the impact of urban revitalization and relocation on...

THE IMPACT OF URBAN REVITALIZATION AND RELOCATION ON TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM DEMAND

Diane Jones, ASLAAssistant Professor, Graduate Program in Landscape Architecture

Doctoral Student Department of Civil Engineering

Regina IrizarryGraduate Student, Graduate Program in Landscape Architecture

Dr. Manoj K. Jha, PEAssociate Professor and Director Center for Advanced Transportation

and Infrastructure Engineering ResearchDepartment of Civil Engineering

Morgan State University1700 East Cold Spring LaneBaltimore, Maryland 21251

This paper examines the need for transportation infrastructure expansion in relationship to environmental justice issues. The effect of displacing urban populations to outer-urban areas on transportation system demand and allocation will be specifically addressed. This research portends that the current trend, of relocating those less affluent and heavily dependent on transit, to outer-urban areas, puts increased demand on areas of decreased service. If this trend continues, without further study, planning, and policy changes, there will be increased inequity in service allocation. The paper will present findings from a case study, in inner city East Baltimore, where residents have been relocated, for a new mixed-use development.

Research objectives are as follows:– Utilize case study data to demonstrate the impact of urban revitalization

on transportation system demand and access.– Develop models to forecast demand based on future trends in

population movement as opposed to existing patterns which do not address inequity in service allocation.

– Make a positive impact on the development of performance standard criteria and the equitable allocation of resources for the operation of mass transit.

METHODOLOGY• Population demographics and neighborhood characteristics within the case study area

were assessed to determine the pre-revitalization population’s transit-dependence and the neighborhood’s transit-accessibility. This information was compared to similar data for two of the census tracts to which the affected population was relocated, to project how the displacement of the Phase One population, and eventually the entire project area, can be expected to affect transportation system demand in Baltimore City in the future.

• Demographic data included:-Total population -Racial distribution -Median income -Vehicle availability -Means of transportation to work

• Neighborhood characteristics included:Existing transportation -Infrastructure and service. -Population density- Neighborhood design and land use

• U.S. Census 2000 Summary File data included:- Population and racial distribution counts to the block level, gathered from Summary File 1. -Median household income,-Vehicle availability, and-Means of transportation to work, gathered from the U.S. Census 2000 summary file 3, which provides information to the tract level, based on a sample of about one in six households.

• Portions of the Phase One area lie within two census tracts, 70400 and 80800. • Census tracts 260102 and 270401, which are located in the northeast portion of Baltimore

City, were chosen as comparable relocation areas, as representative of the outer-city neighborhoods to which many of the households relocated.

• GIS mapping and transit schedules were used in combination with U.S. Census 2000 information to examine neighborhood characteristics, including existing transit lines, land use and population density.

Locations of the four census tracts studied.

East Baltimore Development, IncorporatedThe entire project, consisting of 80 acres, was divided into two phases. The entire project area boundary is as follows: North Patterson Park to the east, North Broadway to the west, East Madison Street to the south and the MARC railroad tracks to the north. The project components for Phases One and Two include the following:-Economic and Life Sciences Park consisting of 2 million square feet of laboratory and office space, 41,600 square feet of retail space and a parking facility for 1,400 vehicles.-Housing to include new construction and rehabilitation of 2,000 mixed- income residential housing units over a 10-15 year period.-New pre-K to 8th grade community school (in Phase 2).-Community facilities, green space and new mass transit.

The neighborhood was part of the Middle East Urban Renewal Area Phase One of the project consists of 31 acres expected to be completed in 2010

Barclay

Oliver Broadway East

Johnston Square

Middle East

Gay Street

Pre-Revitalization Neighborhood Composition

• One hundred ninety-three properties, 20 percent of the properties in the area, were owned by the Baltimore City Housing Authority and donated to EBDI by the City.

• Seven hundred twenty three privately-owned properties were acquired by the City of Baltimore Department of Housing and Community Development on EBDI’s behalf. Forty nine percent of the properties were owner-occupied and 51% were renter-occupied.

• Demographics• The Phase One neighborhood had a population of 1,365 in 2000.

Racial distribution for this population was as follows: black 1,339; white 19; Hispanic 11 and multi-racial 7.

