and Frederick.Baltimore region. Home- Based Other. signalization. and CO for the years 2010. facility characteristics. or air quality/health impacts. Harford. with adjustments for fuel additives. a new feature of the TransCAD software package that will also be used by the team. This model encompasses Baltimore City and five surrounding counties: Anne Arundel. The model is used for a wide variety of applications. The BREJT team may also have access to a fairly new and highly visual traffic simulation program in the form of TransModeler. Journey to Work. and Prince Georges counties. including long-range forecasting. do not lend themselves to analysis in this fashion. Corridor simulation models have the purpose of simulating the micro-movements of vehicle traffic in relation to flow volumes. or even exogenous events like accidents. Certain strategies. and hence must be analyzed 35 . PM 2. the model operates on a system of 1.

typically by the state departments of the environment. equity and environmental issues and for clearly communicating those results to a very diverse audience. speeds. as there may be uncertainty to the on-demand availability of BMC’s standard tools or staff. Indeed. This capability was intended to fill a void in planning practice created by the ISTEA Act’s requirements for comparing project options on more than the standard travel and cost measures. FHWA’s STEAM (Surface Transportation Efficiency Analysis) Model. Physical measures of emissions concentrations are determined through monitoring sites. which is discussed below. the developer of TransCAD. as well as desired demographic or physical geographic features. This will not only provide us great flexibility in the types of analysis we may wish to undertake. and approximation of air quality in relation to transportation activity is done through atmospheric diffusion models. All transportation features and facilities exist in point and line based layers. its ability to manipulate data at the much finer levels of points. and we expect to employ this software in a wide range of applications in the BREJT case studies. individual jurisdictions. this offers an important capability for environmental justice applications. TransCAD employs built-in features that allow transition to household microsimulation modeling. The broad-reaching importance of GIS in environmental justice analysis has been already discussed. A second capability is available through the TransCAD software program. Because of the aforementioned aggregation problems with TAZs. Geographic Information Systems. Fortunately. such that the user can tailor the application to its particular needs. TransCAD offers an exceptional media both for analyzing complex transportation. BMC has acquired the TransCAD software.with alternative – frequently simpler – “off-model” types of procedures. and transportation activity (volumes. Aerial photographs cover most if not all of the region in high resolution reflecting conditions post-2000. allows for considerable flexibility in relation to level of detail desired and quality of available data.. In particular. BMC maintains an extensive GIS system based in ARCview/ARC-GIS. Combined with excellent graphical and visualization capabilities. The program. TransCAD was earlier applied in Baltimore [DATE/CITATION] in a joint study involving BMC. the options for the BREJT study appear to be good ones. STEAM enables calculation of such key impacts as emissions. accidents. at which time considerable experience was gained in its application requirements and capabilities. with data layers containing copious information from census. While TransCAD can perform transportation analysis at the level of traffic analysis zones. modal use) can be displayed in relation to the facilities and services. and congestion delay. TransCAD Transportation GIS Software. TransCAD is a fairly unique software package that combines GIS capabilities with transportation planning and analysis functions. It is important to note that the described emissions procedures do not result in estimates of actual air quality concentrations. and even private vendors. These impacts are calculated using inputs gathered from either the 4-step regional transportation planning model or a variety of other sources. Environmental Defense. state agencies. energy use. the BREJT team intends to establish TransCAD as its primary analysis platform for the case studies and the Toolkit. but will permit us to 36 . This tool was developed by the FHWA as a sketch-planning tool to assist planners in developing the types of economic efficiency and other evaluative information needed for comparing the impacts of various transportation system investment options. noise. as has Morgan State University. and Caliper Corp. which is spreadsheet-based. congestion. which provides much more realistic estimates of impacts by socioeconomic groups and individual trip movements (which is useful in vehicle microsimulation). lines and polygons means that it can be readily applied to much finer levels of spatial resolution.

and also CO. are taking increasing interest in a body of planning tools that attempt to account for the fact that transportation investment and land use planning decisions are highly interrelated. as well as the impact on redevelopment and economic revitalization in the older. the conventional transportation and emissions model based methods are not particularly good for dealing with either type of effect. BMC has invested in one of the more advanced such models. It points out that transportation-related air pollution’s effect on communities can occur in two primary ways:  Through increased ground-level concentrations of pollutants like carbon monoxide (CO) or particulate matter (PM) caused by motor vehicle traffic and congestion  Through atmospheric concentrations of ozone and particulate-causing pollutants like VOCs. A large and growing body of empirical research is able to demonstrate an epidemiological link between the proximity of exposure to air pollution concentrations and higher incidence rates of such health abnormalities as asthma. MEASURE Pollution Surface Model. and since 2005 has been engaged in its implementation and testing in the Baltimore region. SOx. they are not able to project what 37 . noise and exhaust odors. Ground-level effects are analyzed using hot spot or micro-scale techniques that relate vehicle activity levels at roadway intersections with readings at pollution measurement receptor sites. and lays out the issues. PECAS. While the models are fairly accurate at creating this linkage between activity and receptor reading. Regional transportation planning agencies. for example vehicle/pedestrian conflicts. and the impact on human health. like BMC. Another body of evidence shows that minority and low-income populations are most likely to live and work closer to these sources of air pollution. NOx. urban portions of the region where EJ populations are in greatest concentration. Integrated transportation and land use models attempt to use this value-added feature of transportation to project potential impacts on land use trends and economic development in relation to transportation investment and other key underlying variables. challenges. and hence face greater health risks. PECAS is a powerful tool and its availability through BMC is relatively unique. a major capital investment in a transportation facility such as a highway or rail transit line has a major impact on the economic attractiveness of the area served by virtue of improved accessibility (reduced time and cost to travel to the area). and potential analytic approaches for dealing with this impact. It is conceivable that questions may arise in the case studies concerning the longer-term impact of various transportation investment policies on the location of jobs or housing for minority and low income residents. emphysema. Developing transportation-related indicators to measure public health impacts is actually a requirement under Title VI. While the BREJT project may not develop a major interest in long-range scenario planning. PECAS Integrated Transportation-Land Use Model. NCHRP Report 532 provides a comprehensive review of the role of air quality in environmental justice. developed by Douglas Hunt and John Abraham of the University of Calgary. While transportation may impact health in many ways. A major missing link in environmental justice studies has been the ability to quantify the relationship between transportation activity. and cancer. vehicle emissions. Clearly.assess the value of applying household micro simulation approaches in comparison to similar analyses done through the standard TAZ based regional model. perhaps the most pernicious is transportation’s contribution to air pollution. Poor air quality has a detrimental effect on persons with asthma or other pulmonary health problems. children and the elderly. From an environmental justice perspective.

traffic volumes and vehicle fleet emissions characteristics.g. An interesting solution to this may be the application of the “pollution surface” concept.. Because pollution monitoring networks are typically sparse. we expect the necessary data already exist. Hence. which allows it to not only produce more accurate estimates of emissions than conventional MOBILE6 approaches. but also provide better spatial and temporal resolution of the emissions and be sensitive to how transportation system changes can affect emissions rates. the ability of standard tools and data to tie transportation activity to pollution concentrations in particular geographic areas – i.concentrations are or will be in non-receptor areas. An obvious exception is the need for additional air quality measurements in relation to any efforts that may be made to develop a pollution surface model such as MEASURE. linking transportation activity with health. as a working example of a pollution surface approach. Statistical methods are then used to predict pollution levels across this defined “surface” by fitting regression models to observations at monitoring sites with known values for predictor variables such as land use. or can be made serviceable with modest additional effort. along sidewalks or inside neighborhoods. and obtained detailed demographic and travel information from a sample of 3. For all other applications. either in the form of transportation operations data or travel survey information. Report 532 introduces a prototype model known as MEASURE (Mobile Emission Assessment System for Urban and Regional Evaluation). population. Creation of this pollution surface makes it possible to estimate pollution concentrations and duration in particular geographic areas. which makes this a very encouraging approach for evaluating exposure for EJ populations. And for the measurement of atmospheric pollutants. Report 532 advises that a larger monitoring network and a larger number of samples over time will yield a more accurate model. and vehicle miles traveled. conventional transportation and emissions models are used to estimate emissions based on roadway geometry. Three major data resources that we would expect to draw upon as part of our studies are as follows: 2001 Regional Household Travel Survey: This survey was conducted by BMC during 2001. developed by the Georgia Institute of Technology with support from the EPA and FHWA.e. the standard regional air quality models used for transportation conformity cannot distinguish whether concentrations are greater in some areas than others. the Johns Hopkins team has already compiled a significant amount of this information. In this approach. Sufficient clusters of household samples exist in 32 different area 38 .500 households distributed throughout the Baltimore region. This obviously compromises the second element in the analysis chain. but these would be obtained through simplistic questionnaires or through focus groups. No major new data collections are anticipated or proposed. introduced as the fourth method in Chapter 3 of Report 532. Transportation activity is then linked to pollution concentrations as measured through receptors. Data Resources The analytic approaches cited in the preceding sections generally have the data which will be needed to fuel their intended application in this study. Fortunately for the BREJT project. It may be desirable to obtain certain data related to consumer attitudes or perceptions. e. The MEASURE model operates in a GIS framework.. those with EJ populations – is very challenged. and the existing data can be supplemented through additional readings obtained through Hopkins’ own monitoring equipment. spatially distributed in such a manner as to record emissions concentrations by time period over a broad sample of receptor sites. even though the link between pollution concentrations and health has been well demonstrated.

Considerable information has already been compiled for these “neighborhoods” as a result of recent BMC research on land use issues. To perform this analysis it was necessary to compile detailed information on bus routes and schedules. travel times. much of it may serve as solid background data for analyzing services in relation to issues of importance to the minority and low-income community. JHU professionals are closely linked with other health professionals around the country who have been compiling and studying similar data. These studies have compiled and analyzed data relating concentration levels of carbon monoxide. it is relevant to note that Johns Hopkins/Bloomberg School has performed significant studies of pollution and health in Baltimore’s disadvantaged communities. The survey may be utilized either for household micro-simulation applications or for a variety of detailed investigations driven by questions arising in the case studies. ozone precursors. Pollution and Health Data: Pursuant to potential studies of the linkage between transportation emissions/air quality and human health. Greater Baltimore Bus Initiative (GBBI): Considerable data were compiled and analyzed in the summer of 2005 for the purpose of reviewing transportation accessibility and equity impacts associated with the Maryland Transit Administration’s proposed major overhaul of the region’s bus transit system. particulate matter and air toxics both outside and inside of buildings. 39 .(neighborhoods/definable places) that these areas can be used for comparative studies where demographics. While some of this information may now be invalid due to subsequent service changes. transportation and impacts might be expected to vary. rider-ship and boardings/alightings by stop. making it possible to share information from a large collective database on exposure and health effects. and rider characteristics from on-board surveys. stops and transfer points.

and regional jobs. wait and transfer). travel times to key As above shopping. or non-work If possible. use BMC model between select neighborhoods or TransCAD model to calculate accessibility. but attempt to acquire & compare declined in [some area information on service changes in past X years or community] Changes in bus service Average travel times between Select representative communities and job centers. including portion key destinations destinations of time which is out of vehicle (walk. Cost per rider by data for MTA using National Transit Database from bus service type of service Rail transit services do Composition of riders by type Analyze traveler survey data from MTA not serve the minority of service community as well as Origin-destination distribution Use GIS and TransCAD to ascertain OD bus did of riders by type of service characteristics of different transit services Transit is Total capital and operating Compile information from MDOT Capital Program underfunded. have reduced the selected neighborhoods and Use BMC travel model or TransCAD to compute ability to reach jobs or those major employment transit and highway travel times. compare with earlier transit network and population distribution As above.If possible. Develop spreadsheet to tabulate characteristics by neighborhood Compare features across peer neighborhoods Bus transit service has As above As above. educational or medical activities Gravity based accessibility Select representative communities. Quantity and Adequacy of Transit Service Issue Impact Measure Analysis Approach Bus transit service is Number of bus routes Delineate neighborhoods with EJ characteristics substandard in certain Daily/weekly operating hours using GIS (poor) neighborhoods Number/location of bus stops Overlay bus routes using GIS Service frequencies Ascertain headways. money is funding programmed to transit and regional TIP going to other and highways by year or transportation needs period Compare trends over past 10 years with projection and areas Funding by transportation for next 6 years mode by jurisdiction 40 . daily & weekly hours from MTA schedules or BMC transit network. compare with earlier transit network activities and population distribution Emphasis on rail Percentage of transit trips by Compare current and past ridership and expense transit has taken away type service.Table 2: Assessment of Analytic Needs: Case Study #1 and #3. stops.

and minority volume. due to exposure to Ascertain whether other health risk or incidence vehicle traffic and markers are associated with the same population emissions group Compare difference across communities in relation to demographic characteristics and spatial location (near transportation facilities) Housing in Low-income Link between high traffic Prepare pollution surface model in specific area. related noise number and demographic composition of income communities are households located within X feet of highways or often used to channel transit or other transportation facilities. cancer characteristics. Quantify level of activity on respective facilities from traffic volumes. off-peak off peak conditions. more likely to experience associated with poor air: Compare incidence rates by demographic negative health impacts asthma. safe crossings Local and arterial streets Degree of cut-through traffic Delineate sample minority/low-income in minority and low. Assessment of Analytic Needs: Case Study #2 – Congestion and Environment Issue Impact Measure Analysis Approach Minority and low-income Number of Use GIS and household micro-simulation to identify communities are more households/people living households located adjacent to facilities meeting exposed to transportation within X feet of a busy specified criteria. transit runs. speeds. crossings Ascertain degree of correlation with adjacent traffic volumes. often used by outsiders to Use GIS and TransCAD to ascertain OD identify of by pass congestion. emissions and spatial concentrations. or similar. and health Assess relationship with health statistics arterials.Table 3. Use STEAM model to estimate noise exposure Compare households experiencing high noise with general population Low-income and Highway travel times Select representative neighborhoods. impacts than the general highway Compare characteristics with general population population Minority and low-income Pedestrian accidents and Compare rates of vehicle-pedestrian/bicycle communities are more fatalities mishaps in predominately minority/low income exposed to unsafe street communities with the general population. Compute door to door travel times under peak and urban areas have reduced peak vs. Use GIS and household micro-simulation to identify in minority and low. high pollution Develop relationship between transportation communities is often concentration. 41 . Low-income and Incidence rates of various Obtain incidence rates from local health studies and minority households are respiratory diseases records. in neighborhoods neighborhoods where cut-through traffic (or income communities are accidents) are an issue. high activity. situated close to major exposure. minority households in between selected OD pairs. commuter traffic. emphysema. travelers on identified streets or roads Local and arterial streets Level and duration of traffic. accessibility due to high Compare travel times and average speeds for levels of itinerant traffic disadvantaged neighborhood examples with volumes and congestion general population or control group.

