Transit justice: community perceptions and anticipations of a new light rail transit line in Prince George’s County, Maryland, United States

ABSTRACT

Transit-oriented developments are increasingly important as they address many modern urban environment problems such as urban sprawl, pollution, and rising rates of non-communicable diseases. However, their implementation is difficult as cities are complex systems. Urban health improvements is a labyrinthian process as enhancements in one area often leads to several unintended side effects, such as transit-induced gentrification or injustice. The Purple Line Impact on Neighborhood, Health and Transit (PLIGHT) study examines the community impact of a forthcoming light rail train line in Prince George’s County, Maryland, a predominantly Black and Hispanic community. Results show that despite mindful planning the Purple light rail train is subject to ‘Transit Orientated Development’ idealism, which can propagate transit injustices. This qualitative study highlights the disconnect between this idealism and practice. It explicitly identifies the most vulnerable of transit users and highlights how neoliberal urbanism contributes to health inequities in Transit Orientated Development practice.

KEYWORDS:

• Transportation justice
• transit-induced gentrification
• transit-oriented development
• natural experiment
• TOD idealism
• neoliberal urbanization

This article is related to:

Research for city practice

Introduction

In the context of rapid urbanization, transit-oriented developments (TODs) have been growing in popularity as a solution to address modern urban problems like sprawl, pollution, and increasing rates of noncommunicable diseases (Bettencourt et al. 2007). By focusing on mixed land use and multimodal transportation infrastructure, TODs create opportunities for health which include improved air quality, open space preservation, pedestrian friendly environments, increased ridership and revenue, and urban sprawl reductions (Cervero 2004). Successful implementation of TODs support neighborhood revitalization while improving a local community’s social resources, social mobility (Chetty et al. 2014) and life expectancy (Leuthart et al. 2021). However, successful TOD implementation benefiting every member of a community is difficult to achieve.

Urban environments are composed of complex multilayered systems that shape urban life. Despite the potential benefits, TODs harbor a number of risks. For example, TODs are vastly expensive investments. Failure to revitalize can lead to billions of misspent tax dollars which can put any urban community into significant debt. Conversely, successful upscale TOD revitalization can trigger gentrification thereby worsening socio-spatial segregation. Even with careful and well-intended planning, TODs that fail to involve the local community in key decision-making processes can result in an urban environment that harms community health and wellness. This paper examines the impact of a US$3.44 billion dollar light rail train infrastructure project (Purple LRT) on an existing urban community in Prince George’s County, Maryland. It aims to understand how an urban community actually experiences public transportation investments. This qualitative analysis adds to transportation planning literature by highlighting the disconnect between TOD idealism and practice. It explicitly identifies the most vulnerable of transit users and highlights how neoliberal urbanism contributes to health inequities in transit-oriented development practice.

Urban transportation planning

Limited inhabitable space and finite natural resources amidst a growing global population has accelerated global urbanization (Rydin et al. 2012, WHO 2019). Currently, about half of the world’s population live in urban areas with a projected increase to 68% by 2050 (Rydin et al. 2012, United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division 2019). Although urban areas are resource rich, they are also hotspots for pollution, noise, heat, and disease (Bettencourt et al. 2007). In addition, urbanization decreases opportunities for supportive social relationships despite offering conditions for a higher standard of living in material goods and improved sanitation (World Health Organization, Regional Office in Europe 2019). In recognition of the need for sustainable development, global health initiatives such as Healthy Cities (World Health Organization, Regional Office in Europe 2022) aim to modify urban infrastructure to generate health equitable urban environments.

The design of transportation infrastructure, in particular, is fundamental towards shaping a community’s health and social opportunities. In a study by Chetty et al. (2014), unreliable transportation systems with long commute times actively hindered low-income communities from escaping poverty and its consequences. Poor transportation design prevents access to social opportunities and resources outside of the home, such as community building (Del Rio et al. 2017), education, food security (Baek 2016); health-care services (Syed et al. 2013, Escamilla et al. 2019) and recreation (The World Bank 2019). When compared to private vehicles, public transportation also has lower accident rates (González et al. 2019), is more environmentally sustainable (Wang et al. 2018), less costly for consumers, and a natural source of physical activity (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2018, Nieuwenhuijsen 2020). Well-designed transportation systems transforms communities and the lives of the people living in them by spurring economic development, promoting sustainable lifestyles and providing a higher quality of life (Wang et al. 2018, American Public Transportation Association 2021).