• According to EBDI’s Phase 1 – Baseline Summary Report, at the start of the initiative in 2002, 91 percent were African American and 82 percent were under the age of 65. Thirty-three percent of the residents owned homes. Sixty-seven percent were renters, 20 percent of whom lived in public housing or used a housing choice voucher


Median Income and Rent• Median 1999 household income for census tract

70400 was $13,971• Median household income for 1999 for census

tract 80800 was $15,429 • Median household income for Baltimore City for

the same year was $30,078 • Forty-three percent of families in the surrounding

Middle East neighborhood lived below the poverty level.

• Median gross rent was $439 for tract 70400 and $411 for tract 80800.

38%

52%

8%2%

Car, truck, or van: Public transportation:

Walked Worked at home


56%30%

2%

7%3% 2%

Car, truck, or van: Public transportation: BicycleWalked Other means Worked at home

Means of transportation to work, tracts 70400, top and 80800, left

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1

No vehicle available 1 vehicle available 2 vehicles available 3 vehicles available

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

1


Vehicle Availability

Eighty-three percent of renters and 57% of owners in tract 70400 had no vehicle available, and figures were similar for tract 80800.This translates into a heavy dependence on mass transit.

Vehicle availability for census tract 70400, owner-occupied units, above and renter- occupied units, left

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1

No vehicle available 1 vehicle available 2 vehicles available3 vehicles available 5 or more vehicles available

Vehicle availability for census tract 80800 owner-occupied units, above, and renter- occupied units, right

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

1


Of 279 owner-occupied homes within tract 80800, 51% had no vehicle available. 77% of renters in tract 80800 had no vehicle available

Neighborhood Physiography -The revitalization area conforms to a gridded system of blocks and streets and the surrounding area is fairly dense. There is a mix of land uses characterized by mostly high-density residential, commercial, and industrial uses in the surrounding area. Streets laid out in a grid pattern forming blocks allows transit to better connect neighborhoods and city districts to each other and the surrounding area. -If population trends for Middle East were to continue to decline as they did during the 1990s, the result would probably be decreased levels of service for the area. The 2000 U.S. Census showed a population decline for Middle East of 36.6% from 1990 to 2000 (12).

Land use surrounding Phase One area, outlined in black

Population density for revitalization area (outlined in black) in 2000

.

Density is mixed, but the immediate area is predominately 21-54 persons per acre.(Johns Hopkins Hospital is immediately to the south, accounting for the lower population density per acre there.)

Available Transportation-The Phase One area is served by 19 Maryland Transportation Authority (MTA) lines, including bus and metro lines. The neighborhood is two miles from Penn Station, the city’s main Amtrak/Commuter station. -This map shows the network of transit lines and stops that are located within a half-mile radius of the project area. There are a total of 253 transit stops located within a half-mile of the target area.

Transit lines and stops within .5 miles of Phase One .

RELOCATIONBusinessesOnly nine businesses were relocated. Households -Ninety-four percent (370) of the 396 households relocated from the development area remained in Baltimore City. -Renters were more likely to have stayed in the greater East Baltimore area. Residents moved to 46 separate neighborhoods. Fifty households moved to subsidized housing. -Half of the households relocated to the northeast Baltimore area. -Approximately 50% of the households moved to one of the following six neighborhoods: Cedonia/Frankford, Belair/Edison, Hamilton, Madison/East End, Jonestown/Old Town, and Patterson Park. Census tract 260102 is within the Cedonia/Frankford neighborhood, and tract 270401 is within the Hamilton neighborhood.

Relocation Neighborhood Composition

• Demographics• U.S. Census 2000 total population for tract 260102 was

5,083; for tract 270401 it was 4,986. The percentage of the population sampled for summary file 3 was 13.9% for tract 260102, and 10.5% for tract 270401.

• Racial distribution for tract 260102 was as follows: black 63%; white 32%; two or more races 3%; Asian 1%; other 1%.

• Racial distribution for tract 270401was as follows: black 37%; white 57%; Asian 4%; two or more races 1%; other 1% (12).

Relocation Neighborhood Composition

Median Income and Rent• Median household income for 1999 for census

tract 260102 was $42,684; for census tract 270401 it was $36,795. The average of the income for the two relocation tracts represents an increase of 170% over that for the two tracts represented in the Phase One area.

• Median gross rents were $566 for tract 260102 and $540 for tract 270401, 30% higher than the average for the Phase One area rents.

