Elections are a major part of our common culture, even as they become more divisive among contrasting subcultures. Mass transit illustrates conflicts among subcultures as well.
Transit was a fairly big issue in the June Maryland primary election as the Democratic candidates attacked Republican Governor Hogan for killing the Red Line in favor of the BaltimoreLink bus reorganization plan. I had hoped Ben Jealous could offer a positive course of action from this after winning the Democratic primary (see blog story), but he has offered so many things to spend money on that transit has gotten lost in the shuffle.
But recently things have gotten worse for transit as suburban communities have lobbied for cuts in transit to try to fight crime. In White Marsh to the northeast, they want to cut late night bus service. In Ferndale and Linthicum to the south, they wanted to cut light rail service.
While transit advocates push for better transit, people in these communities believe that transit is actually doing too good of a job of transporting criminals and troublemakers. So they want worse transit. Of course, they'll never say it like that. They'll say they want the right transit to serve good productive people. And they're right about that - all suggestions aside of racism and "dog whistles" and that negative kind of talk. ("Dog whistle" is a terrible term - if only racists can hear the whistle, how and why do their critics hear it and keep carping on it?)
Here's how the problem should be stated in a useful constructive manner: Transit ridership is far too low (not too high). Transit should be good enough to attract far more people, not just the criminals who exist in any population sample. Poor transit is perceived as only serving "other people" - just a social welfare service for people with no choices. Good transit serves a cross section of all of us, or at least it could offer an attractive option for those it serves.
Unfortunately, fixing transit in the suburbs is a daunting challenge, because activity and development are just too dispersed. Rail transit was hoped to be the answer, but it hasn't been. Rail was intended to attract transit oriented development, tailored to people and activity that promotes transit. That has been a failure throughout the metropolitan area, in both the city and suburbs alike.
The proposed light rail Red Line was similarly doomed, offering no substantial transit oriented development plans. Instead, it called on vague promises of "unity". Great expense was planned for tunneling to enable the Red Line to link the more affluent southeast waterfront to the worst wasteland in West Baltimore around the "Highway to Nowhere". Transit ridership is poor in both areas. That was a shotgun marriage, not unity.
Getting more affluent people to ride transit is another daunting challenge. This recalls a ridiculous TV commercial the Maryland Transit Administration ran some years ago showing a bus full of guys wearing suits and ties riding up Broadway past Johns Hopkins Hospital. And the MTA didn't even run buses on Broadway back then! BaltimoreLink at least fixed that, with some long-needed connections to the Metro Station there.
Pretending that transit is for the affluent is just fooling ourselves. If income is a major selection criterion, transit riders will inevitably be poor. When asked why they use transit, most riders simply say, "because I don't have a car" or maybe "because parking is too expensive".
The solution is to make culture a major selection criterion for transit. Even Hopkins realizes that. Hopkins decided to run their own bus system serving areas where they feel that their particular culture is strong. Many other institutions have done the same thing, including the city government's own Charm City Circulator bus system serving the areas the city wants to promote (which also encompasses Johns Hopkins turf).
This has led to attacks that these shuttles avoid black and/or poor areas of the city, and these accusations are justified. The markets and service areas of these shuttles are defined very narrowly. Only Hopkins people are allowed to use the Hopkins shuttle, and the same sort of rules apply to other institutions as well.
While it is inevitable that transit riders will be a subculture, it should be defined as widely as possible - attempting to avoid parameters such as race and income. It should not be defined as "us" versus "them".
As much of the transit system as possible should be redefined on these terms. All of the shuttles run by institutions and governments should be combined so that they are open to anyone (see blog story). They will then become their own system, and redundancy among them and with the larger MTA system can be eliminated or at least reduced.
The MTA's BaltimoreLink bus restructuring is at least a small step toward this. The major routes have been redefined by colors. The intention for this was good, but the colors are not displayed enough to really work to identify the routes. Catchy names would be better at defining the cultural identity, such as the "Banner" route designated by the city for their circulator bus to Fort McHenry (home of the "Star Spangled Banner").
Details are often difficult. The MTA tried to move a major transfer point away from North and Greenmount Avenues after complaints that it was a "bad area", but then they got more complaints and had to move it back.
The whole "transformative" nature of BaltimoreLink was overhyped due to its timing soon after the death of the Red Line (see blog stories here and here), and its new bus lanes were largely limited to colored pavement and new signs at existing bus lanes. Letting transit pre-empt the traffic signals won't work downtown, because there are buses going in every direction.