Cities are complex systems which make improvements in urban health a labyrinthian process. At times modifications or enhancements in one area leads to a series of unintended side effects (Rydin et al. 2012, Nieuwenhuijsen 2020). For example, unsuitable transportation infrastructure actively harms health (American Public Health Association 2020) by promoting sociospatial segregation (Almeida Silva et al. 2020), displacing existing transit-dependent residents (Padeiro et al. 2019), fragmenting communities (World Health Organization, Regional Office in Europe 2019) and inhibiting access to employment, health services, and other resources (Vlahov et al. 2007). Conceptually, a well-designed transit system should be self-sustainable inclusive, and livable (Renne et al. 2016, Wood 2021), while enhancing urban health and a sense of place (Cervero 2004, Parsons Brinckerhoff PlaceMaking Group 2011, Alwehab and Al Ani 2015). In practice, however, equitable design is difficult as land use logistics, transit infrastructure, existing social and political institutions, local community culture, and economic motivations all need to be delicately balanced with each other (Cervero et al. 2002, Renne et al. 2016). ‘Major barriers include high financial risks, negative images, fear for safety, class and racial prejudices, and sometimes concern among residents themselves that neighborhoods will be gentrified’ (as cited in Loukaitou-Sideris 2000, Cervero et al. 2002, pp. 28–29). Although access to reliable transportation is vital for all communities, transportation infrastructure in numerous American communities are plagued with transportation injustices because only a portion of its members have access to this fundamental resource (Hess and Almeida 2017).

Transit-oriented development

Conceptually, transit-oriented developments (TODs) are the perfect solution for issues associated with an increasing world population, rapid urbanization, and finite resources. TODs describe urban development that maximizes residential, business and leisure space within walking distance of public transportation (Cervero et al. 2002, Cervero 2004). Although the exact definition varies across urban planners, land developers, transit practitioners and researchers, the overall transit community agrees that all TODs ‘constitute a pattern of dense, diverse, pedestrian-friendly land use near transit nodes that, under the right conditions, translate into higher patronage’ (Cervero 2004, p. 7). Typically, TODs feature a main transit stop (e.g. light rail or bus transit station) surrounded by high-density mixed-use areas followed by low-density use areas in a bull’s eye pattern (Cervero 2004, Nieuwenhuijsen 2020). Shorter city blocks and limited automobile space encourage alternative transit use (i.e. cycling, walking & public transit) and discourage the use of private vehicles. With the promise of elevated living standards and government-supported policies and initiatives, TODs are also attractive to private developers fostering close public–private partnerships while spurring enormous opportunities for economic and financial viability at all levels of the community. Indeed, the top three most successful TODs in the world (Curitiba, Brazil; Hong Kong, China; and Singapore) (The World Bank 2019) feature extremely high ridership rates, financial self-sustainability, improvements in environmental health and successful interorganizational collaboration between private and public institutions. All three of these TOD systems de-emphasize a central urban hub such as a downtown area and focus on boosting services to multiple transit nodes and hubs. As this paper focuses on social equity, Peter Calthorpe’s discussions related TOD are most relevant for understanding the results of this study.