RelocationNeighborhood Composition

86%

9%

2%1%2%

Car, truck, or van: Public transportation: Walked Other means Worked at home

83%

11%

3% 2%1%

Car, truck, or van: Public transportation: Walked Other means Worked at home

Means of transportation to work for census tracts 260102, top, and 270401, bottom.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1

No vehicle available1 vehicle available2 vehicles available3 vehicles available4 vehicles available

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1

No vehicle available1 vehicle available2 vehicles available3 vehicles available

Vehicles available, census tract 260102; owner- occupied households, above, and renter-occupied households, left


Vehicles available, census tract 270401; owner-occupied households, above, and renter-occupied households, left.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

1

No vehicle available1 vehicle available2 vehicles available3 vehicles available4 vehicles available

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1

No vehicle available1 vehicle available2 vehicles available


Neighborhood Physiography

Land Use for areas surrounding relocation tracts 260102 and 270401, outlined in black-These areas show more low- density residential areas than the Phase One area. -Commercial development aligns along arterial roads, along which the bus lines run. -The low-density residential neighborhoods are designed with more curving, irregular and dead- end roads, and are therefore-less suited to public transit than to the automobile. -The city/county boundary line is visible to the east of the two census tracts.

Population Density-The blocks of census tracts 260102 and 270401 are outlined in black. -In contrast to the Phase One area, with population density of about 21-54 persons per acre, the areas surrounding the relocation tracts show lower population densities; the dominant density is 0-21 persons per acre. -This map also shows the lack of a defined grid pattern, in contrast to that of the revitalization area.

Population density for relocation areas (outlined in black) in 2000

Available TransportationGIS mapping showed that there are 11 MTA lines and 81 stops within .5 miles of census tract 260102, compared with 19 lines and 253 stops for the Phase One area. The transit lines run along the periphery of the tract as many of the neighborhood roads do not accommodate buses.The map shows the tract with lines and stops within a half-mile radius.

Transit lines and stops within .5 mile radius of tract 260102.

Mapping of transit lines and stops within a .5 mile radius of census tract 270401 show a similar pattern of peripheral roads along which the transit lines are located. There are eight MTA lines land 109 stops located with the half- mile radius of the tract.

Transit lines and stops within .5 mile radius of tract 270401.

CONCLUSIONSRevitalization AreaThe Census and geographic data support the thesis that the Phase One population was heavily dependent on transit, based on low levels of income and vehicle ownership, and on relatively high use of public transportation as a means of travel to work. Similarly, neighborhood characteristics, including population density in surrounding areas, existing transit lines and stops, and neighborhood layout, suggest that the area pre-revitalization was supportive of a population dependent on mass transit.

Areas of RelocationThe areas of relocation that were studied showed higher levels of income and vehicle availability than the revitalization area, and lower levels of transit use as a means of travel to work. These areas also showed a more diverse racial distribution. Neighborhood design and density for these areas appear to be more automobile-supportive than public transit oriented. Transit lines and stops, although available, tend to follow along main arterials and are more limited than in the Phase One area.

Anticipated Effects on Transportation System DemandRevitalization Area• The revitalization area will continue to undergo changes for the next seven years as

redevelopment continues. The Middle East Urban Renewal plan stipulates that housing within the project area shall consist of one-third low income, one-third moderate income and one-third market rate housing. However, considering the economic situation of the population pre-revitalization, it can be assumed that the population that moves into the area will be more affluent than the majority of those who left the area, and this generally will bring individuals with the means to be able to afford a vehicle. Rentals for Ashland Commons workforce apartments, completed in 2007, are listed at price ranges of $620-1,020 per month, in contrast to the 1999 pre- revitalization median rents of $439 and $411.

• The revitalization area is expected to generate between 4,000-6,000 jobs and 2,000 housing units. The 1,400-car parking lot that will be built anticipates the increased traffic that the project will bring to the area. With these increases, ridership on area transit lines will probably also increase.

Areas of Relocation• As urban renewal in the city’s central core continues, lower-income residents can be

expected to continue to move to the outer-urban areas of Baltimore City unless provisions are made to control housing costs in the areas of revitalization. Those who cannot afford vehicles will continue to place increased demand on existing transit for these areas. In addition, population trends between 1990 and 2000 show that the northern areas of the city have gained population, and ridership has increased on transit lines in the northern portions of the city.

• Further study would be helpful to track changes that occur as the urban renewal proceeds and as demographics in Baltimore City continue to evolve.

the impact of urban revitalization and relocation on...

Documents