making process that were community Quantify level of activity on respective facilities participation was limited. more likely to experience associated with poor air: Compare incidence rates by demographic negative health impacts asthma. travelers on identified streets or roads Minority communities Demographic analysis of Use GIS to help identify and display the number are not actively engaged population shifts associated and demographic composition of households that in the planning decision with past planning decisions were negatively impacted. high pollution Develop relationship between transportation being used unfairly. neighborhoods where cut-through traffic (or income communities are Level and duration of traffic. cancer characteristics. exposure. high activity. emphysema. their communities are volume. safe crossings Local and arterial streets Degree of cut-through traffic Delineate sample minority/low-income in minority and low. or similar. Compare characteristics with general population impacts than the general population Suggested cause of Number of commuter trips Compare rates of vehicle-pedestrian/bicycle pollution and noise in impact area mishaps in predominately minority/low income communities with the general population. Ascertain degree of correlation with adjacent traffic volumes. Compute door to door travel times under peak and urban areas have reduced peak vs. accidents) are an issue. Low-income and Incidence rates of various Obtain incidence rates from local health studies and minority households are respiratory diseases records. transit runs. in neighborhoods. due to exposure to Ascertain whether other health risk or incidence vehicle traffic and markers are associated with the same population emissions group Compare difference across communities in relation to demographic characteristics and spatial location (near transportation facilities) Many residents feel that Link between high traffic Prepare pollution surface model in specific area. Low-income and Highway travel times Select representative neighborhoods. and health Assess relationship with health statistics 42 .Table 4: Case Study #4 – Public Involvement Issue Impact Measure Analysis Approach Minority and low-income Number of households Use GIS to identify households located adjacent to communities are more people impacted by past facilities meeting specified criteria. off-peak off peak conditions. exposed to transportation policy decisions. speeds. emissions and spatial concentrations. from traffic volumes. minority households in between selected OD pairs. accessibility due to high Compare travel times and average speeds for levels of itinerant traffic disadvantaged neighborhood examples with volumes and congestion general population or control group. concentration. often used by outsiders to related noise Use GIS and TransCAD to ascertain OD identify of by pass congestion.

and then a presentation of the Findings resulting from the analysis and review of the key questions. fearing community disruption. an historic shopping destination frequented by lower-income residents from surrounding communities. 2. 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). destruction and dislocation as occurred in the abandoned Highway to Nowhere which divided West Baltimore in the 1960s. followed by an inventory of the Investigations undertaken in support of the concerns. 43 . A history of public transit service changes. reductions and poor service delivery in a predominately African American. Reaction to changes in transit service at Lexington Market in central Baltimore. A final section in each profile summarizes the Conclusions and Recommendations resulting from the analysis. 4. inner-city working- class neighborhood along Kirk Avenue. 3. consist of the following: 1. low-income community known as Cherry Hill.S.Section 4: EJ Case Study Analysis Introduction Presented here in is a summary of the analysis activities undertaken in relation to each case study. Concern of communities in the U. selected with the objective of testing different types and geographic scales of Environmental Justice issues. beginning with a brief Description of the setting and the concerns. The case studies. Each study is presented as a profile. Concerns in relation to the location and operation of a bus depot in an older.

is separated form homes by Bush Street plus about 110 ft. along Homewood Avenue. the portions of Bonaparte Avenue immediately east of the bus yard is a relatively attractive residential street. The areas immediately north (Bonaparte Avenue) and east (Kirk Avenue) of the bus yard support light industrial uses.  The Kirk Avenue Division.  The Eastern Division. 4501 Mount Hope Drive from homes.  The Bush Division. The area to the west. and some empty land with trash. particularly in the first half to two-thirds of a western portion of the bus yard. 1515 Washington Blvd. Illustration 1: Proposed Expansion Area 44 . consists primarily of empty lots and abandonment in what was apparently once an established neighborhood. 226 Kirk Avenue. affording the area to the west a bit of topographic separation for the bus lot (thought it is not clear whether it is sufficient to buffer any of the noise or backs of these small row houses (in various states of repair) separated by from the bus yard by an alley. is separated from homes by Oldham Street. of commercial/industrial property. What is not clear is the extent to which the operations at the Kirk Avenue have directly caused the decline of the neighborhood. 201 Oldham Street.Case Study: Kirk Avenue Bus Yard Description of Setting and Concerns: The Midway Community is one in which residential and industrial uses collide. The bus lot sits in a traditional setting between industrial land to the north and east. is separated from homes by the alley behind Bartlett Avenue. The Kirk Avenue facility lies south of East 25th Street and the main northeast corridor railroad line out of Penn Station. including buildings (from fair to good condition). It is not until Bonaparte reaches its intersection with Garret Avenue that the residential development fans out into more of a neighborhood. South and west of the bus yard are the remains of some older residential neighborhoods. Partially buffering these houses from the yard is a welding/fabrication company warehouse located on the southwestern quadrant of the bus lot block but unrelated to MTA and the bus yard. 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.  Northern Parkway and Powder Mill Park separate the Northwest Division. Something of an anomaly. and residential neighborhoods that seem to have somewhat receded over time on the west and south. Of the 4 regional bus yards Kirk Avenue is the only one separated from homes by just an alley. though for a couple blocks it is only a ribbon of houses – surrounded on either side by industrial activities or empty lots. their parking lots.

What is the impact of the bus yard on the community in relation to: traffic volumes and pedestrian safety. e.g. How has this impact affected the community: declining property values and ownership. How long has the situation existed. assign newer/cleaner buses to Kirk Avenue. What options might be considered to help mitigate these impacts. housing abandonment. What effort has been made or recommendations presented by the community to MTA and how have they been dealt with? 7. beyond the neighborhood that is facing and immediately adjacent to the border of the yard? 4. What are near-term and future plans for the facility? What routes in MTA’s network does Kirk Avenue service? 6. relocation of families.: close/relocate the facility. and what changes have occurred operations over time. health impacts? 3. encourage alternative transitional land uses between the yard and neighborhoods? Illustration 2: Neighborhood Proximity 45 .e. reduce the scale or nature of operations. change operating strategies such as parking or idling.: number of buses stationed at Kirk Avenue and growth/decline in volume over time? How has the community changed over the same time period? 5. vandalism and crime. i.g.Case Study Issues The questions addressed by the Kirk Avenue case study included following: 1. noise air pollution exposure and risk? 2.. How widespread are the impacts of the facility felt in the community. install sound walls or other buffering measures. e.

The Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) has for 50 years operated the Kirk Avenue bus yard as a storage. facing along Kirk Avenue on its eastern edge and bordered by Bonaparte Avenue on its northern edge. typify the area to the east and south of the bus yard and light industrial uses. it occupies virtually a city block. working class communities along Homewood and Bartlett Avenues whose population is predominately low-to-moderate income African-American. As shown in Figure 1 below. Primarily repair shops. reflecting its historical nature as a blue-collar employment site for residents of the Kirk Avenue neighborhoods. Figure 1. maintenance and staging facility. Kirk Avenue Bus Depot and Adjacent Neighborhood 46 . commercial. Immediately west and south of the facility are older.

The bus depot sits in what is effectively a transitional zone between the residential and commercial areas. Similarly the homes along Bartlett Avenue are clearly in better condition on the side of Bartlett that does not abut the depot. in that it proposes to purchase 47 . While the residential areas along Homewood and Bartlett Avenues are exhibiting a bit of resurgence.” In addition to its visual impact. and believes that its presence has contributed to the community’s steady decline and is a major obstacle to the neighborhoods “coming back. Figure 2: Land Use Mix in the Extended Kirk Avenue Community During the past year. the MTA has introduced plans to make significant changes at the site. those homes. The general patterns of land use mix are illustrated in Figure 2. which are adjacent and share an alley with the southern border of the lot. vs. those areas immediately bordering the bus yard are clearly distressed. The community has long viewed the bus yard as an undesirable land use to have next door. Residents of homes adjacent to the bus yard have complained of both respiratory health and psychological health impacts. Part of this plan would be to actually increase the MTA’s presence at Kirk Avenue. which suggests that only about half of the area within ¼ mile of the bus depot is residential in character. The property along Homewood nearest the bus yard shows a clear receding pattern. with numerous empty lots and abandonments. the negative effects of the depot have been noise and air pollution. and have appealed to the MTA on numerous occasions to address conditions at the lot or – preferably – to greatly downsize or close and relocate the facility. a condition that clearly improves with distance from the lot.

while constructing a new administration building and a vehicle storage building on the existing site. Impact on neighborhood: 48 . If there are now 180 buses occupying spaces on the lot on a regular basis. change in scale or nature of activity over time. Residents feel that there must be a value standard: if the noise levels and pollution levels are an acceptable to others’ neighborhoods.  Markets served by routes supplied by buses stored at Kirk Avenue. [2] Barring the complete shutting down of the yard. the community expects damages for the lack of use of residents’ homes and for the MTA caused factors contributing to their current poor health conditions. [6] Landscaping: that is. the community supports reducing it to 90 buses and moving their parked location as far from Bartlett Avenue as possible. Ideally. the community supports a serious downsizing of the yard by as much as 50%. there is real question of what mitigation may be possible or attempted in the ensuing 5 years. This new storage facility would provide for indoor storage of buses and indoor fueling and cleaning. [5] There was some talk of sound walls. the following investigations were performed: 1. Investigations To address these allegations and concerns. the bus yard should move. The community residents’ position is that they want no less for their neighborhood as anyone else does. The community wishes: [1] The community’s first preference would be that the bus yard be moved out of their neighborhood entirely. for the reason that it insures the continuation – even expansion – of the Kirk Avenue facility. The residents feel the noise and air pollution concerns they’ve endured for going on thirty years cannot be partially alleviated successfully. [3] Otherwise. if somehow they could be made aesthetically acceptable to the community. 2. The community is not pleased with the new plan. It would demolish the structures on both the existing and new parcels and construct a new maintenance building on the new property. [4] The community also calls for mitigation funds to renovate homes so residents near the yard are able to live with the impacts of fumes and/or noise from the bus-yard.the property of a former printing company plant across Kirk Avenue (away from the community). adding trees to beautify the area and also to act as a separator between the bus-yard and its surrounding neighborhood was also discussed. relevance to Kirk Avenue neighborhood. the community would like to see the yard return to its pre-1970s expansion size. There was fairly minimal support within the community for this idea. comparison with other MTA bus depots. Nature of bus operations  Quantify scale of operations at Kirk Avenue. then they are unacceptable for the citizens who live nearest the bus yard. and since the time frame to implement the plan is 2012. They feel in order for their quality of life to be improved substantially.

however. Eastern.  Number of households/homes in proximity of the bus depot  Socio-demographic characteristics of households in surrounding vs. Mitigation history and alternatives  Mitigation actions which have been taken by MTA: nature.9% at Northwest. but it does appear that overall activity has lessened in recent years. and Northwest – shows that that Kirk is the second largest facility in terms of daily bus pullouts. Figure 3: Daily Bus Pullouts by MTA Division Historical data were only available through January of 1997. vs. ranking just behind Bush. 11. Typically. adjacent communities. timing. abandonment’s  Housing values. one in the morning peak period and one in the evening period. when compared with February 2007 data.6% at Bush. It is not clear how far this trend extends into the past (pre-1997).3% at Eastern. with the largest percentage reduction occurring at Kirk. the actual number of buses leaving the lot during an individual period would be half of the numbers shown in Figure 3 above. objective. and why  Potential impacts of proposed new facility Analysis and Findings 1. The routes based out of Kirk Avenue are primarily suburban commuter routes: Figure 4: Kirk Ave. sales prices.5% at Kirk Avenue. illustrated in Figure 4. to account for spares and backup during servicing or breakdowns. Bus Yard 49 . buses make two pullouts per day.  Levels of home ownership. Bus “pullouts” correspond to the number of vehicles that exit the lot to provide route service. and 21. suggests quite the contrary. 9. Thus it appears that the number of daily pullouts from Kirk Avenue declined by 22. a mapping exercise. The total number of buses stored at the facility would generally be greater than the number of pullouts. they show a reduction in activity at all bus yards. turnover rates  Noise and pollution impacts 3. Another characteristic examined was the extent to which the buses based at Kirk Avenue actually provide service to the local community. However. Hence. and that those routes would originate from the Kirk Avenue depot. Nature of bus operations An analysis of data on bus operations at Kirk Avenue and the MTA’s other three lots – Bush. It was initially presumed that the Kirk Avenue/Homewood/ Bartlett Avenue area would be fairly well served by local bus service. effectiveness  Other actions suggested but not taken.