Calthorpe, an urban planner and architect, first introduced the term to his community in 1986 (Calthorpe and Van der Ryn 1986), as a way to begin addressing the glaring problems related to urban sprawl and over reliance on automobiles. Problems such as worsening pollution, increasing traffic congestion, (Bettencourt et al. 2007), affordable housing shortages, unsustainable highway expansion programs, worsening community health, and rising rates of non-communicable diseases have pushed urban planners to consider TODs as an option for future sustainable urban development (Cervero 2004, Renne et al. 2016, Knowles et al. 2020). Under traditional planning models, communities become increasingly isolated from each other as work and neighborhoods became segregated through zoning laws and major roadways. Dependence on private vehicles and single family homes further promote an isolated existence (Van der Ryn and Calthorpe 2008). Technology such as smart phones and the internet artificially reconnect communities that can afford these amenities, but also contribute to a sedentary lifestyle. The rest of the communities who could not afford amenities nor cars struggle to manage the health and welfare of their families, often spending an exorbitant amount of time getting from one location to another. Calthorpe and his peers envisioned a sustainable city that was not only environmentally sustainable, but one that also fostered a sense of community by featuring public spaces and pedestrian friendly streets as places for community gathering (Calthorpe 1993). Diversity, he argues, is the key design for these communities (Calthorpe 2010). A healthy and sustainable community must have ‘diversity, diversity of population and diversity in land use’ (Calthorpe 2010). In other words, communities should house and support the well-being of people from a broad range of income levels, ethnicities, and ages. Residential areas should feature a mix of housing types such as apartments and townhouses and should be surrounded by a broad mix of stores, parks, schools, and civic spaces. Green spaces, in particular, are vital to the health of urban residents (Maas et al. 2006, Smith et al. 2017) as they are natural and healthy spaces for community gathering and health promoting activities. By connecting these communities with diversity in transit options (i.e. cycling and train) that is within a reasonable walking distance, urban spaces become revitalized, household costs become reduced, environmental sustainability improves, physical activity increases, and a community sense is fostered. All of this contributing to a healthy planet, an elevated quality of life and a positive outlook for community physical, mental, and spiritual health.

Transit-oriented development idealism

TODs naturally promote community building and physical activity as residents live in the places where they work (Nieuwenhuijsen 2020). However, as Cervero et al. (2002, p. 2) states, ‘While the concepts of TOD … enjoy broad appeal, in truth the gulf between theory and practice remains huge’. The internationally accepted concept of a TOD is highly idealized and assumes that all urban spaces are similar in their infrastructure, residential demographic, and their social, cultural and health needs (Wood 2021). This problematic oversimplification of urban spaces contributes to an oversimplified application of TODs resulting in failed TOD investments globally. The Dallas DART, for example, spent $5.63 billion (Dallas Area Rapid Transit 2017a) on TOD developments and boasts having one of the longest light rail systems in the US. Ten years after opening, ridership rates remained low with a weekday average of 5.4% of residents using any service (DART 2017b). In 2019, the figure was 3.6% (DART 2020) and during the COVID-19 pandemic 1.7% (Dallas Area Rapid Transit 2022). Not surprisingly, local media describe various TODs along this system as ghost towns (Nicholson 2016, OToole 2021). Other global cities have also similar outcomes (i.e. Xintong TOD, Guangzhou, China) (Song et al. 2021)

An increase of traffic congestion, rather than a reduction, is another issue related to TOD idealism. As urban areas increase in density, both foot traffic and car use in areas surged (Chatman et al. 2019). For example, in Beijing, China, dense populations contributed to overcrowded train systems creating unpleasant transit experiences. As a result, many resorted back to private vehicle use for daily transit needs doubling the average commute time (Jiang and Han 2009, as cited in Qi 2017). Some scholars attribute this outcome to the development of transit adjacent hubs and transit joint developments which over emphasizes urban and economic growth based on private cars (Cervero and Day 2008, Renne 2009, Zhang and Lin 2011, Hale 2014, Song et al. 2021). In this situation, residents have the option to either drive or take public transit thereby hampering TOD practices.