Any truly significant bus reorganization must incorporate the Charm City Circulator system and the various shuttles run by institutions. It must embrace these and many other subcultures.
Transit oriented development also needs to be considered a new subculture as well. Rail transit simply cannot be successful without it. The Baltimore Sun, which was one of the most vocal proponents of the Red Line, has essentially now given up on rail transit. They're also huge proponents of the State Center redevelopment, even though they have minimized the economic benefit impact of transit (two rail lines, not just one!) to support the project.
The Sun hasn't admitted as much, but their recent conclusions are essentially based on no longer believing in transit oriented development as a driving force. That's why it must be treated as a subculture - a large niche, but not fully coinciding with the metropolitan area's overall culture. The era of the stereotypical "Mister 9 to 5" riding transit from the suburbs into downtown Baltimore is largely over.
Developments like State Center must be scaled to the projected size of this subculture. Developments which have already occurred in this area nearby next to the State Cultural Center and University of Baltimore (Mount Royal) light rail stations have already done this, albeit very poorly, with far too much dominance on parking garages.
The same is true for transit oriented development at Port Covington, Westport, Howard/Lexington, Perkins Point and the "Highway to Nowhere".
In sum, subcultures are the key to better transit for everyone. For rail transit, transit oriented development must be integral to the planning process and to the project's identity. The Port Covington light rail spur must be planned and designed in concert with the development instead of as an afterthought.
For any future Red Line, the city must confront the future of the "Highway to Nowhere" corridor. The city acts like it loves that stupid useless highway, but a successful Red Line really can't coexist isolated in its median strip. The proposed Red Line was like a cheap streetcar at a high heavy rail price. Since it would inevitably be slow, it must be tailored to its subculture (see blog story).
The huge Perkins Point project on the east side offers a great opportunity to tailor rail transit to a mixed income clientele, which is more important than being fast (see blog story).
And overall, the inner city bus system should become a consolidation of all the shuttles run by the city and its institutions. This would bring hospital workers, students, tourists and other subcultures into the transit mainstream and provide better service for all.
Transit was a fairly big issue in the June Maryland primary election as the Democratic candidates attacked Republican Governor Hogan for killing the Red Line in favor of the BaltimoreLink bus reorganization plan. I had hoped Ben Jealous could offer a positive course of action from this after winning the Democratic primary (see blog story), but he has offered so many things to spend money on that transit has gotten lost in the shuffle.
 |
Publicity image for Hogan's BaltimoreLink plan was a nonstarter with the City administration.
But the only thing it really portrayed was a nice calm "transit subculture" in the middle of West Baltimore Street.
|
Interfactional conflicts
But recently things have gotten worse for transit as suburban communities have lobbied for cuts in transit to try to fight crime. In White Marsh to the northeast, they want to cut late night bus service. In Ferndale and Linthicum to the south, they wanted to cut light rail service.
While transit advocates push for better transit, people in these communities believe that transit is actually doing too good of a job of transporting criminals and troublemakers. So they want worse transit. Of course, they'll never say it like that. They'll say they want the right transit to serve good productive people. And they're right about that - all suggestions aside of racism and "dog whistles" and that negative kind of talk. ("Dog whistle" is a terrible term - if only racists can hear the whistle, how and why do their critics hear it and keep carping on it?)
Here's how the problem should be stated in a useful constructive manner: Transit ridership is far too low (not too high). Transit should be good enough to attract far more people, not just the criminals who exist in any population sample. Poor transit is perceived as only serving "other people" - just a social welfare service for people with no choices. Good transit serves a cross section of all of us, or at least it could offer an attractive option for those it serves.
Unfortunately, fixing transit in the suburbs is a daunting challenge, because activity and development are just too dispersed. Rail transit was hoped to be the answer, but it hasn't been. Rail was intended to attract transit oriented development, tailored to people and activity that promotes transit. That has been a failure throughout the metropolitan area, in both the city and suburbs alike.
The proposed light rail Red Line was similarly doomed, offering no substantial transit oriented development plans. Instead, it called on vague promises of "unity". Great expense was planned for tunneling to enable the Red Line to link the more affluent southeast waterfront to the worst wasteland in West Baltimore around the "Highway to Nowhere". Transit ridership is poor in both areas. That was a shotgun marriage, not unity.