Route 11 services the Charles Street corridor. Route 19 connects Carney with State Center. and Routes 104 and 120 are commuter express services serving. Route 3. 50 . Route 44 connects Brighton and Gwynn Oak with Rosedale Industrial Park. which connects Cromwell Bridge with the Inner Harbor. Cromwell and White Marsh.Route 3 connects Cromwell Bridge Road with the Inner Harbor. is the only route that directly services the community. Route 50 services Belair and Edison. Route 55 Towson University and Fox Ridge. Route 36 connects Northern Parkway and York Road with the University of MD Transit Center. Route 8 connects Hunt Valley and Lutherville with the Inner Harbor. which connects Hunt Valley. Towson and the U of MD Transit Center. Most of the other routes offer little in the way of meaningful service to the community. Route 8. Route 15 is a circumferential service that connects Perry Hall and White Marsh in the east with Security Square in the West. respectively. It is worth noting from the map insert in Figure 3 that none of these services run particularly close to the Kirk Avenue residential community. whereas the community bears the burden of the noise and pollution associated with storing and maintaining the vehicles for those routes at Kirk Avenue. falls just outside ¼ mile of community center. nor offer much of an array of accessibility options. Route 9 services Mays Chapel and Towson. while Route 19 (Carney to State Center Metro) lies closer to ½ mile from the community center.

and a substantially higher percentage of households are living in owner-occupied housing. 48% of residents over 25 years of age never completed high school. household size has gone down. This service is offered by BMC’s Regional Information Center on a fee basis to the public (generally small businesses or non-profit organizations) but at no cost to local government agencies or for use in BMC projects. has more households living in family situations. a much smaller percentage of people are living in poverty. and the proportion of single-person households has increased.7% of all residents qualified as below the poverty line. has slightly larger household sizes (including fewer 1- person households). a profile of the social and economic characteristics of the nearby community was developed using data from the US Census. has a higher proportion of African American residents. At the same time. These data were compiled for the immediate area (within ¼ mile of the bus depot).544 in 2000. Twenty-five percent are single-person households.Characteristics of Impacted Community To properly assess the impact of the bus depot on the community at Kirk Avenue. and 16% attended college. there are somewhat fewer family households. profiles were also developed for the area within ½ mile and 1 mile. while 35% did have a high school diploma. Average annual household income in the Kirk Avenue neighborhood was $43. Rates of educational attainment are somewhat lower.1990 and 2000 – in order to evaluate key changes over time. Looking at important trends over the 10 years between 1990 and 2000. with 25% being married couple households and 7% being households with children under 18 (21% of all persons are younger than 18). 51 . 4 In the early 1990’s.4 These data are shown in Table 1. with a higher percentage failing to complete high school. and has more households with children. the resident population has gotten older. and a much lower percentage attending college. In terms of education. although 26. BMC also purchases annual updates from Claritas. it appears that the Kirk Avenue community is slightly older. BMC’s Regional Information Center purchased proprietary software called “PCensus” that enables generation of demographic profiles for circles or other shapes. for two time periods -. In addition to the 1990 and 2000 Census data. and for comparison purposes. In relation to the surrounding area ( 1/2 and 1 mile radii).169 residents in the adjacent community (within ¼ mile) are predominately African American (96%) and 87% live in “family” household units. In terms of the composition of the community immediately surrounding the Kirk Avenue bus depot. the data for 2000 indicate that the 4. household income (average and median) are notably higher than the surround area. and a smaller percentage of persons over age 16 are employed.

507 46.615 12.736 4.8 2.Table 5: Population.4 These. displays an above-average rate of home ownership.8 35.169 14. In sum. and reflects improvement in home value in both money and real terms between 1990 and 2000. Persons 15+ 43% 33% 36% 28% 32% 27% Educational Attainment.2 Race White 2% 2% 5% 4% 17% 16% Black 98% 96% 94% 94% 81% 79% Other <1% >1% 1% 2% >2% >4% Living Situation Family Households 91% 87% 86% 83% 79% 73% Non-Family Households 6% 11% 13% 16% 19% 25% Group Quarters 3% 2% 1% 1% 2% 2% Married. however.4 37.501 60.0 2.504 Age Under 18 30% 21% 29% 23% 26% 20% 65 and older 12% 15% 10% 14% 10% 12% Average age 34.9 32. age 25+ Less than complete high school 53% 48% 53% 46% 47% 37% High school graduate 29% 35% 26% 34% 24% 29% Some college or college degree 18% 16% 21% 20% 29% 34% Employment Status.1 33. 52 . are trends also seen in the surrounding area.1 3. age 16+ Employed 55% 40% 50% 50% 52% 47% Unemployed 6% 8% 8% 8% 8% 7% Unemployment Rate 10% 17% 14% 18% 14% 14% Household Characteristics Family households 81% 71% 68% 65% 60% 51% Married-couple households 36% 25% 23% 16% 22% 16% With own children < 18 years 11% 7% 9% 4% 8% 5% Nonfamily households 19% 29% 32% 35% 40% 49% Householder living alone 16% 24% 27% 30% 31% 39% Average Household Size 3. Housing and Economic Profile of Kirk Avenue and Expanded Community (Source: US Census) Within 1/4 mile Within 1/2 mile Within 1 mile 1990 2000 1990 2000 1990 2000 Population 3.7 2.1 35. what this profile says about the Kirk Avenue community is that it appears to have a solid family structure.5 3.

732 $27.146) ($27. Impacts on Home Ownership.776) ($30.131 $19.Table 5 (continued): Population.1 Owner occupied units 506 701 1.087 ($26.732) Median Household Income $20.367 $34.4% Housing Characteristics Total units 1.584) ($18.255 2.980) Renter occupied units 547 648 3.278 $30.121) ($33.739) Persons below the poverty level 31.739 $22.514 $35.9% 32.701 5.073 $28.519 1.7% 31.811 14.162 ($38.549 $36.237 $34.601) ($18. smaller households.732 $28.533) ($16.856) ($16.078) ($38.834 $35.740 6.184 1.3 5.1% 32.695 12.196 ($29.238 23. although the homes near Kirk have increased in real value (1990 dollars) while those in the surrounding area have all lost value. 53 .374 $21.892 ($21. Vacancies and Home Value Table 1 reveals that average and median owned-home values are lower than the surrounding area.944 $51. whereas it fell in the surrounding areas. Rents are slightly higher in the Kirk Avenue neighborhood.858) Median owned home value $24. Housing and Economic Profile of Kirk Avenue and Expanded Community (Source: US Census) Within 1/4 mile Within 1/2 mile Within 1 mile Average household income 1990 2000 1990 2000 1990 2000 Average family income $27.850 $18.581 $40.6 5.540) ($34.571 6.573 $13.6% 26. average and median household income increased in both monetary and real terms in the Kirk Avenue neighborhood.125 income ($14.765 $27.924 24. Even with a higher rate of unemployment.168 $38. whereas that percentage has increased in the surrounding area.0% 33.660 $43.181 Average monthly gross rent $463 $479 $386 $414 $413 $468 ($364) ($314) ($355) Median monthly gross rent $455 $509 $407 $416 $409 $465 ($386) ($314) ($343) There has been a reduction in the percentage of persons living in poverty between 1990 and 2000.365 With a mortgage 42% 47% 41% 55% 50% 61% Average owned home value $27. and more persons over 65.610 $40.370 $18.450 5. Figure 4 also illustrates the distribution of year 2000 housing value in proximity to the Kirk Avenue bus yard and the surrounding community using a mapping tool based in GIS.764) ($27.296 Vacant 11% 21% 12% 23% 12% 20% Occupied 89% 79% 88% 77% 88% 80% Owner occupied 43% 41% 28% 29% 27% 27% Renter occupied 46% 38% 60% 47% 61% 52% Multiple unit 93% 98% 95% 97% 96% 96% Average rooms per unit 6 6 5.872 $18.447) Average non-family household $12.1 5. but they are lower in all areas in real terms (1990 dollars) than they were in 1990.036 $51.121 $21.461 $46.

or 44%. has dropped slightly (43% to 41%). 54 . despite the fact that the homes near Kirk are somewhat larger than those in the surrounding area (6 rooms vs. but virtually the same trend is evident in the surrounding area. The percent of houses. Real Estate Average home values have increased in current dollar terms in all the areas. whereas the 1 mile surrounding area actually lost almost 1. although the rates themselves are much lower in the surrounding area (27-29% level). which are owner occupied. the number of housing units in the Kirk Avenue neighborhood has increased by 517 units. however.000 units. Figure 5: Kirk Ave. than the surrounding area. Home values continue to be lower in the Kirk Avenue neighborhood on average. 5. The vacancy rate has clearly increased (almost doubled).Curiously.1). but the Kirk Avenue neighborhood is the only place that has seen an increase in value in constant (1990) dollars. Rents have risen in dollar terms but fallen in real terms in all areas. between 1990 and 2000.6 to 5.

196 in the surrounding 1-mile area. The average home in the Kirk Avenue neighborhood valued at $38. the community obtained the assistance the Johns Hopkins Center for Urban Environmental Health. Figure 6. and 25. but vehicles at the lot are also moved regularly for servicing and are often kept idling to keep the engines at ideal operating temperatures. to avoid difficulties associated with restart of diesel engines. has narrowed since 1990 when the average home price of $27. and to heat or cool the bus interiors prior to service. in the Bloomberg School of Public 55 . the community’s aversion to the bus depot has to do with unusually high levels of noise and pollution from its operations. after years of complaining to the MTA with little satisfaction.6% lower than the ½ mile price average of $34.660. which might be associated with the bus yard. The difference. The pattern of the buses staging in and out of the lot twice daily to provide peak hour service itself creates a lot of noise and pollution- generating activity. and 32.168 was 21. Noise and Pollution Impacts In addition to it being a visual eyesore. such as paging and announcements over the public address system and noise associated with repairs and servicing. which was 12% less than the average of $43.367 in 2000.1% lower than the average of $51.581 in the surrounding ½ mile area.The only apparent negative indicator for Kirk Avenue. is a lower overall housing value. however. In 2004.1% lower than the 1-mile average price of $40.036. Noise Level (dBA) by Day of Week and Hour of Day at the Fenceline of the Kirk Division Depot There are also collateral impacts associated with such a large and dynamic operation.

5 microns (PM2. During the period May 2003 through June 2004. Figure 7: Integrated 24-hour Particle Mass Concentration <2. including during the hours between midnight and sunrise.: 56 . a record was maintained of the number of calls made to the MTA to report and complain about buses idling between the hours of midnight and 6 a. An outdoor public announcement system is also used at all hours creating noise and sleep disturbance.m. In addition. The buses at Kirk Division Bus Depot idle at all hours. Noise levels exceeded the night time noise ordinance level of 53 decibels on all days and times. with levels tending to be higher during the night time hours. During a separate week. and staff conducted assessments of air quality and noise level within the community. especially on weekends. In response to community concerns. noise levels were measured at the Bartlett Avenue side of the bus depot fence line using a sound level meter. the newer buses are even louder than the old models. PM2.5).Health.5 was measured on a daily basis for two weeks indoors and outdoors at a row home on the bus depot side of Bartlett Avenue. which adds to the noise of rhe PA system and the idling. faculty. which could affect residents’ health. The implication is that residents living near the Kirk Division Bus Depot are routinely exposed to noise levels that exceed the City Department of Health Noise Ordinance. The measured air pollutant was small particles with a diameter size of less than 2. drivers are required to test the bus enunciator system before beginning the route.5) Noise level readings measured at the bus depot by hour of day and day of week are illustrated in Figure 5. Noise and air pollution were measured daily during January of 2004. According to residents. a team of Johns Hopkins students. The study found that noise levels ranged from 45 to 86 decibels. including loss of sleep. and at such levels constitute a legitimate stress. whereas the daytime standard of 58 decibels was exceeded for nearly all days and times.5 um (PM 2.

m. Outdoor levels tended to be higher than indoors. persistent headaches 744 Bartlett: Runny nose. May 21-June 21.Figure 8: Illnesses and Health Issues Reported by Households Adjacent to Kirk Depot 700 Bartlett: Toddler with 800 Block of Bonaparte: Numerous shortness of breath. 21. 3. Adult residents suffer insomnia due to noise nauseous while sitting on front porch 716 Bartlett: Resident diagnosed with cancer 734 Bartlett: Resident with chronic asthma 740 Bartlett: Resident suffering from eye discomfort. 5 – Mar. 2004 24 114 March 30 – May 20. earaches 746 Bartlett: Persistent cough. 2003 none None June 21.m. indicating that the row home structure offered some protection from penetration of outdoor air pollution into the home. and 6 # of Calls to MTA a. asthma. visit hospital because of salty. 2004 3 54 TOTALS 58 515 With regard to air quality. Days Buses Idling between 12 a. 30. father very drowsy for two 760 Bartlett: 5 and 9 year old 809 Bonaparte: 5 year old days children develop asthma with hospitalized with asthma 2 years of moving in in 2003 Exhibit 4: Bus Idling Time Period No. 2004 15 292 May 21 – June 24. 2004 14 47 Jan. measured particle air pollution levels were found to vary from day to day and from indoors to outdoors. chronic congestion. 29 – Feb. 2004 2 8 Feb. 57 . toxic taste in mouth 748 Bartlett: Daughter hospitalized with asthma. 2003 – Jan.