Implementing an ideal TOD is difficult as different stakeholders have different needs that are often conflicting. In South Africa, for example, implementation of TODs in both Johannesburg and Cape Town was riddled with political and local community push back (Wood 2021). Eventually, the planned TODs were abandoned but paved the way for different transportation projects that better served the needs of its residents. From this experience, Wood (2021) makes the argument that ‘TODs (should be) a fluid, malleable notion’, and ‘take account of the existing circumstances’ (Wood 2021). The problem with TOD idealism, she argues, is that it assumes that all urban spaces are similar. Successful implementation of the TOD concept must account for the everyday micro-transactions that occur (i.e. selling of repackaged cigarettes), not just the macro-transactions of broad-scale transit infrastructure. All members of the local community must be involved at all levels of planning (Karner et al. 2020). Karner et al. (2020) criticizes the use of public forums as an afterthought as they are usually held after major decisions have already been made. When successful collaboration exists between the political and local community, the TOD concept appropriately fits into the local context (Wood 2021).

The problems of TOD idealism is not limited to the global context where societies and culture vary from the western culture that this concept originates. Transportation injustice challenges, such as transit-induced gentrification (TIG), has invariably been an outcome for many TODs (Padeiro et al. 2019, Tehrani et al. 2019). The Rosslyn-Ballston Corridor TOD is a 2 square mile area located in Arlington, Virginia, U.S.A just outside of the Washington District of Columbia, US metro area. This TOD is acclaimed to be the best example of TOD best practice in the US (Cervero 2004) and ranks in the top 10 TODs in the world (The World Bank 2019). Since the 1970s, when metro rail services started, this corridor added 24.4 million square feet of office space, 3.8 million square feet of retail space, 24,000 mixed-income dwelling units, and over 6,000 hotel rooms in high density mixed-use developments (Dittmar and Ohland 2004, Cervero 2004). Currently, this corridor has the highest ridership rates on the metro line outside of Washington DC and continues to attract a growing number of major industries and new residents.

From its inception, social equity policies were mindfully instituted to preserve existing residential communities and ensure a percentage of new residential developments included affordable housing for middle and low-income residents. However, affordable housing requirements only last 30 years. Today, 50 years after the rail line began operation, gentrification has overwhelmed the Rosslyn-Ballston TOD. According to Arlington’s 2015 Affordable Housing Master Plan (AHMP), ‘Arlington County lost 13,500 affordable housing units, primarily to rent increases’ (Department of Community Planning, Housing and Development 2015). In addition, median home sale prices increased by 140.3% and average rent increased by 90.9%. In a 2021 report, 93.5% of Arlington’s population were above poverty threshold with an average household income of $156.941 (DCPH 2021). Meanwhile renters whose income is 60% below the area median income make up 17% of Arlington’s households (Department of Community Planning, Housing and Development 2020). With only 9% of housing stock available to this group, the lowest income renters simply cannot afford to stay and are leaving. Amongst the remaining renters, 38.6% pay 30% of their monthly income on rent (Department of Community Planning, Housing and Development 2022). This affordable housing crisis is only expected to worsen under the tremendous success of the Rosslyn-Ballston TOD.

Despite mindful community planning, the Rosslyn-Ballston TOD is arguably a contributor to transit-induced gentrification and social injustices. It is a reminder to guard against an idealized notion of what TODs are and what they can provide. Often, the social benefits of TODs are only accessible to those who can afford associated higher costs of living. The transit poor, which include those who cannot access private vehicles or afford more expensive forms of public transportation (i.e. rails; rideshares) are forced to relocate to neighborhoods lacking in public transportation options. As a result, TODs invariably contribute to furthering social and health disparities in the US. As Wood (2021) argues, there is no such thing as a best practice TOD, only a better practice TOD.

