Transit "wokeness" in DC and Baltimore

Minnesota Avenue NE, Washington Post photo.

DC.  I came across a local op-ed in the Washington Post ("Transit equity should be a priority in D.C.'s budget") about how transit equity means that DC should extend the streetcar east to Benning Road station.  

I find this pretty ironic.  

Not because they are wrong but because it was the "white" transit and economic development advocates like myself who made this point at the outset of streetcar planning c. 2003, and it was the neighborhoods East of the River that were oppositional.

-- "Transportation and economic development: H Street edition," 2011
-- "Sustainable transportation as social justice," 2010
-- "If you build it (streetcars) does economic development magically happen?, 2008

It shouldn't take 17 years to recognize the mistake.

Early on, elected officials then, especially then Councilmember David Catania, argued the streetcar should be implemented in poorer neighborhoods first, because they benefited from better access to employment, schools, and amenities brought on by better transit, because typically they lived in areas that are underserved by transit.

But for the most part, people in those communities were opposed, even if their elected officials were not.  (It's an illustration of my point, based on innovation diffusion theory, that economic laggards shouldn't be expected to be at the front of the adoption of new technologies or ways of doing things. A perfect example of this today is vaccination hesitancy--"Education is a bigger factor than race in desire for COVID-19 vaccine," USC.)

It's one of the examples of why, even with the best of intentions, I argue that rather than implement something in a place where people are opposed, it's often best to do it where it can be wildly successful and is supported, and it can grow from there.  (Although you can't do that with vaccines, and it means that you have to take extra-normal and nuanced steps to improve take up. See "Heidi Larson, Vaccine Anthropologist" New Yorker.)

Streetcar on the 300 block of H Street NE, Washington, DC.

And in fact, that's what happened with the streetcar in DC.  The chair of ANC6A realized that if tracks were installed in H Street NE, which was going to be dug up anyway for streetscape reconstruction, it would increase the likelihood of the streetcar being implemented.  In this case, his "build it and they will come" approach was right.

-- "DC streetcar is opening on Saturday and the opportunity to reflect on the 14 year long process to get there," 2016

This gets back to something else I say about DC, that part of the reason neighborhoods lag is because of legacy leadership that looks backwards, not forward. It's not just disinvestment.  But it's not just the leadership of stakeholders within neighborhoods, it's elected officials more generally.

More recently, DC elected officials haven't been particularly committed to the streetcar ("Bowser Administration Considering Killing D.C. Streetcar Expansion Plans," WAMU/NPR, "DC streetcar to Georgetown is dead," WTOP-radio), despite the fact that it has helped to stoke close to $1 billion in new construction ("DC and streetcars #4: from the standpoint of stoking real estate development, the line is incredibly successful and it isn't even in service yet, and now that development is extending eastward past 15th Street").  

And they have failed to recognize streetcar service can be used to stoke improvements elsewhere in the city (e.g., Riggs Road/Kennedy Street; Minnesota Avenue-Benning Road, Georgia Avenue, etc.).

2.  Baltimore.  Like DC ("DC, Transformational Projects Action Planning, and the Baltimore-Washington Maglev project"), Baltimore has told the Federal Railroad Administration that they aren't into Maglev being constructed between DC and Baltimore ("Baltimore City recommends against building proposed $10 billion high-speed Maglev train to Washington," Baltimore Sun).  From the article:

“The City of Baltimore has several concerns … related to equity, environmental justice, and community impacts,” they wrote. “Additionally, the draft lacks a sufficient level of detail regarding current and future plans for the project which make a comprehensive analysis difficult. The proposed project is also not aligned with significant efforts underway to upgrade existing rail infrastructure in the corridor.” ...

But Baltimore’s four-page response detailed officials’ concerns about the effects of the train and the proposed Camden Yards or Cherry Hill stations on local communities and the environment. 

Tickets projected to cost $60 each way, they wrote, “would negate an affordable and alternate form of transportation to the average citizen, and/or rider(s).” 

“While numerous local jurisdictions and riders along the corridor would not be served by the SCMAGLEV, they would be subjected to the construction impacts,” the city officials said. 

Also see "Baltimore cites ‘equity, environmental justice’ in saying no to high-speed maglev train project," Washington Post.