with provision to house the storage and service activity within new structures on the existing site. and those burdens may be cited as follows: 1. However. the community should pressure the MTA in negotiations to both get a clear statement of the likely impacts should the new facility be constructed. it is possible that exposure to PM2. The MTA’s long-term plan is to expand and modernize the Kirk Division Depot. particularly given that houses are larger units than those in the surrounding area. These PM2.S. it was not possible to assess the impact of the bus diesel exhaust emissions on community air quality. the community has been given scant information on what noise and emissions impacts will result from the change. Daily levels were all below EPA’s daily health standard for particle pollution.Outdoor levels ranged from a low of 7. For these reasons. the newer and cleaner alternative fuel buses will be based at Kirk as they are phased into the fleet. with each of these claims and suggestions. While scientists have not found evidence of a threshold effect for particulate matter air pollution. Only one route provides service that appears to be of direct value to the 58 . there is some question on the part of the community as to how significant past improvements have been and how significant and how soon future mitigation actions will be put in place. And even if the new facility is constructed. It has also been suggested that to the extent possible.5 air pollution levels are below the U. and it did internalize a higher percentage of its impacts. as well as from the reconstruction itself. and to obtain meaningful mitigation in the time between.5 at the levels observed in this assessment put residents at increased risk for adverse health effects during the same May 2003 to June 2004 period. the two week average level provides some indication that the annual federal health standard of 15 µg/m3 may be exceeded. Results are illustrated in Figure 6. it still would not be operational until 2012. however. a record was also developed of the number of residents reporting problems with noise or fumes. Measured particle air pollution levels were typical for an urban environment. The buses housed at the Kirk Division provide little direct benefit to the residents of the neighborhood. Property values are clearly lower in the ¼ mile residential area surrounding the bus depot. which have included new operational procedures regarding how the buses are positioned when parked in the lot and practices with regard to idling. 2. incidences of illnesses or conditions severe enough to require a hospital visit or trip to the doctor. meaning the community is still looking at 5 or more years of “business as usual” in terms of noise and impacts. ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS The next step in the process for the Kirk Avenue neighborhood will be to have structured negotiations with the MTA regarding near term and long term strategies that will begin to provide some relief from the impacts which are substantially attributable to the bus depot.9 µg/m3 to a high of 29 µg/m3 with an overall average of 17 µg/m3. The MTA has presented some evidence that it has heard the concerns of the community and attempted to respond with mitigation measures. The proximity to the bus yard is apparent. and particularly. Environmental Protection Agency’s daily health standard of 65 µg/m3. These are noted on the map in Figure 7 to illustrate the location of the afflicted household. although average levels measured over two weeks raise concern that EPA’s annual health standard for particles may be exceeded. However. The following findings from this analysis suggest that the Kirk Avenue neighborhood has been bearing disproportionate burdens from the operation of the Kirk Division Depot for some time. From this study.

07. Case Study: Cherry Hill Description of Setting and Concerns: The Cherry Hill community is geographically located in the southern section of Baltimore City. Emissions from bus pullouts and idling are significant. congestion. Waterview Avenue and the west and south ends of the Baltimore Light Rail system. The Middle Branch. community. To fail to provide this acknowledgement and dialogue would be tantamount to environmental injustice. 4.03. The area is comprised of Census Tracts 2502. Measured noise levels attributable to bus idling. While readings of particulate pollution taken in 2004 were found to be below official federal thresholds. 3. bound the Cherry Hill community. 2502. Cherry Hill covers more than 300 acres south of the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and west of Hanover Street. earaches. the presence of fumes from bus engines is clearly detectable and reasonably constant. It is located just over the Hanover Street Bridge. 59 . and they occur at all hours including prime sleeping hours. There are documented cases of stress and insomnia linked to these impacts. One need not be exposed to federal-critical concentrations of particulate pollution to suffer from nausea.04 and 2502. north of the Patapsco River. Hanover Street. headaches and asthma. whereas most of the other routes supplied by Kirk are suburban commuter services. and amplified voice messaging are above the standards of the city ordinance. The socio-demographics of the riders of these other services are likely to be different from those of the Kirk Avenue community. The Kirk Avenue community deserves a fair hearing and legitimate mitigation program from the MTA. servicing. The number of reported cases in the homes surrounding the bus depot is sufficiently above standard population levels that it is hard to deny an association with the bus activity. and measurably above background norms. which is really at the foot of the city. eye and throat irritation. The community is located south of the Inner Harbor/Central Business District of Baltimore City.

Many people living in the private housing in those early years were widows and pensioners. Developed as a planned community for African-American veterans returning from World War II. In those days of segregated housing. A large percentage of new residents were fatherless households of people who were not going anywhere but were doing well to survive. Burge. in a scene of mud and snow. and many public housing residents. War veterans had preference among applicants. the Cherry Hill community today has about 7. the war had ended. 60 . a stable group of homeowners. founder of the “Cherry Hill News” paper. But even earlier. no neighborhood in the city was available for an influx of African American. It was opened for occupancy in December 1945. a 600-unit project was launched under federal auspices. Over the years. three private developers had pushed ahead with plans of their own to construct a total of more than 670 units. Cherry Hill has developed many of the problems that go with poverty among families lacking a male head. including the need to relocate families dispossessed by urban renewal. Settlers there included a number servicemen who were studying under the GI Bill and who would go on up to productive careers. Before the federal housing was ready. “In 1944. remembers Mr. the community “was cut out to be a middle-income area. brought about a far-reaching change in the population makeup. however. Until the early 1950s. The Cherry Hill community has a Democratic stronghold that includes a handful of middle-class homeowners and renters.” The pressures from the inner city.700 residents and is still largely population by African-American. Figure 9: Cherry Hill Aerial Photo of Neighborhood Streets Identified Cherry Hill LRT Cherry Hill Patapsco LRT The Cherry Hill community was established in the late 1940s when the Housing Authority of Baltimore chose it as the site of a federal project for African American war workers migrating from the South.

In the midst of Cherry Hill is a shopping center and on the fringes are industry and the Middle Branch Park. and public housing projects. key highways. low-to-moderate income community that was created by public forces following WW II. major activity centers and the region. Buses serve the neighborhood as does a light rail stop. When the MTA’s new Central Light Rail Line went into service in the early 1990s. 61 . Figure 10: Cherry Hill Community/Land Cover (2000) Among the major concerns of the Cherry Hill community is a long-standing perception that it has been unfairly treated in the delivery of transit service. it traditionally enjoyed good transit access to the city. reliability of workers. 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. shows its location in relation to downtown Baltimore. resulting in one of the Baltimore region’s first planned public housing community. Access to Interstate highways and downtown Baltimore is facilitated by the Light Rail system and Hanover Street. Figure 1the transit route map of the Cherry Hill community. and the LRT line. crime rates and drug use. Cherry Hill is a predominately black. Located just south of the central city. resulting in service losses that they feel have never been acknowledged or addressed. row houses. Residents feel that this history has created a stigma that has resulted in its receiving unequal levels of public services and inaccurate perceptions as to community stability.Today Cherry Hill is mostly residential area with apartment complexes.

which for Cherry Hill residents has meant accessing a station at the western fringe of the community. 62 . It is alleged that areas which were fairly easy to reach by bus are no longer so. Figure 11: Bus Routes Serving Cherry Hill They perceive that their accessibility has been reduced as a result of bus routes being realigned or eliminated to better support the light rail system. and this has been compounded by a general diminution in the quantity and quality of service.

Impact of changes on regional accessibility  Comparison of areas reachable by transit within 30. with numerous complaints of unreliable service. showing up for appointments)  Condition & cleanliness of equipment and facilities  Driver professionalism. have surly drivers. and a comparison was also made between peak and off-peak travel periods. the following investigations were performed: 1. home values. orderliness on buses Analysis and Findings Using BMC’s regional travel model and transit skim times. 45 and 60 minutes of travel time before and after system change  Comparative travel times to favorite destinations  Assessment of whether changes in service orientation reflect redistribution of land use and opportunities in the region. missed pickups and appointments. employment  Households – number. wait and transfer time) from Cherry Hill. income  Housing – number units. race. size. 45 and 60 minutes of travel time (including access. competence.This is an important problem. it was possible to construct maps indicating those areas of the region reachable by transit within 30. size. composition. ownership. The comparisons are shown in Figures 12 and 13. Assessment of changes in transit service  Nature of system changes when LRT system phased in  Change in route coverage and connectivity  Change in ease of access to transit within the community 2. vacancies. 63 . This was done for 1990 conditions and in the year 2000. and poorly trained drivers. 45 and 60 minutes of transit travel times before and after 3. age. Investigations To address these allegations and concerns. and are inhospitable to older riders. rents 4. Transit service delivery  Reliability (on-time performance. since Cherry Hill residents are highly dependent on public transportation for their basic mobility needs. This assertion extends to MTA’s Para transit service.  Number of jobs within 30. Residents report regular dissatisfaction with buses that are chronically late. education. Changes in the Community  Population: number. are badly maintained.

and areas along Ritchie Highway to the southeast. which is becoming a new job center. where as a result of the service changes. with the exception of the BWI corridor. and areas along Ritchie Highway to the southeast. The changes in off-peak access are along the same lines. Areas that seem to have improved in transit access between 1990 and 2000 include the area between Liberty and Reisterstown Roads in northwest Baltimore and the areas to the south and southwest extending to BWI (this due to the LRT line itself). The land areas are traffic analysis zones from BMC’s travel model system. Again.Impact of Changes on Regional Accessibility Figure 10 uses a color-coding system to show those areas of the Baltimore region that are reachable within up to 30 minutes of travel time (green shading). but even more dramatic. in many areas transit access has decreased. Also inaccessible with 1 hour of travel time are areas in East Baltimore associated with Moravia and Rosedale industrial parks in the US 40 corridor. And the number of TAZs that are reachable within 30 minutes by transit has notably shrunk between 1990 and 2000. 30 to 45 minutes (yellow shading). access to some parts of the region have increased while to other areas it appears to have declined. These comparisons make it fairly clear that transit access has declined for Cherry Hill residents. transit access improves in the BWI corridor to the southeast. and the accompanying reorientation of bus service to better constitute an integrated transit system. or between 45 minutes and 1 hour (red shading) during the peak period in 1990 and 2000. and to some extent along Reisterstown Road in the northwest. As a result of the service changes. but declines virtually everywhere else. Major portions of northeast Baltimore City along Harford and Belair Roads and sections of North Charles Street are no longer reachable within an hour of travel time. and the number within the shaded zones indicates the estimated travel time by transit from Cherry Hill to that zone. However. Perhaps even more significant is the loss of access within the city of Baltimore. is the extent that the reduction in access is a result of the switch . However. Perhaps even more significant is the loss of access within the city of Baltimore. access to some parts of the region have increased while to other areas it appears to have declined. Also inaccessible with 1 hour of travel time are areas in East Baltimore associated with Moravia and Rosedale industrial parks in the US 40 corridor. in many areas transit access has decreased.over to LRT. The year 1990 is believed to represent conditions before the opening of the Central Light Rail line. or a more generalized cutback in transit service. What is not clear from these comparisons – peak or off-peak – however. Major portions of northeast Baltimore City along Harford and Belair Roads and sections of North Charles Street are no longer reachable within an hour of travel time. These patterns are shown in Figure 11. where many locations that could previously be reached within 45 minutes now require up to an hour. 64 . Areas that seem to have improved in transit access between 1990 and 2000 include the area between Liberty and Reisterstown Roads in northwest Baltimore and the areas to the south and southwest extending to BWI (this due to the LRT line itself).

The numbers tell a mixed story.Changes in Transit Service Before/After Light Rail Figure 12 looks at the accessibility question from a slightly different angle. show major improvements in travel time. It would appear that – overall – access to jobs for the transit dependent households of Cherry Hill has not been reshaped to help workers access regional job opportunities. A negative number indicates a reduction in travel time. particularly those south and west of Cherry Hill in the BWI corridor. However. while a positive number indicates an increase in travel time. The number shown inside the respective TAZ indicates the change in transit travel time to reach the area from Cherry Hill in 2000 vs. 65 . while yellow are medium concentrations and orange are the lowest concentrations. and then looks at the change in travel time to reach those jobs between 1990 and 2000. Areas shaded in green represent the largest job concentrations. 1990. for job concentrations in almost every other location – including downtown Baltimore – transit travel times have increased. Some of the major employment areas. The figure attempts to show the location of major job concentrations.

Figure 12: Cherry Hill 1990-2000 Peak Travel Time 66 .

Figure 13: Off Peak Transit Travel Times 67 .

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

Figure 15: Cherry Hill Transit Access 69 .

These shifts are also reflected in a decline in the population aged 18 to 44 years. These changes are depicted in Table 8.992 of 4.300. but in real dollars the median value in 2000 was only $43. While the portion of this population. During this period the population of Cherry Hill declined by 21.8%.400 to 15.  Para transit drivers are not polite and will sometimes refuse to accept vouchers for payment and demand cash. from 19. These deficiencies fall in the areas of reliability. The decline in the number of households was only 12.3% in the population over 65 years.027. from 17. was only about 22% in 1990. Transit Service Delivery Cherry Hill residents have made strong allegations that not only was transit service cut back in the community at the time the Light Rail Line opened.1%) and rental units (14.2%. The following specific concerns were identified by residents at a June 2004 BREJT Listening Session in Cherry Hill:  Maintenance in Cherry Hill is awful – streets.2% from $45. which was Caucasian. although these numbers are still well above average levels of unemployment in the population at large.7%.5%.4%. Indeed. On the positive side.079).7%). sidewalks and bus/light rail stops are dirty and broken. whites represented almost half of the population decline between 1990 and 2000 (1. which declined by 29. and even a decline of 10. including both owner-occupied (11. 70 .6%. or $12. children under 5. Other negative trends in Cherry Hill include a reduction in the number of housing units (9. which fell by 31.9%.  People are missing doctor appointments or are left stranded at doctor’s offices after they are scheduled to close – complaints cause reprisals.2% to 15. Median housing value increased by 26.  Para transit buses are uncomfortable and unsafe – safety feature like poles and handrails are not adequate.903 to $57. or 4. Complaints and comments on maintenance issues do not produce results. The # 27 and the # 51 routes are the worst. while the number of single person households increased by 15. suggesting a decline in home value of $1. total vacancies increased from 467 to 676.  Bus service is terrible – there are too few buses and buses do not run on schedule.1%.3%). amounting to about 11% of all housing units.933. The number of vacant homes either for sale/rent or simply vacant also increased between 1990 and 2000. condition and upkeep of equipment and facilities.  Bus service in Cherry Hill used to be better – one reason for the poor service is that resources are being spent in more affluent communities. but overall service delivery has declined. and driver competence. between 1990 and 2000 in current dollar terms. the number of households with married couples and children declined by 51. the percentage of persons in the labor force who were unemployed fell by 37% between 1990 and 2000.931. indicating that larger households – primarily married couples with children – left in larger numbers.  MTA doesn’t use “checkers” anymore to see whether buses are working or running on time.970.Community Profile and Changes The period from 1990 to 2000 saw a marked change in the size and composition of the Cherry Hill community.

they have plenty of buses.’  Some employers discriminate against Cherry Hill residents because they know people from Cherry Hill will be late for work due to poor transit service. Table 6. #51 and #29 buses because they are overcrowded and bus drivers often do not tell younger people to get out of the priority seating. Cherry Hill’s low income and minority population is subject to discrimination in the way services are provided – “look. 1990 and 2000 71 .  Seniors have difficulty riding the #27. Socioeconomic Profile for Cherry Hill Community. that’s not the problem – the problem is that they don’t send them to Cherry Hill.