Transit-induced gentrification

Transit-induced gentrification (TIG) describes the phenomenon of the replacement of lower status neighborhoods with higher status neighborhoods in the context of TOD investments (Kahn 2007, Freeman et al. 2015, Dong 2017). TIG, therefore, describes how investments and improvements in public transportation fail to benefit low-income communities who historically own less cars and are transit dependent (Renne et al. 2016, Dong 2017). TOD investments actively induce harm by raising rental and real estate prices forcing this group to relocate to cheaper and less transit accessible areas (Renne et al. 2016, Dong 2017). Forced relocation of low-income communities is linked to worsening mental health created by feelings of isolation and loneliness (World Health Organization, Regional Office in Europe 2019). Poorly planned TODs in the U.S. and United Kingdom (e.g. Los Angeles, CA; Sacramento, CA; St. Louis, MO; Sheffield and Sunderland, England) (Knowles et al. 2020) experienced substantial hikes in real estate prices and costs of living forcing transit-dependent communities into neighboring transit-poor suburbs. However, some well-planned community oriented TODs (e.g. Portland, OR, and Denver, CO) were generally successful at building highly accessible multimodal transportation hubs for all members of its communities. Policies that control transit fares, protect cycling and pedestrian lanes, and designate open plazas and green space ensured access to all members of the urban community (Dill 2020, Knowles et al. 2020).

The transportation justice literature offers mixed discussions with some studies supporting the occurrence of TIG and others finding otherwise (Padeiro et al. 2019; Tehrani et al. 2019). According to Tehrani et al. (2019), this is primarily related to difficulty establishing proper parameters to define and observe the phenomenon of TIG. Some TIG studies observe and measure changes in household income, house values, new house construction, and educational levels. Yet others measured displacement rates as a separately occurring symptom of TIG. Tehrani et al. (2019) finds the results of these studies to be limited indicating problems such as defining neighborhoods using large spatial aggregations due to data constraints, examining mobility over relatively long intervals of 10 years, or defining gentrification too broadly. According to Tehrani, ‘displacement needs to be measured contextually’ as it is ‘dependent on the number of owner occupied units, demand for housing, vacant units, and ethnic mix of the neighborhood’ (p. 7). Other research that focused on specific aspects of gentrification such as changes in racial composition or poverty level (Hammel and Wyly 1996, Rayle 2014, Bardaka et al. 2018) had mixed results. Some indicated a positive gentrification process. A Portland TOD (Baker and Lee 2017) indicated that lower income residents were able to occupy neighborhoods closer to public transit and therefore benefitting. Yet other cities (Buffalo, NY and Los Angeles, CA) showed that high poverty residents continued to live close to public transit but these transit neighborhoods continued to decline in poverty status (Baker and Lee 2017). As Tehrani et al. (2019) summarizes, ‘Considering these variables, it is apparent that TIG research is complex and requires continual careful development’ (p. 8).

Transportation justice

The social concept of transportation justice surfaces the unintended consequences of TODs and identify underlying unintended inequitable practices created by biased transportation legislation (Badger and Cameron 2015). The theories and exact definition of transportation justice varies in the transit community but can be broadly described as ‘the fairness in the physical distribution of goods, accessibility for people, affordability of all types of services and distribution of other gains (such as improved real estate value)’ (Beyazit 2011). In other words, transproation justice transcends simply having access and affordability to transit services, but also entails the accompanying benefits of TODs, such as better resource access, economic opportunities, and healthy living opportunities. Conversely, transportation justice also examines how the burdens resulting from transit development and use are shared by society. These burdens can include such elements like accident risks, noise, pollutions, and crowdedness (Gossling 2016) and therefore includes community members that do not use the public transit system. For example, rail systems, which are utilized primarily by the transit rich, are accompanied by large parking structures that occupy valuable space from the local community. Land that could be developed into affordable housing or green space is instead dedicated to vehicle owners. Bus stations, including major bus transit centers have little to no parking as bus users do not typically own cars. Individuals that live near transit systems but do not utilize its services must still deal with transit-related loss of space and pollution. According to Gossling (2016, p. 1) ‘Transport systems benefit only a share of traffic participants, while putting considerable burdens on others, as well as residents and society as a whole’.