Getting more affluent people to ride transit is another daunting challenge. This recalls a ridiculous TV commercial the Maryland Transit Administration ran some years ago showing a bus full of guys wearing suits and ties riding up Broadway past Johns Hopkins Hospital. And the MTA didn't even run buses on Broadway back then! BaltimoreLink at least fixed that, with some long-needed connections to the Metro Station there.
Pretending that transit is for the affluent is just fooling ourselves. If income is a major selection criterion, transit riders will inevitably be poor. When asked why they use transit, most riders simply say, "because I don't have a car" or maybe "because parking is too expensive".
Subculture as a tool
The solution is to make culture a major selection criterion for transit. Even Hopkins realizes that. Hopkins decided to run their own bus system serving areas where they feel that their particular culture is strong. Many other institutions have done the same thing, including the city government's own Charm City Circulator bus system serving the areas the city wants to promote (which also encompasses Johns Hopkins turf).
This has led to attacks that these shuttles avoid black and/or poor areas of the city, and these accusations are justified. The markets and service areas of these shuttles are defined very narrowly. Only Hopkins people are allowed to use the Hopkins shuttle, and the same sort of rules apply to other institutions as well.
While it is inevitable that transit riders will be a subculture, it should be defined as widely as possible - attempting to avoid parameters such as race and income. It should not be defined as "us" versus "them".
As much of the transit system as possible should be redefined on these terms. All of the shuttles run by institutions and governments should be combined so that they are open to anyone (see blog story). They will then become their own system, and redundancy among them and with the larger MTA system can be eliminated or at least reduced.
The MTA's BaltimoreLink bus restructuring is at least a small step toward this. The major routes have been redefined by colors. The intention for this was good, but the colors are not displayed enough to really work to identify the routes. Catchy names would be better at defining the cultural identity, such as the "Banner" route designated by the city for their circulator bus to Fort McHenry (home of the "Star Spangled Banner").
Details are often difficult. The MTA tried to move a major transfer point away from North and Greenmount Avenues after complaints that it was a "bad area", but then they got more complaints and had to move it back.
The whole "transformative" nature of BaltimoreLink was overhyped due to its timing soon after the death of the Red Line (see blog stories here and here), and its new bus lanes were largely limited to colored pavement and new signs at existing bus lanes. Letting transit pre-empt the traffic signals won't work downtown, because there are buses going in every direction.
Any truly significant bus reorganization must incorporate the Charm City Circulator system and the various shuttles run by institutions. It must embrace these and many other subcultures.
Transit oriented development also needs to be considered a new subculture as well. Rail transit simply cannot be successful without it. The Baltimore Sun, which was one of the most vocal proponents of the Red Line, has essentially now given up on rail transit. They're also huge proponents of the State Center redevelopment, even though they have minimized the economic benefit impact of transit (two rail lines, not just one!) to support the project.
The Sun hasn't admitted as much, but their recent conclusions are essentially based on no longer believing in transit oriented development as a driving force. That's why it must be treated as a subculture - a large niche, but not fully coinciding with the metropolitan area's overall culture. The era of the stereotypical "Mister 9 to 5" riding transit from the suburbs into downtown Baltimore is largely over.
Developments like State Center must be scaled to the projected size of this subculture. Developments which have already occurred in this area nearby next to the State Cultural Center and University of Baltimore (Mount Royal) light rail stations have already done this, albeit very poorly, with far too much dominance on parking garages.
The same is true for transit oriented development at Port Covington, Westport, Howard/Lexington, Perkins Point and the "Highway to Nowhere".
 |
| The Harlem Park Red Line Station as portrayed by Marc Szarkowski in the middle of what is now the "Highway to Nowhere". This is about the zillionth time I've used this image to portray an ideal transit culture. |
Culture = Sum of subcultures
In sum, subcultures are the key to better transit for everyone. For rail transit, transit oriented development must be integral to the planning process and to the project's identity. The Port Covington light rail spur must be planned and designed in concert with the development instead of as an afterthought.
For any future Red Line, the city must confront the future of the "Highway to Nowhere" corridor. The city acts like it loves that stupid useless highway, but a successful Red Line really can't coexist isolated in its median strip. The proposed Red Line was like a cheap streetcar at a high heavy rail price. Since it would inevitably be slow, it must be tailored to its subculture (see blog story).
The huge Perkins Point project on the east side offers a great opportunity to tailor rail transit to a mixed income clientele, which is more important than being fast (see blog story).
And overall, the inner city bus system should become a consolidation of all the shuttles run by the city and its institutions. This would bring hospital workers, students, tourists and other subcultures into the transit mainstream and provide better service for all.