664 and the number of Caucasians grew to 131. 1990 and 2000 *Note: (Census Tracts should be updated to only include only 250207.897 with 49 Caucasians. Socioeconomic Profile for Cherry Hill Community. 250204) which indicate the 1990 population at 10.250230.) 72 . In 2000 the population dropped to 7.Table 6 (cont.).

MTA establish advisory board that includes members of the community who are not employed by MTA. 73 . The specific changes in service then accompanying the opening of the LRT line should be separately enumerated. and should develop a practice of monitoring and reporting on its service to Cherry Hill until a change is acknowledged in the acceptance level on the part of the community. MTA establish community form to disseminate about transportation policy. and driver conduct. on-time arrivals. 3. MTA should undertake its own studies of service complaints and delivery to Cherry Hill to determine what it could be doing to address these concerns and improve service. Particular attention should be given to the number of ADA compliant housing units that exist within the public housing complex and the number of corresponding physically challenged tenants. and those cuts affecting Cherry Hill compared with those occurring elsewhere in the system.btco. systemwide reduction in service. headways. there are several additional investigations that should be undertaken in order to quantify and thus legitimize their claims. 1. it would be necessary to institute a monitoring process that would ascertain such conditions as bus upkeep. 5. This trend continued into the early 1990’s. combined with fare increases to cover escalating operating costs. Unfortunately. at the time of this analysis. and Para transit appointments missed. with a description of the impact on the community (changes in coverage.” To establish this inappropriate driver behavior. “as the 1980’s began to draw to a close. Concurrently. a list should be obtained of the bus routes which were eliminated. To properly assess and quantify the severity of these concerns.ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS While it appears upon initial review that the Cherry Hill community has experienced deferential treatment with regard to transit service. procedures and future development implications. upkeep of equipment and facilities. Establish that the reductions in bus service that occurred at the time when Light Rail service was inaugurated in 1992 were not part of a much larger. An independent monitoring and assessment program should be undertaken to document the concerns regarding service reliability. we were unable to lay hands on actual data to support these allegations. etc). The following statement was extracted from the Baltimore Transit Archives site (www. revised or curtailed as part of these changes in the late 1980’s. 2. a tough economic environment saw the discontinuance of many marginal bus services. bus stops. 4.

This setting is illustrated in the map pictured as Figure 15. The market is not only a major tourist attraction for visitors. Figure 16. freshness and tradition. many of which have historically picked up and dropped off passengers at the main entrance. The reason for the changes was to improve safety in the vicinity of the market. Lexington Market Location Map Beginning in 2001. the Market Authority. and is somewhat of a regional transit hub.Case Study: Lexington Market Description of Setting and Concerns Lexington Market is a major commercial destination in downtown Baltimore. Eutaw Street. and the MTA introduced a set of controversial changes to transit operations at the market when they moved the stops for several of the bus routes to the adjacent block. the City of Baltimore police department. and permits metered parking along the west curb. 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. historic warehouse building. a condition partially attributed to a drug 74 . Beginning in 2001. but also a mainstay for a large portion of Baltimore’s minority community. accommodates two-way vehicle traffic throughout the day. which fronts the Market’s main entrance on the east. who prize its selections. Many bus routes converge at Lexington Market. providing fresh produce. The shifts are pictured in Figure 16. seafood. The market area has historically been well served by public transit. the City of Baltimore police department. the Market Authority. Large crowds of people congregating at the entrance area allegedly made it difficult to monitor and deter crime activity in the area. The eastern curb is reserved for buses. meats. and a variety of vendors selling items in a large. and the market area is also a transfer point for both the MTA’s Metro subway line and the Central Light Rail line.

was ultimately judged to be less of an environmental justice issue than one of urban planning. and street activity. The public rightly felt that it been marginalized by the decision-making process. including not only budgetary on the part of MTA but the shifts in stops and routing inspired by the recent safety concerns. However. For these individuals. Upon review of the situation. This. many of whom relied on public transit to reach the site. Unfortunately.treatment center also located in the vicinity. what did emerge was the vision that substantial pedestrian traffic associated with both market visitation and substantial numbers of transit riders accessing or transferring between bus. coupled with limited safe crossings. Shoppers complained that they were forced to walk longer distances to connect with buses. and that commercial interests (such as a parking lot adjacent to the Market) were given preference over their well being. 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. the main concern ended up being the sense that transit access to and from the transit dependent communities and Lexington Market had systematically diminished over time. Figure 17: Movement of Bus Stops at Lexington Market New Bus Stop Locations Metro Station LRT Station Market 75 . for possibly numerous reasons. members of the riding public. exposed to the weather and vehicle exhaust. transit-dependent minority shoppers. however. many of whom are low-income. traffic at intersections. It also became clear that the predominant customer base of the Market was the minority community. and hence not the domain of this project as a case studies. were obliged to vie with frequently heavy vehicle traffic along Eutaw Street. generally while carrying packages and shepherding small children. metro and light rail. were never consulted on the proposal or included in the planning.

and impact of changes in bus stops  Bus routes for which stop locations changed  Location of new stops. the stops at Fayette Street (farside) and Lexington Street (nearside) were consolidated into the current Marion Street (farside)/Fayette Street (nearside) stop in a series of changes that took place between June 2001 and March 2002. as follows:  On June 12. Assessment of nature. 2000  Areas for which transit travel times have increased between 1990 and 2000  Characteristics of areas receiving service reductions by race and income Analysis and Findings Nature and impact of movements in bus stops Figure 17 shows the location and identification of MTA bus routes at and adjacent to Lexington Market. distance. and the State Center Metro subway station  No. Eutaw Street and serving the Market are:  No. particularly those which bus riders would need to cross to access the relocated bus stops. origin community. exposure)  Communities served by these routes. 27: serving Reisterstown Plaza Metro subway station. Changes in regional transit accessibility  Change in accessibility to Lexington Market by transit. trip purpose. Those routes operating on N. Assessment of vehicle/pedestrian conditions and conflicts in Market vicinity:  Peak hour vehicle volumes on adjacent streets. gender. 2001 the Fayette Street (farside) stop was discontinued  On January 23. magnitude. average boardings/alightings at Lexington Market  Characteristics of riders: race. Cherry Hill & Patapsco LRT stops  No.Investigations To address these allegations and concerns. appraisal of impact on access (time.  Comparable pedestrian volumes in Market area. 91: serving Sinai Hospital and City Hall As shown in Figure 16. 2002 the Marion Street (farside) stop was established 76 .  Pedestrian accident statistics 3. 10: serving Sparrows Point/Inverness/Dundalk and the State Center Metro subway station  No. 5: serving Cedonia and the Mondawmin Metro subway station  No. trip purpose. route ridership. frequency  Stated effect on trip making behavior 2. 1990 vs. income. age. the following investigations were recommended: 1. 19: serving Carney/Goucher & Taylor.

the first major cross street to the north. which borders Lexington Market on its eastern front and main entrance. Market users attempting to connect with buses whose stops have been relocated from the market to the block face north of Saratoga Street must confront two-way vehicle volumes of this magnitude when accessing the new stops. Main crosswalks are located on the north at Saratoga Street. 2002. Pedestrian volumes counted during the same traffic study indicated 443 persons attempting to cross Saratoga Street along N. the Lexington Street (nearside) stop was discontinued. is a two- way north/south street. Vehicle and Pedestrian Traffic Conditions and Conflicts North Eutaw Street. and pedestrians are in substantial numbers at all hours along both sides of Eutaw Street. which supports major pedestrian traffic made up of market visitors and transit users (Metro subway and Light Rail lines offer a rare transfer point at this location). these volumes of pedestrians and vehicles make for congested conditions during the main travel times of the day. On March 4. is not signalized. 141 crossing Eutaw going east and 392 heading west. Saratoga. Eutaw Street 77 . Figure 18: Vehicle and Pedestrian Volumes in Vicinity of Lexington Market (1996) 5 2 5 v e h /h r AM P eak S a ra to g a S tre e t 4 4 3 p e d s /h r 8 8 4 v e h /h r AM P eak P M P eak 3 9 2 p e d s /h r 1 4 1 p e d s /h r AM P eak A M P eak 6 8 p e d s /h r AM P eak L e x in g to n 6 0 1 v e h /h r M a rk e t A M P eak 8 1 4 v e h /h r P M P eak L e x in g to n S tr e e t N. The crosswalk at Lexington Street. Entrance (adjacent to parking lot). Buses have access to the western curb. which can make crossing without aid of a signal difficult and dangerous. Eutaw going north in the AM peak hour. and 814 during the PM peak hour. Traffic counts obtained by the City of Baltimore in 1996 reveal a combined (bi-directional) vehicle volume of 601 vehicles per hour in the AM peak period at North Eutaw and Lexington Streets. only 68 crossing to go south. Given the narrow sidewalks. This amounts to one vehicle every 6 seconds in the AM peak and every 4 seconds in the PM peak. Marion Street is 1/2 block South of the Lexington Market Eutaw St. is also a two-way artery and carries a bi- directional volume of 525 vehicles per hour in the AM peak and 884 per hour in the PM peak. This street environment is pictured in Figure 18. and just south of the market entrance at Lexington Street. Meanwhile. with vehicle parking permitted along the eastern curb.

the net effect of the added rail services seems to have improved transit access to Lexington Market. a large number of the city’s minority and low-income residents have traveled to Lexington Market by public transit. To test the validity of this perception. Hence. in Figure 19 and 20 for Peak Period and Off-Peak conditions. explain much of the credit for this. These trends are evident for both peak and off-peak service conditions. both of which have station stops at or near Lexington Market. even if pre-existing bus services were eliminated.Changes in Regional Transit Access to Lexington Market Historically. or curtailed. redirected. The combined effects of Metro and Light Rail. transit service levels in the year 2000 were compared with those provided in 1990 to determine the magnitude and distribution of any changes. The comparisons are shown in map form. of course. The results are perhaps somewhat surprising. The recent changes in service represented by the movement of the bus stops are but one element of what is alleged to be a long-term decline in the level of transit service and access to Lexington Market. 78 . in that it appears that – in general – a much higher percentage of the region is within a 1-hour travel window of Lexington Market in 2000 than in 1990.

2000 79 .Figure 19: Peak Transit Travel times From Lexington Market. 1990 vs.

1990 vs 2000 – Off Peak 80 .Figure 20: Transit Travel Time from Lexington Market.

although for the most part the reductions in service appear to be fairly minor. the northeastern corridor shows mainly a decline in transit service between 1990 and 2000. LRT service shows up in a significant improvement in access for Westport residents (-11 minutes) but a slight increase for Cherry Hill residents (+4 minutes). In contrast. and conversely. Results of this assessment are shown in Figure 210. in the area around Johns Hopkins. with the exception of Westport and Cherry Hill.. . clearly evidence of the growing impact of rail transit (Metro) in this corridor. The numbers in the individual TAZs represent the travel time change in minutes. Where rail service does exist. with the transition to white beginning along Reisterstown Road at the Baltimore City line. on the order of 2 to 5 minutes. Also shown in the chart are those areas that lost their transit service to Lexington Market between 1990 and 2000. Many of the TAZs in this corridor – within the City of Baltimore – are predominately African American residents. a fact attributable to the absence of rail service in this corridor and reductions in bus service over time. with a “minus” value indicating an improvement in service. There are few substantial African American communities south of Baltimore City.A separate analysis was made of the question of whether reductions in transit service over time to and from Lexington Market have fallen disproportionately upon the minority community.e. transit travel times have come down. a reduction in travel time. which has heavily depended on transit to access the market. The map tells an interesting story. which shows racial concentrations by TAZ (shaded red for primarily African American and dark blue for primarily white) and the change in transit travel time from Lexington Market between 1990 and 2000. those sites that gained access in 2000 that were not connected in 1990. The majority of TAZs in these two corridors are African-American. i. Here. The communities along Liberty Road and Reisterstown Road to the north and west of Lexington Market all show tangible improvements in transit service.