Neoliberal urbanization

Neoliberal capitalistic ideology provides context for better understanding the challenges related to TOD idealism and transit justice. Without getting into the complex theoretical discussions on the subject, neoliberalism generally describes a shift from government regulation to open market in order to reduce state ‘inefficiencies’. Defining traits of neoliberal ideology includes an emphasis on self-sufficiency, a limited social safety net and narrow governmental accountability (Charmaz 2019). Neoliberal urbanization is the specific application of this ideology to the planning and management of urban spaces (Borchers and Figueirôa-Ferreira 2022). Neoliberal urbanism seeks to ‘liberate’ public (i.e. public transit) from ‘state inefficiencies’ so that capital could be more profitably deployed by privately managed industries (Farmer 2011). Taxes are reduced on businesses (i.e. private developers; privately owned transit companies) and public services are dismantled and transformed into more businesses. Profitability, a tangible measure of self-sufficiency, is valued most and seen as something the state cannot achieve. Traditional pro-neoliberalists would argue that as TOD neighborhoods become revitalized, lower income groups would also enjoy the benefits of a safer, more aesthetically pleasing neighborhood with an improved transit system. In reality, however, TODs in neoliberal urban spaces only promote transport injustices and health disparities (Navarro 2009). Stand-alone policies that preserve affordable housing (i.e. Rosslyn-Ballston TOD) cannot offset transit injustices. As the ideology of neoliberal urbanization gains more popularity in government institutions, social programs are forced to demonstrate efficiency and self-sufficiency, as measured by financial sustainability and productivity. Thus, TODs must demonstrate financial sustainability and productivity.

Guided by financial goals, it becomes easy for TOD projects to cater towards the needs of middle and upper income communities who have larger sources of disposable income. Transit policies that support real estate and commercial growth are most attractive to private investors and the free market. These plans are prioritized at the expense of social programs that support daily living. For example, in a California transportation justice case (“Labor/Community Strategy Center. Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority), two activist groups, the Bus Riders Union and Legal Defense Fund were able to show that 71% of MTA’s budget was being spent on only 6% of riders who were predominantly white (Reft 2015). In this case, 94% of transit riders utilized the bus system and consisted mainly of lower SES, transit dependents, and individuals with disabilities. Whereas the majority of the MTA budget was spent on the rail transit system used predominantly by the middle and upper class white population. Bus systems were overcrowded and overburdened, with average commute times ranging from two to three hours. Similar transit spending patterns exist in other cities like Chicago, US (Farmer 2011) and Sao Paulo, Brazil (Borchers and Figueirôa-Ferreira 2022).

Unfeasibility is another critique of urbanization guided by neoliberal ideology. Under a neoliberal urban framework, the expectation for self-sufficiency and high productivity is unsustainable. As opposed to all individuals succeeding together as a society, an individual succeeds at the enormous expense of others. Similarly, a transportation system that seeks to be independently self-sustainable must rely on large capital investments (often in the form of government grants) and unrealistically high ridership rates or high fares in order to begin and maintain operation. Pragmatically, high ridership rates are initially unrealistic and high fares excludes the transit-dependent community. Neoliberal ideology contradicts the social values of a social program such as public transportation, which is to be a resource connector for all members of a community.

Ideally, public transportation needs to function collaboratively with its community in order to be both viable and useful. The Hong Kong TOD, which is famous for its Rail plus Property Model (R+P Model), is ranked the second most successful TOD in the world (The World Bank 2019). In this model, housing and transportation operates under one bureau which allow for seamless integration of housing and transportation systems. Rental and land sale profits fund new transit developments while fares cover daily operating costs. The Hong Kong Mass Transit Railway (MTR), which is a privately owned transportation system, pays its full share of government taxes while being able to offer cheap fares. Today, the Hong Kong TOD is one of the densest in the world, supporting 11 million trips a day for the 90% of its population. Unlike many global public transportation systems, the Hong Kong TOD is fully self-sustainable and does not rely on government taxes and subsidiaries. It is important to note, however, that as neoliberal urbanization invades Hong Kong society, it too is at risk for neglecting its poorest residents. However, that discussion warrants a separate discussion and will not be discussed here.

Undoubtedly, the TOD concept is important for addressing the global crisis of an ever growing population with finite resources amidst increasing environmental destruction. However, implementation requires awareness of the neoliberal influence in everyday transit policy and decision-making. Everyone, including transit dependents and those who cannot afford transit at all, need to be involved in the transit planning process from the very beginning.