My comments about DC's position were focused on how DC ought to realize that they need to stoke the value of the central business district as a place to operate.  DC has lagged compared to other major cities in terms of inward migration of corporate headquarters.  But that Maglev is also a way to re-articulate and improve the local transit network and in DC's case, also a way to push forward tunnelizing the connection of I-95 via New York Avenue to I-695 ("Maglev as an opportunity for DC to underground through traffic on New York Avenue").

Recognizing of course that for Maglev to truly be useful, it needs to extend southward to Richmond and northward to Philadelphia, New York City and Boston.

Amtrak also opposed to Maglev.  The problem is that Amtrak's expansion plans, which are visionary ("AMTRAK’S ‘CONNECT US’ EXPANSION PLANS: THINGS TO KNOW," Amtrak Guide) considering how much the US is a laggard when it comes to railroad passenger service, have no place for Maglev in the Northeast Corridor, especially as a competitive service run by the private sector ("D.C.-to-Baltimore maglev would only benefit rich, Amtrak chief says," Baltimore Sun).

But why miss the opportunity to improve Baltimore City's transit system at the same time?  But Baltimore is exactly like DC in having an incredibly circumscribed view of what Maglev's purpose is.  It's not to provide intra-city transit, it's to provide long distance travel that makes the city more attractive economically, as well as to provide the goad to re-articulate and improve the local transit system.  

A complementary transit network improvement program for Baltimore.  WRT improving Greater Baltimore's transit system, I've laid out such an agenda:

1.  Extend the transit lines within the city and county and connect them better.  Plus extend light rail to Columbia in Howard County.  ("From the files: transit planning in Baltimore County," 2012) And extend the line northward to the major office district in Cockeysville.

2.  Integrate MARC into the transit systems in Baltimore City and Greater DC.  Expand the number of intra-city stations in Baltimore especially ("Baltimore City Mayoral candidates views on transportation (and other matters)") but also DC.  ("One big idea: Getting MARC and Metrorail to integrate fares, stations, and marketing systems, using London Overground as an example," 2015 and others). 

3.  Merge the Maryland and Virginia Passenger Rail services, starting with the MARC Penn Line and the VRE Fredericksburg Line. ("A new backbone for the regional transit system: merging the MARC Penn and VRE Fredericksburg Lines")

4.  Create a true statewide passenger rail program, connecting western, eastern, and southern Maryland to DC and Baltimore.  ("A "Transformational Projects Action Plan" for a statewide passenger railroad program in Maryland."," 2019)

5.  Upgrade the light rail vehicles in Baltimore, rebrand them, and make other surface transit improvements as necessary. ("Baltimore City Mayoral candidates views on transportation (and other matters" and "Part 7 | Using the Purple Line to rebrand Montgomery and Prince George's Counties as Design Forward")

WRT this kind of agenda, it is of no interest to Governor Hogan, who is fully committed to motor vehicle throughput and cares very little about either transit or Baltimore ("Maryland says it needs to cut transit, highway projects to offset lost private investment in toll lanes plan," Washington Post).

Using Maglev as a way to force improvements across the Greater Baltimore transit system may be the only way to bring about change.  And that would go a long way towards providing transit equity to Baltimore's citizens.

========

Also see my writings on 

1.  Transformational Projects Action Planning ("Why can't the "Bilbao Effect" be reproduced? | Bilbao as an example of Transformational Projects Action Planning" and "Downtown Edmonton cultural facilities development as an example of "Transformational Projects Action Planning"") and 

2. Using new transit infrastructure as a way to drive complementary improvements across a transit network ("Revisiting the Purple Line (series) and a more complete program of complementary improvements to the transit network" and "Using the Silver Line as the priming event, what would a transit network improvement program look like for NoVA?") or line ("A "Transformational Projects Action Plan" for the Metrorail Blue Line").

It also reminds me of some of my writings about how residents don't always know the best way to advocate for their interests, although this is at the city scale.

For example, residents often argue every development should be for families, even though nationally only about 25% of households have children and 40%+ of households are a single person, making housing more expensive, or that all developments should have tons of parking, even in places by city transit stations, where typically only 25% of rush hour trips are by car.  But by encouraging parking and cars, they're advocating for making roads more congested.  Instead they ought to be advocating for sustainable mobility, so they have less competition for space on the roads for their car, because people like me are using transit or biking.

DC and Baltimore ought to be arguing in favor of initiatives that make their central business districts more central and competitive, and for ways to leverage improvements across their transit networks.  Not arguing against this.