Figure 21: Lexington Market Peak Travel Time and Racial Composition 82 .

necessitating a walk along a relatively narrow and crowded sidewalk. Eutaw in front of the Market at Lexington Street. falling ridership. Comparing data on average travel times by transit in 1990 and 2000 indicates that the portion of the region that can reach Lexington Market by transit within 1 hour has increased over this period. by the city and the market authority. Lexington and Saratoga Streets is a high-density. primarily because they are not served by a rail transit service. transit users. issues of pedestrian and vehicle traffic conflicts at and nearby the market deserve a closer and more systematic review by the City. Eutaw and Lexington Streets to an auto-free district through this section would seem to be an alternative that would benefit the market. attempt to cross N. Converting N. since they show a lack of consideration for an inclusive process. circulation and pedestrian safety in this location.  Finally. and consolidation of the system into a rail-based network. and probably even crime enforcement efforts. including transit riders moving between bus and/or rail services. The northeastern portion of Baltimore City and adjacent areas of Baltimore County seem to be the only places with reduced transit access.  While bus service has been reduced over the past decade or so in response to changing markets. where waiting capacity at the corner is very limited. This stretch of N. additional travel time and exposure burdens. composition of that ridership. 83 . and rider perceptions to assess the actual impacts. and the areas that can access the market within 45 minutes and 30 minutes has also expanded – this largely due to the improved service offered to many areas by rail transit. overall transit access to Lexington Market appears to have actually improved. it would seem appropriate to identify and evaluate alternatives to improve access. many pedestrians. and having to cross a busy street at Saratoga. A wholly separate set of issues concerns how the changes were made in the unilateral way they were. However the quantitative impact of this change cannot be assessed from the data in hand. and related to the lack of public involvement in the first bullet. Similarly. Bus riders are being forced to walk away from the front of the market to reach relocated bus stops. and given the number of transit users. with extremely narrow sidewalks and unrestricted vehicle traffic on that narrow street. It will be necessary to obtain information on changes in bus ridership. and should be called under separate review. market patrons.ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS In light of the findings produced by this analysis. high-intensity activity area. the following conclusions and recommendations are offered:  Some hardship may have been visited upon bus riders to Lexington Market as a result of the movement of the bus stops from the front of the market to the adjacent block. without involving the transit riding public or respective community advocacy organizations. Eutaw. These “issues of process” are perhaps more of a concern from an environmental justice perspective than the movement of the stops themselves.  Transit users proceeding down or up Lexington Street to connect with Metro or LRT stations also face a challenging environment. and simply pedestrians moving through. where there is significant 2-way vehicle traffic and no signal protection at the crosswalk.

Lafayette Square. which terminates at the Baltimore Beltway (I-695) in the west. Once the starting point of an ambitious plan to connect I-95 as it passes through Baltimore with I-70. the highway would have been badged as I-170. And thus it remains to this day—almost 30 years after it was opened to traffic in 1979 – a grade-separated superhighway that is only 1.Case Study: U. and Rosemount. Figure 22: West Baltimore and the Highway to Nowhere West Baltimore MARC Abandoned I- 170 “Highway to Nowhere However. 40/Highway to Nowhere Description of Setting and Concerns Show in Figure 22 is the aptly named. the right of way is a full city block wide and roughly 18 city blocks long. Harlem Park. and the highway itself lies at a 84 . the “Highway to Nowhere” is a massive section of roadway that begins at the western edge of the Baltimore CBD (Lexington Market) and heads due west out of the city as part of US Route 40 through the neighborhoods of Poppleton. As illustrated in Figure 21.S.4 miles long and comes to an abrupt halt at the MARC station. the plan ran out of momentum and support before it could proceed beyond the railroad line and what is now the West Baltimore MARC station at Benatou and Franklin Streets.

both Black and White population declined. In the area-shaded yellow. crime. Whereas in 1950. Illustration 3 displays three of the areas primary impact zones where population declines and radical shifts were particularly noticeable.803. despite its proximity to growth and renewal in and around the University of Maryland medical complex at the eastern end.000 White. Revitalization that has helped reclaim other close-in neighborhoods in Baltimore City has largely bypassed this area. although White declined at a faster rate. separating west Baltimore into northern and southern halves. abandoned buildings.676 to 5.from 90.000 Black and 28. constituting what many regard as a “ditch”.000 White. Again. the picture was similar. population declined a staggering 80% . This decline was most rapid between 1950 and 1980. In the central portion (shaded yellow and encompassing the Orwasoo Community Association). In the area-shaded purple.225 to 29. these amounts had declined to 25.592. have struggled – without great success – to survive the physical and social trauma inflicted by the failed public works project. from 1950 (its highest point) to 2000. Home ownership and the pride that goes with it has given way to poor upkeep and marginal rentals. there had been about 62. while its Black population more than doubled (rising 253%).from 29.000 Black and 4. population declined 39% . In the eastern portion (shaded purple and encompassing the Harlem Park Community Association) from 1950 (its highest point) to 2000.10. In the western portion (shades green and encompassing the Midtown Edmonson Ave. The area has gained a reputation as a location for the drug trade. 85 . Association). by the year 2000. From 1940 to 2000. The neighborhoods. the decline was most rapid in the 30 years between 1950 and 1980. Illustration 3: West Baltimore and the Highway to Nowhere Census Tracts 1940-2000 The radical shifts that occurred in the neighborhoods adjacent to HTN are explained by the trends from 1940 to the present and are presented below in Table 7. largely low-income African-American.from 33. from 1960 (its highest point) to 2000. and unkempt.832. population declined 67% .depressed elevation.819 to 20. Baltimore's White population fell 70%.

601 14% 1990 72.281 15% 1980 81.411 +5.773 84.642 -20% 1980 81. there had been almost 24. Whereas in 1950.500 Whites.823 49. the deceased). of people leaving the area. However.465 24. and from 1990-2000.632 61. Table 9 below shows the out-migration from and immigration to the areas reveals the following: 86 .950 20% 1970 97.415 -22. the picture was quite different.773 -25.458 -18.819).952 -11% 2000 54. new in-migrants to area (and in smaller numbers.492 15. by the year 2000.779 42% 1960 125. the newborn).969 9% The most rapid decline in this area was over the 20 years from 1950 to 1970.857 11. and on the other hand. especially from 1940 to 1960.506 63.500 Whites.200 66. In 1950. the proportion of Whites in the area declined rapidly. with the Blacks increasing to 30.000 and the Whites declining to just over 3.000 Blacks and about 5.683 -24% It can be seen in Table 8 that both the largest numbers and percentages of net loss of persons occurred in two periods . there had been less than 600 Blacks living in this area.415 Number and Percent Census TOTAL # of Population Change (-/+) from % of Population Change (-/+) from Yr Each Previous Decade Each Previous Decade 1940 143. these proportions did a total flip.500. As seen from Table 10 above.513 8.506 -8.854 4. The term "net loss" is used.411 86.211 +4% 1960 125. to really get a handle on what happened to cause the population decline in these areas. Although the total population was highest in 1960 (33. because the numbers represent the sum.996 -15% 1970 97. By 1960. on the one hand. it is necessary also to look at the numbers and percents of people leaving from one Decennial Census to the next. the racial shift took place almost entirely within the ten-year period preceding 1960.823 -17. these amounts had declined to just over 4. Table 6: Population by Race US Census Year TOTAL Black White % White 1940 143. the out- migrants (and in smaller numbers. Table 7: Rates of Population Decline .458 69.315 -18% 1990 72. while there were about 28.200 1950 148. And in the area- shaded.469 53% 1950 148.500 Blacks and just under 900 Whites.Black and White both declined the latter at a faster rate. as in Table 8 below.732 76.from 1950-1980.993 12% 2000 54.

and then again from 1990 to 2000.829 -60% 1970 97.492 -15.696 -4. attempting to position the project for federal funding under the Federal Transit Administration’s highly competitive New Starts program.779 -14. 1940 143.occurring as it did most rapidly before 1960.680 -24% 1990 72. The 1960-1980 exoduses of Blacks can be laid at the doorstep of the interstate highway planners and the Baltimore City Council (which had enacted the property condemnation ordinances).344 -9% 8. It may also have been due to a gradual opening up to Blacks of housing in urban and suburban neighborhoods. Blacks joined the Whites in also leaving the areas in significant numbers. Hence.469 1950 148.506 63. It is clear from the census data that Whites were leaving in large numbers throughout the 60-year period.024 -45% By breaking down the migrations by race.200 66.900 +30% 61.732 76.857 -14.854 -13.281 -9.411 86. especially for the next 20 years until 1980. the state planners opted to focus their assessment on the least costly alternatives.465 +13.659 -22% 4. Recognition of Past Injustice New hopes emerged with the State and region’s study of an expanded regional rail transit network in the early 2000’s. state leaders made an early decision to favor bus rapid transit (BRT) or possible light rail transit (LRT) running at-surface through the corridor. Table 8: Migration out and Immigration by Race US Census Year Census TOTAL Black White Yr. Recognizing that the Red Line would undergo intense competition for scarce funding. Table 9 provides a refinement of Table 8. Beginning in 1960.823 49. the state aggressively pursued planning for what would be known as the “Red Line”.883 +16% 24. with their most rapid out-migration from 1950 to 1960.cumulating over the previous 30 years and by 1990 having reached a critical negative mass which made continued residence in the area no longer supportable to many. and that ridership levels – initially at least – in this corridor would be modest.415 100. with lines tunneled under existing neighborhoods.993 -2608 -22% 2000 54. which identified the US 40 corridor – through west Baltimore and on out to the Social Security Administration complex at the Beltway – as the top priority for the next strategic link in an integrated rail system. and also as a result of the 1968 civil disorders.458 69. It may have been due to decisions to move away from neighborhoods which had become too full of abandoned houses and increased drug use and crime . Between 2004 and 2006. 87 .689 -19% 1960 125. instead of looking at potential Metro- style subway service. Explaining the 1990-2000 Black exoduses is more difficult.632 +19.513 -6.601 -3.950 -36.773 84.635 -17% 11. The white exodus is probably mostly attributable to white flight to other Baltimore City neighborhoods and the Baltimore and Anne Arundel County suburbs .669 -39% 1980 81.973 -16% 15.

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

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

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

 To be materially involved and have a voice in the planning and decision-making process;
 To avoid being victim to another failed or poorly-planned major infrastructure project;
 To not be displaced from their existing neighborhoods when improvements are
 To not have to bear the burden of traffic, noise and pollution from intra-regional traffic
through their neighborhoods – either private vehicles or at-surface transit alternatives.
 To see a concerted effort to work with the west Baltimore communities to convert the
Highway to Nowhere section into a redevelopment project that benefits the surrounding



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

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

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

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

Analysis and Findings

Demographic Characteristics and Changes

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

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


Figure 23: US 40 Corridor Racial Composition

Figure 24: US 40 Corridor Median Household Income


continuing a trend begun back in the 1950’s. with a 69%/31% black/white balance. Signs of economic and social distress in the most hard-hit Eastern Section along the Highway to Nowhere include (from Table 11):  Persons over 25 with less than a high school education: 48% (vs.000 to less than 6. was only about 2% black. The HTN corridor (East Section) declined the most. from almost 30.888 to 18.970. population fell in the corridor between 1990 and 2000.819 to 20. 49% region)  Non-family households: 48%(vs.7% for the City.000.277. 28% City. The portion between MLK Boulevard and Lexington Market dropped the most – by 80%. 35% city and 26% region) . Meanwhile. which was the same year that the US 40 corridor (from Lexington Market to Hilton Parkway) peaked at 148. This was not always the composition in the corridor.1%.746. The mid-section of the corridor. lost 7.255 to 29. whites moved out at a faster rate. the black/white ratio in the HTN East Section went from 69/31 to 96/4 and in the Mid-Section from 2/98 to 94/6. the racial mix was quite balanced in the HTN Eastern Section. from 33. while the Mid Section dropped 39%. According to the US Census. While both blacks and whites moved out of the corridor for a variety of reasons. and found much less resistance when they chose to do so. from 90. 5% for the region)  Married couple households: 13% (vs. the City of Baltimore’s population overall peaked at 948. or 35. the Mid Section between West Baltimore MARC and Hilton Parkway. predominately so in the East Section (96%). Meanwhile. to 56.592. further contributing to its subsequent economic and social ill fortunes. Table 11 also confirms that African Americans make up the substantial majority of the racial mix in the corridor.As shown in Table 11. while its black population more than doubled.708 in 1950. between 1940 and 2000.154 and the corridor by 62%.1%. The biggest decline was in the Eastern Section that surrounds the Highway to Nowhere segment. where population declined from 28. the exodus also took out many of the businesses and services that supported this area.803. 43% city and 33% region)  Householders living alone: 41% (vs. In the 1950’s. from West Baltimore MARC to Hilton Parkway. However. And in the corridor. 10. 32% for the City as a whole and 18% for the region)  Unemployment rate: 21% (vs. the City of Baltimore’s white population overall fell by 70%. During the next 50 years. both populations declined – the City by 31% to 651.8% of its population. while the Western Section dropped by 12. and only slightly less so in the Mid Section (94%) and West Section (88%).