Maryland purple line

LRT has increasingly been the transit mode of choice for TOD projects in urban areas in the US (Tehrani et al. 2019, Knowles et al. 2020). As opposed to heavy rail systems, LRT systems feature smaller cars carrying lighter loads more quickly along fixed track corridors. LRTs run primarily on an electrical grid system with traffic signal priority. LRT systems have greater utility in dense metropolitan areas (Cervero 2004).

The Maryland Purple Line Light Rail Train (Purple LRT) is a forthcoming LRT system in the Washington DC metro area that is currently in its construction phase. The 16.2-mile-long Purple LRT will connect New Carrollton in Prince George’s County, Maryland to Bethesda in Montgomery County, Maryland (see Figure 1; Maryland Department of Transportation n.d.). As such, the Purple LRT will connect two counties and connect three major Washington, DC Metro Train lines. The $3.44 billion (Shaver 2022) ‘LRT project is the largest public-private infrastructure project in the nation … When complete, the 21-stop rail line will carry an estimated 41,000 passengers a day and generate more than 50,000 new jobs’ (Cox 2017, p. 1).

Figure 1. The Purple Line will connect 3 heavy rail train lines and run across two counties in Maryland, USA.

The history of the planning and development of the Purple LRT began in the 1980’s and has been lengthy and fraught with numerous political setbacks (Peck 2020). Engineering studies, environmental studies, and 5 in-depth Prince George’s County TOD studies were conducted. Following traditional guidelines for TOD ‘best practice’, the Purple LRT transit stations plans to:

1. emphasize mixed-use development ¼ to ⅛ of a mile radius from the LRT station;

2. establish complete streets to accommodate pedestrians, cyclists, motorists, and transit users; and

3. establish open spaces to foster a range of activities and community gathering (Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission [MNCPPC] 2013).

At each of the locations, feedback from stakeholders’ meetings resulted in recommendations for station design and amenities. Although construction officially began in August 2017 (Cox 2017), a contract disagreement over costs, then exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, halted progress in September of 2020 (Adhikusuma 2020). Finally in January of 2022, a Maryland Board (consisting of the governor, treasurer and comptroller) approved a new construction contractor to complete the delayed Purple LRT with a new slated completion date for Fall 2026 (Shaver 2022).

Public transportation in the DC metro area is primarily serviced by the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA). The WMATA Metro rail system, which utilizes the classic web like pattern, transports commuters between the Washington DC city center from neighboring Northern Virginia and Maryland areas. Metro fares are distance based. Bus lines and rideshares are currently the primary options for commuting between urban areas located outside of the DC metro city center. Four major bike trails totaling 69 miles form a ring that connects Maryland to the DC metro center (Xie and Wang 2018). The MARC line is a heavy rail line that connects Baltimore to the DC Metro area. In 2019, approximately 58% of DC metro residents used driving as their only means of transportation (Ramfos 2020). Although these numbers increased with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, numbers are projected to decrease once the pandemic period ends (Ramfos 2020).

Prince George’s (PG) County, a neighboring county to Washington, DC, is connected by public transportation through three DC Metro train lines (U.S. Census Bureau 2019a). The population size is approximately 900,000 residents (last use estimate 2019) with an average annual household income of $81,969 and a poverty rate of 8.3%. The Black community makes up 64.4% of the population, followed by Hispanic/Latino (19.1%), and White (12.3%) (U.S. Census Bureau 2019a). Approximately 86.3% of PG County residents are US citizens (National average 93.4%) with 28.9% of the households speaking a non-English language as their primary language (DataUSA 2022b). As such, this county’s unique demographic makeup is an important community for urban planners to examine. Lack of government trust, a sense of insecurity, discrimination amongst many other reasons have made communities of color a notoriously difficult population to study (Scharff et al. 2010). Hosting a growing immigrant population (22.7% foreign-born residents) (DataUSA 2022b), careful planning is needed to ensure that the transit system sufficiently supports the health and well-being of all members of the PG County community.