70% 8.30% 7.30% 53.095 5% 1.425 44% Female 15.736 Population/square mile 26.532 22% 5.985 21.872 55% 7.80% 56.891 55% 10.20% 14.432 45% 5.826 44% 12.542 45% 7.326 9% 906 8% 831 8% 1.50% 48.810 30% 2.252 63% 11.745 55% 10.553 53% Unemployed 1.769 38% 4.792 20.334 40% 6.532 Less than complete high school 9.025 20% 5.301 55% 7.405 24% In college (undergraduate.482 29% Some college or college degree 2.40% 16.672 8% 1.672 28% 3.6 White 670 2% 462 2% 323 2% 713 5% 3.954 34% 6.006 4% 1.00% 11.216 71% Public school 7.485 9.253 17.906 In preprimary.447 21% 2.80% 17.814 71% 10.914 70% 19.458 15.931 15% 2.482 99% 14.189 4% 659 4% 571 4% 486 4% 1. Table 9.974 98% 12.702 22.669 19% 3.285 6% school) Not enrolled in school 19.356 41% Population 16 yrs and over By Employment Status 20.60% 15.954 18.00% 66.244 63% 6.037 13.241 37% 3.30% 60.684 9. and Western section from Hilton Parkway to Edmondson Village 92 .747 25.939 100% 23.329 36% 4.267 12.80% 60.176 18.746 14.80% 14.175 30% 4.304 13.775 11.513 6% 1.8 36.185 26.20% 62.2 38 37.646 48% 4.00% 63. graduate or professional 1.397 48% 4.854 96% 17.629 28% 5.095 25% 5.525 57% 5.578 15% 2.117 99% 13.910 88% Asian 304 1% 162 1% 0 0% 75 1% 203 1% 121 1% Other 401 1% 232 1% 210 2% 76 1% 159 1% 315 1% Persons living in households 28.70% 21.926 35% 5.40% 18.360 23% Private school 464 2% 356 2% 329 2% 204 2% 1.909 96% 13.00% Note: Eastern section extends from MLK Boulevard to Pulaski Street.867 27% 2.540 13.260 9.00% 52.694 26% 4.487 41% Persons 3 years or older by school attendance 27.355 8.542 45% 3.241 71% 12.60% Unemployment rate 17.311 56% Average Age 32.262 44% 12.827 61% 9.347 26% 5.997 45% 8.471 27% 4.287 18.00% 57.640 74% 7.20% 10.591 31% 2.834 85% 20.330 6% Persons 25 years and over by educational attainment 16.10% 52.013 9.740 12. Demographic Characteristics of US 40 Corridor (1990 and 2000) East Section Mid Section West Section Person Characteristics 1990 2000 1990 2000 1990 2000 Total Population 28.712 9.3 37.721 17.459 Marital Status Not presently married 11.676 54% 13.20% Male participation rate 54.911 21% 3.564 25% 2.330 94% 22.745 55% 10.50% 7.391 10% Black or African American 27.994 23.318 46% 10.90% 12.00% 42.10% 44.746 25% 4.60% Female participation rate 40.315 46% 3.704 Male 12.733 37% 9.10% 23.334 11.230 24% 2.617 10.500 76% 8.9 35.984 11.641 99% 18. Middle section from Pulaski to Hilton Parkway. elementary or high school 6.359 56% 14.972 59% Now married 9.50% Male unemployment rate 19.10% 73.287 14.058 99% 26.445 45% 6.694 30% High school graduate (includes equivalency) 4.888 18.50% Female unemployment rate 16.30% 19.620 100% Persons in group quarters 247 1% 264 1% 187 1% 127 1% 55 0% 116 0% Persons 15 years or older by 21.363 8% Civilian participation rate 46.164 75% 16.80% 51.824 34% 5.169 In Armed Forces 72 0% 17 0% 7 0% 0 0% 112 1% 32 0% Employed 7.

048 $33.405 30% 2.80% 37.70% 39.292 2.746 48% 1.237 13% Multiple unit 12.712 54% 2.843 72% 5.074 $42.80% 92.677 $67.318 $34.7 2.50% 60.90% 24.80% 98.717 $50.906 $29.00% 2.403 42% 3.885 Vacant 2.691 28% 3.227 60% 3.784 $28.211 Non-family $14.216 $26.8 2.40% Total Housing Units 12.599 2. Demographic Characteristics of US 40 Corridor (1990 and 2000) Household East Section Mid Section West Section Characteristics 1990 2000 1990 2000 1990 2000 Total Households 10.712 2.252 27% 3.290 $45.076 $79.482 Median value of owned homes $40.082 28% 242 5% 729 13% 312 3% 688 7% Occupied 10.774 Family $27.10% 45.6 Average Income $15.287 27% 2.326 $24.813 $47.846 5.121 12% Other households 4.90% With plumbing facilities 96.90% 98.838 69% 6.270 $17.220 41% 1.258 $14.017 52% 3.368 14% 1.395 54% 5.80% 61.395 5.30% income on rent Note: Eastern section extends from MLK Boulevard to Pulaski Street.131 33% 2.581 34% 1.279 27% 1.891 72% 4.162 $32.30% 20.80% 99.046 39% 1.807 10.258 35% Householder living alone 3.869 Percent of persons below the poverty level 51.198 17% 3. Middle section from Pulaski to Hilton Parkway.904 Percentage of owners paying more than 30% of 19.688 9.728 $36.00% 0.292 57% 2.678 4.861 4.595 $46.861 34% 4.399 73% 3.081 41% 1.923 65% Married-couple households 1.70% income on home costs Renter occupied units 838 6.20% 4.70% With 3 or more bedrooms 43.70% 43.00% 1.771 1.107 $38.846 52% 5.609 83% 7.60% 75.621 67% Average owned home value $31.218 $47.50% 99.90% 29.707 87% 9.70% 23.973 5.181 Family households 6.534 9.941 Household $17.30% 25.495 7.851 Median Household Income $10.794 Average monthly gross rent $274 $336 $395 $480 $417 $475 Median monthly gross rent $325 $508 $494 Percentage of renters paying more than 30% of 48.1 5.345 $57.4 3 2.599 15% 2.283 70% 6.857 96% 5.121 $36.794 38% Single detached unit 256 2% 317 3% 162 3% 213 4% 811 8% 1.50% 44.793 95% 4.7 Percent of Housing Units: With no bedroom 4.70% 98.092 58% 4.271 $25.818 39% 2.139 24% 1.035 5.00% 98. and Western section from Hilton Parkway to Edmondson Village 93 .403 With a mortgage 726 41% 841 53% 1.00% 1.712 39% 2.197 93% Owner occupied 1.515 $13.9 5.903 9.403 55% Renter occupied 8.358 $34.031 43% 3.591 97% 9.60% 75.436 9. trailer or other 230 2% 9 0% 16 0% 13 0% 17 0% 0 0% Average rooms per unit 4.20% 93.8 5.365 13% 971 13% 1.690 59% 3.787 30% Persons per household 2.321 96% 10.267 $27.50% 13.60% Owner occupied units 1.042 $19.8 5.990 33% With own children < 18 yrs 549 5% 373 5% 478 10% 424 9% 1.40% 98. Continued…Table 8.857 37% 3.196 42% 3.771 14% 1.648 87% Mobile home.075 92% 8.70% 98.647 97% 4.210 96% 9.10% 17.511 $25.727 45% 3.20% 15.525 $23.830 $26.196 3.763 4.933 32% Nonfamily households 4.90% 26.90% 33.167 43% 1.8 2.303 24% 2.70% 39.081 1.90% With kitchen facilities 99.7 5.

$83.227. However. householders living alone. have all worsened in the HTN portion of the corridor since 1990 where according to the US Census. $ the Delaware state line. Median household income: $14. 43% city and 62% region)  Percent of total housing units that are renter occupied: 57% (vs. From this point.7% (vs. 1950 was the year that Baltimore City's population peaked at 949.090 city and $49. just before the Baltimore City/County line.247 city and $162. This was also the census year in which the Franklin. Thus. we see that in the vicinity of Edmondson Village (Old Frederick Rd. The City declined 31% to 651. US 40 becomes the Baltimore National Pike and continues west to the Beltway and to Catonsville. in the direction of peak commuter traffic flow. As will be later shown. until the 2000 census. it passes near Lexington Market.). showing similar rates of annual increase as along the HTN section.480 in 2006. 22.892 region) The above statistics for unemployment rate. up 24% since just 2000. since substantial traffic is moving both into and out of the city at any given time. while the split northwest at Cooks Lane provides the connection to I-70 west to Howard and Frederick Counties.708. US 40 also passes through the City through East Baltimore as it becomes Pulaski Highway and continues on up through the northeast corridor – parallel to Interstate 95 -. the volumes become more balanced. and then becomes a 1.225 were recorded in 2002. During the next 50 years. non-family households. west. and percent of housing units. further west in the corridor. which are vacant.802 region)  Percent of persons below the poverty level: 43. crosses over Martin Luther King Boulevard. Transportation Facilities and Travel in the Corridor US Route 40 is a major artery that connects downtown Baltimore with the western part of the city and on into Baltimore and Howard Counties to the west.9% region)  Percent of total housing units that are owner occupied: 15% (vs.3% (vs. As it reaches the West Baltimore MARC station near Pulaski Street. As it passes from the downtown into west Baltimore as Franklin and Mulberry Streets. both populations declined.218 (vs.515 per year (vs. Readings at Arlington Street along the Highway to Nowhere segment indicate Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) volumes of 36. 94 . 43% city and 31% region)  Percent of total housing units that are vacant: 28% (vs. running on its own right of way which is depressed from the surrounding street elevations.970. taken together. Thus.4 mile separate expressway section between Franklin and Mulberry.9% city and 9. it rejoins the regular street grid.Mulberry Gash areas (central.7% region)  Average value of owned home: $40. and east) peaked at 148. AADTs of 59. while also servicing the substantial development at Social Security and Woodlawn. becoming Franklin Street and then Edmondson Avenue until it reaches a junction with Cooks Lane. 14% city and 7% region)  Percent of renters paying more than 30% of their income on rent: 39. these volumes are primarily one directional. 40% city and 35. The FM Gash areas declined 62% to 56. Figure 25 illustrates the fairly substantial daily traffic volumes carried on this portion of US 40. the three FM Gash Areas lost their population at a rate double that of the City as a whole.

transit service is good in the corridor. Figure 25. however. There is currently no rail transit service in the corridor. with MTA bus routes No. what changes may have occurred in service in recent years. and what impacts those changes have had on ridership. It is not clear from the information at hand. how well the HTN segment in West Baltimore is served. and various cross-routes providing north-south connection. Several express commuter routes from Howard County enter the city along US 40. 95 . Traffic Volumes in the US 40 Corridor As shown in Figure 25. and the proposed Red Line would occupy or parallel the US 40 right of way along much of its length. 10 and 40 providing frequent east-west from downtown to Social Security. although MARC has a stop at West Baltimore (largely to serve commuters heading west).

which increase in magnitude as traffic volumes and congestion levels increase. Benefits and Burdens Travel in the US 40 corridor provokes several questions with regard to environmental justice:  The first is the issue of heavy traffic volumes and associated noise impacts and safety concerns for residents in the corridor and adjacent neighborhoods. Figure 26. travel.  The second issue has to do with the health impacts of this traffic on corridor residents from vehicle emissions and air pollution. 96 . or safety in the corridor. Bus Services in the US 40 Corridor It is also not possible with the information at hand to say anything about pedestrian conditions.

Given their importance to serving the HTN corridor area. given the 24% increase observed along the Highway to Nowhere segment between 2000 and 2006 and similar trends at US 40 and Old Fredrick Road as shown in Figure 24. It should be noted that the volumes used in this analysis are for year 2000 and would figure to be substantially greater today. The portion that does show congestion is the section from Hilton Parkway west to Cooks Lane past Edmondson Village. 97 . A third issue has to do with who is generating this traffic.75. the analysis also examined volume and congestion conditions on Fulton and Monroe Streets. Monroe Street is moderately congested in the AM peak and Fulton slightly more congested in the PM peak. which intersect with the US 40 corridor at the western end of the HTN segment. and hence benefiting from the access provided by the US 40 and Fulton/Monroe highway network. Earlier-favored alternatives involving bus rapid transit or at-grade light rail service would both compete for scarce highway capacity in the corridor and potentially exacerbate congestion. and health impacts without proportionate benefit to corridor residents. A 24% increase in volume would most likely put most of these segments currently at V/C levels above 0. and Park Heights Avenue to the northwest.75. and hence. reflecting relatively congested traffic conditions. mobility. Figures 26 and 27 illustrate the congestion levels along key segment of the corridor during the AM and PM peak hours.  A fourth issue has to do with the potential additional impact on congestion associated with one or more of the proposed Red Line alternatives. This was done using BMC’s regional model to depict AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes in the year 2000 and compare them with associated carrying capacities. the current V/C ratios on these facilities are likely to exceed 0. save for the connection between the HTN and Franklin Street when the “expressway” ends. Again. This analysis shows relatively little congestion in the Highway to Nowhere segment in either the AM or PM peak. the analysis of critical impacts was focused on the weekday peak travel periods. allowing for traffic increases since 2000. and also connect up with Mulberry and Franklin Streets. Congestion The first issue was investigated through mapping of congestion levels on key routes in the corridor. and serve to connect with Liberty Heights Avenue. As seen in Figures 25 and 26.75. I-95 and MD 295 in the south. Reisterstown Road. respectively. Fulton is one-way northbound and Monroe is one-way southbound through this area. and with US 1. in terms of volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios. Because the greatest demand for travel in the corridor is commuter based. and the Highway to Nowhere. these major arteries bring substantial traffic through the west Baltimore neighborhoods. Hence. where in the evening peak period the V/C ratios exceed 0.

Figure 27: 2000 AM Peak Hour Traffic Congestion in the US 40 Corridor 98 .

Figure 28:2000 PM Peak Hour Traffic Congestion in the US 40 Corridor 99 .

Given that the length of the HTN segment is 1. One way is through a line-density map. By looking at the thickness of the 100 .072) = 93. but would expect them to have similar intensities and also have a much more localized concentration and health impact.26)(36. Contribution to Traffic Stream In terms of the third issue – who is contributing to these traffic volumes and their various impacts – a “select link” analysis was conducted to ascertain the origin and the destination of trips in the corridor. that reflects through “bandwidth” plots the total volume of traffic in each direction along each highway link segment.71)(51. and that pollution control measures that reduce a ton of ozone-forming emissions are considered to be highly effective. Since the regional travel model “assigns” vehicle trips from origin-destination trip tables to links in the transportation network. daily VMT plying this section of highway would average 36.4-mile segment of the US 40 corridor.480) + (0. Consider also that this daily production of emissions works out to 39.15 tons/day NOx = 1. the following daily emissions are estimated: Exhibit 5: : Emission Calculations HC = 3.103 tons/day This may not seem like a particularly large amount of pollution until one considers that it is just that pollution produced along just this 1.71 grams x Vehicle Miles Traveled = (1.480 vehicles per day.170 grams/day = 0.4 miles = 51.2 tons per year of Hydrocarbons (HC) and 26. Once again.36 grams x Vehicle Miles Traveled = (3.56)(36. such as is pictured in Figures 28 through 31. For this analysis. a link segment in the highway network is chosen as a representative slice of the corridor. and AADT volumes measured in 2007 reflect 36.36)(51. BMC’s regional travel forecasting model was used to generate the information for this analysis. Using the emissions factors from TRB Report 264.4 miles.311 grams/day = 0.9 tons per year of NOx. using the table on page 293.56 grams x Vehicle Trips + 0.480 x 1. the following locations were selected for examination of traffic flow composition:  US 40 at Edmondson Village  US 40 at West Baltimore MARC  US 40 at MLK Boulevard  Fulton and Monroe Streets south of Franklin and Mulberry The information from this analysis can be viewed in several ways.Air Quality Emissions impacts from this traffic stream through the HTN have been approximated using information on the daily traffic volumes (Figure 24) and emissions factors borrowed from TRB Special Report 264: The Congestion Management and Air Quality (CMAQ) Program: Assessing 10 years of Experience. We were not able to calculate Carbon Monoxide emissions or fine particulates (PM 2.480) + (0.5). it is possible to work backwards in the process to determine where the trips originated and to where they are destined. In such an analysis.072. These would seem to be substantial exposure rates for residents in the HTN corridor area.072) = 137.26 grams x Vehicle Trips + 0.

which shows in terms of color shading the areas that are contributing the greatest number of trips to the given analysis point.4% Montgomery County 3.3% 323 Security (Baltimore Co.3% Baltimore City 38.6% Subtotal 78.line density at any point it is possible to gauge not only the locations of the greatest flow.5% Subtotal 100. Montgomery County.) 5.9% 324 Catonsville (Baltimore Co.0% 800 Montgomery County 4. In these diagrams. plus Externals. Another way to view this information is depicted in Figures 32 and 33. the "areas” are Regional Planning Districts.1% 1000 Frederick County 9.5% Baltimore County 28.1% 324 Catonsville (Baltimore Co.6% Baltimore County 50. 2000 By RPD By County 116 Rosemont (Baltimore City) 19.7% Subtotal 74.3% Carroll County 5. with AM and PM conditions depicted for each analysis location. District of Columbia and Prince George’s County.4% Subtotal 99. Figure 34 provides a map identifying the respective RPDs. Using these RPD relationships – in tabular format to get actual numbers – the following activity patterns were determined for the various monitoring points: Exhibit 6: Source of Trip Origins: US 40 @ Edmondson Village – AM Peak. which are compilations of a number of smaller Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs).) 18. but “Community Profile” information has been prepared by BMC’s Transportation Information Center that relates the social and economic makeup of each RPD using data from the 1990 and 2000 Census.) 15.8% Carroll County 9. Not only does this approach give a better visual feel for where the trips on US 40 are coming from or going to.4% Howard County 23.7% Montgomery County 4.2% 114 Ten Hills (Baltimore City) 8. or RPDs. The Baltimore region contains 93 RPDs.8% 603 Ellicott City (Howard Co.) 11. This makes it possible to visually trace where the predominant flows are coming from and going to. Figures 28 through 31 portray flow conditions for each of the four analysis locations outlined above.) 30.2% Howard County 15.5% 115 Irvington (Baltimore City) 7. including Frederick County.0% Exhibit 7: Source of Trip Origins: US 40 @ West Baltimore MARC – AM Peak.4% 603 Ellicott City (Howard Co. 2000 By RPD By County 323 Security (Baltimore Co.9% Frederick County 11.0% 101 . This makes it possible to identify the characteristics of the travelers who are making the trips.2% Frederick County 9.) 10. but those segments that are contributing most to flow at the given reference point.0% 1000 Frederick County 11.

5% $35. This assessment reveals the following: Exhibit 9: Percentage African American Population and Median Family Income RPD Location Pct.9% Carroll County 5.790 115 Irvington (Baltimore City) 89. the principal populations that are using the US 40 corridor are of a very different socioeconomic mix than those living in the corridor. the majority is still generated outside the City. Howard County (primarily Ellicott City. Statistics are not available for Frederick County since it is not monitored by BMC as an RPD. comes all the way from Frederick County via I-70.090 114 Ten Hills (Baltimore City) 81. Obviously. but the majority is still from outside the City.4% $44. 2000 By RPD By County 323 Security (Howard Co. On the westernmost portion. 102 . City) 11. 11. near Edmondson Village. and primarily from the Security and Catonsville RPDs.) 10.7% Baltimore City 42. However.8% $25. the balance begins to shift.3%. 15. but 28.9% 1000 Frederick County 8. Knowing the principal RPDs from which these trips are being generated. the portion of West Baltimore most associated with the US 40/HTN corridor measures 96% So in other words.3% Subtotal 78.1% $90.4% 117 West Baltimore (Balt.2% from Frederick County.944 323 Security (Baltimore County) 42.2% Howard County 15.0% What these data illustrate is that a substantial amount of the traffic on US 40 – in fact the clear majority – comes from outside Baltimore City.3% Frederick County 8.3% 603 Ellicott City (Howard Co. but it would be expected to be similar to Ellicott City in composition. In the center section. the greater the mix of traffic that originates in the City.1% 115 Irvington (Baltimore City) 7. it is possible to examine the socioeconomic makeup of the travelers. near West Baltimore MARC.0% 114 Ten Hills (Baltimore City) 7.0%* $22.) 17. and a surprisingly large share. Laurel and Columbia) contributes 23%.3% 116 Rosemont (Baltimore City) 15.477 324 Catonsville (Baltimore County) 13. at MLK Boulevard.2% Subtotal 100. the share of trips beginning in the City increases to 42.3% Baltimore County 25.9% $59.984 * African American share for entire West Baltimore RPD is 84%.507 117 West Baltimore (Baltimore City) 96. and 9. African American Median Family Income 603 Ellicott City (Howard County) 7. to where the largest share originates in Baltimore City (38.Exhibit 8: Source of Trip Origins: US 40 @ MLK Boulevard – AM Peak. and even from outside the region. opportunities. over half of the traffic during AM peak hour is coming from Baltimore County.1% from Howard County.9%.4% $63. And on the final eastern segment.5% Montgomery County 3.3%). the closer into downtown Baltimore the measuring point on US 40. however.8% still comes from Baltimore County.162 116 Rosemont (Baltimore City) 90.

AM Peak and PM Peak – 2000 103 .Figure 29. Select Link Traffic FlowMap – US 40 @ Edmondson Village.

Figure 30: Select Link Traffic Flow Map – US 40 @ W. AM Peak and PM Peak – 2000 104 . Baltimore MARC.

AM and PM Peak .2000 105 .Figure 31: Select Link Traffic Flow Map – US 40 @ MLK Boulevard.

AM and PM Peak – 2000 106 .Figure 32. Select Link Traffic Flow Map – Fulton & Monroe Streets @ US 40.

AM Peak . AM Peak .2000 Draft Task 4 Memorandum: Analysis Approach 107 .2000 Figure 34: Productions and Attractions by RPD US 40 @ Edmondson Affecting Volumes on Fulton and Monroe Streets @ US 40.Figure 33: Productions and Attractions by RPD Affecting Volumes on Village.

Baltimore Regional Planning Districts (RPDs) 108 .Figure 35.

3% Howard County 4.2% of all trips in the AM Peak Hour.0% 108 Lower Park Hts. However.5% of all trips. 2000 Origins Destinations Baltimore City 81.) 9.0% Subtotal 100.5% Anne Arundel County 0% Anne Arundel County 20. principally to places like Glenn Burnie.2% This relationship is further borne out in the table below.1% Carroll County 0% Harford 0. and Friendship.2% from everywhere else. Brooklyn Heights. Even before this spark.3% Baltimore City 57. accounting for 57.9% 107 Forest Park (Baltimore City) 5. and only 2.1% 125 Cherry Hill (Baltimore City) 7.3% of all trips originating in the AM peak hour in the Fulton/Monroe corridor are by Baltimore City residents. As the table below illustrates. (Baltimore City) 11.8% Outside Region 0. 2000 Origins Destinations 117 West Baltimore (Balt.0% 101 Upper Park Hts. for the most part. beginning in the 1950’s.4% Subtotal 60. Baltimore City is also the primary destination.3% 116 Rosemont (Baltimore City) 13. what this indicates is that the Fulton-Monroe corridor primarily serves the travel needs of City residents. whereas the same analysis in the US 40 corridor yielded 75% to 80%.5% 117 West Baltimore (Balt.0% 116 Rosemont (Baltimore City) 6. and this dissatisfaction was easily kindled to outcry by the traumatic spark of the Martin Luther King assassination in 1968. City) 21. Exhibit 10: Major Trip Origins & Destinations by RPD: Fulton and Monroe Streets @ US 40 – AM Peak.0% 109 Druid Hill (Baltimore City) 10.5% from Baltimore County. identifying the top 6 RPDs either producing trips in the Fulton-Monroe corridor or serving as destinations accounts for only 66.3% 123 Carroll Park (Baltimore City) 9. City) 17.5% Outside Region 6.6% Carroll County 1. not commuters from outside the city. although a substantial amount is directed to Anne Arundel County.5% Baltimore County 11. working class community without substantial political voice. only 16.0% Subtotal 100. its users are a much more diffuse group. The other difference is that the major origins of trips in the Fulton-Monroe corridor are Baltimore City residents.9% Subtotal 66.4% and 60. vs. The traffic character of the principal north-south arteries through the Highway to Nowhere corridor is quite different from that of US 40. The area was ripe for dissatisfaction and unrest in the 1960’s. Exhibit 11: Major Trip Origins & Destinations by County: Fulton and Monroe Streets @ US 40 – AM Peak.0% 325 Arbutus/Lansdowne (Baltimore Co. however.5% 122 Morrell Park (Baltimore City) 10.3% Harford 0% Howard County 0. The area has always been a moderate income. which shows that 81.1% Baltimore County 16. and has always been racially mixed. and not outside commuters. with substantial minority populations. 109 . First. (Baltimore City) 5.0% ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS History leaves little doubt that the communities in the West Baltimore neighborhood adjacent to US 40 and the Highway to Nowhere have had a tough time of it.

extinguishing their 30+ year vigilance in trying to rescue their community. and the razed blocks remained as empty debris fields. Frederick County and even Montgomery County. Moreover. the portion along Franklin-Mulberry remained on the plans. with no real effort in those 30 years to try to compensate for that ill-conceived notion. and many of these households ended up in public housing complexes with their attendant social ills. despite the fact that many long-time residents remain committed to living there and making the community work. like many others around the country before our eventual awareness. and renewal will at last come to the neighborhoods around the “ditch”. It was convenient – and much money and legal authority was provided – to plow over older communities.000 vehicles per day passing through their community. So it is that today. driven by national trends in suburban migration and massive federal investment in the interstate highway system. What is clearly needed here is a bona-fide community planning effort. The area continues to be a hot spot for drugs and crime. Of course. Of course. And the justification is well based in the principles of environmental justice. And. was simply cast aside in the name of “urban renewal”. the “ditch” still stands as a monument to how a community could be destroyed in the name of progress. between 1975 and 1979. While protest from more affluent. the community’s major concern will be that “progress” will finally push them out. This community. supported by a possible new Red Line transit service. Howard County. These travelers have the benefit of access.5% since only the year 2000. Then. The hope was that if you knocked it down. new growth would take its place. such as being attempted now in connection with the West Baltimore MARC TOD study at the western edge of the ditch. state and federal government be made to comprehensively address this imbalance. most populated by lower-income and minority households. In its wake lay African American homeowners and communities struggling to sustain perhaps a proud past.powerful forces were already planning a “modern” highway corridor into the city from the west. however.4 mile segment through west Baltimore a true “highway to nowhere”. The blight stands in marked contrast to the economic renewal occurring just to the east at the University of Maryland Baltimore Campus medical complex. and sent somewhere else to be someone else’s problem.4 mile trench was excavated and the visionary expressway was built and opened to traffic. at a minimum. making the 1. 110 . except in the most economically progressive cities. while the surrounding residents bear the burden of more than 36. generating an estimated ¼ ton of ozone- producing pollutants each day. and it has been borne for almost 30 years. almost 30 years after the fact. The traffic that traverses the US 40 corridor and passes through the 1. that did not happen. the massive 1. This is a disproportionate burden that is borne by this predominately low-income. this traffic stream is growing each year – daily volumes have increased by 24. Perhaps eventually the economic growth forces will reach west across MLK Boulevard. and well-organized communities caused the original expressway route to be changed.4-mile HTN segment is substantially commuters accessing jobs in the City of Baltimore from locations outside the city – Baltimore County. politically connected. Baltimore’s own City Council enacted property condemnation ordinances in the mid-1960’s to authorize the taking of houses and property along the 15-mile proposed route. minority community. that stands as a bold testimony to “planning gone wrong” and public tax dollars wasted on a facility that destroyed African American neighborhoods and dislocated several its thousand residents. the old and blighted and undesirable was removed from sight. The principles of environmental justice demand that a significant effort on the part of the City. the rest of the highway was never built.

The primary purpose of this report has not been to dwell on the process of issues selection but rather the process issues verification.Section 5: Summary In summary the case studies findings confirm but not necessarily prove the community perception that that there has been an environmental injustice. 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. confirmed at the Phase I Community Dialogue and reconfirmed at the and reconfirmed during the Phase II workshops. the desire to provide a systematic process for identifying the feasibility of EJ issues and then the evaluation of those issues. 111 . To address these issues a mix of procedures were chosen from a store of traditional issues found NCHRP Report 523 and reported in measures of impact and analytical sections of this report. As such. We accomplish this endeavor by providing a quantitative analysis for the issues raised during the Phase I listening sessions.