Montgomery County is adjacent to both Prince George’s County and Washington, DC. It has a population size of approximately one million residents (last estimate in 2019) with an average annual household income of $106,287 and poverty rate of 6.9% (DataUSA 2022a). The white community makes up 42.9% of the population, followed by the Black community (20.1%), Hispanic (20.1%), and Asians (15.6%). Montgomery County is connected by one train line to Washington, DC (U.S. Census Bureau 2019b). A majority of Montgomery County residents drive to work with average car ownership of 2 per household (DataUSA 2022a). The completed Purple LRT will have 11 and 10 stops in Prince George’s and Montgomery Counties, respectively (Maryland Department of Transporation n.d.).

Purple line impact on neighborhood, transit and health study

The Purple Line Impact on Neighborhood, Health, and Transit (PLIGHT) Study is a longitudinal study examining the pre- and post-impacts of the forthcoming Purple LRT (Roberts et al. 2018). The natural experiment began collecting pre-impact data in 2018 and is currently projected to continue with data collection until several years post Purple LRT operation. Overall, the study collects data related to the commuting patterns, physical activity, and experiences of local TOD communities through focus groups, transit stop interviews, questionnaires, and neighborhood audits. This article reflects the qualitative data collected from the PLIGHT Study as it gathers the perspectives of the local community during the Purple LRT construction phase.

Methodology

One aim of the PLIGHT Study transit interviews seeks to capture the voices of the local communities during LRT development. This study gauges transit user’s perspectives on the forthcoming Purple LRT and the perceived neighborhood impact. Trained research assistants conducted semi-structured interviews (n = 75) onsite at three major transit stations within Prince George’s County, Maryland (Langley Transit Center College Park Metro, New Carrollton Transit Center). Interviews were recorded and conducted in English lasting 3–10 minutes. Research participants were actively recruited on transit station platforms as they awaited connecting transit. Interviews were collected over eight days between December 2018 and February 2020. Unfortunately, transit interview collection was halted prematurely due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Verbal consent was obtained after the research study purpose was provided. Of the 75 interviews collected, 63 interviews were analyzed due to recording quality, selection criteria (18+ years, English fluency, Prince George’s County residence), and interview quality. (See Table 1. Interviewee Demographics). A grounded theory analysis (Chun Tie et al. 2019) was conducted using NVIVO Software. Eight themes emerged. Themes were reviewed and discussed with the second author for congruency with literature and the second author’s expert experience. IRB approval was granted by the University of Maryland.

Table 1. Interviewee demographics.

Country of Origin	Race	Ethnicity	Age Range	Gender
Mexico (n = 2)	American Indian/Alaska Native (n = 0)	Hispanic/Latino (n = 12)	18-24 (n = 14)	Male (n = 39)
Congo (n = 1)	Asian (n = 5)	Not Hispanic or Latino (n = 53)	25-34 (n = 13)	Female (n = 34)
West Africa (n = 1)	Black or African American (n = 39)	Unknown (n = 12)	35-44 (n = 8)	Unknown (n = 4)
Ireland (n = 1)	Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (n = 1)		45-54 (n = 14)
West Indies (n = 1)	White (n = 8)		55-64 (n = 9)
India (n = 2)	Bi-Racial (n = 1)		65-75 (n = 7)
Nicaragua (n = 1)	Multi-Racial (n = 1)		75+ (n = 1)
German (n = 1)			Unknown (n = 7)

Not all interviewees disclosed their race or ethnicity. A number of interviewees identified origins from El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras. However, we were not able to use their data due to limited English proficiency. What is shown on the table is available data that interviewees were comfortable disclosing.

Results

Thematic analysis of 63 transit interviews surfaced eight themes (See Table 2): (1) Neighborhood Sense; (2) Benefits for Outsiders; (3) Transit Benefits and Barriers; (4) Neighborhood & Transit Crime; (5) Local Businesses; (6) Environmental Impact; (7) Government Communication; and (8) Voices of the Marginalized Community. These themes along with their descriptions are illustrated with verbatim quotes (VQ) and labeled by race/ethnicity and gender. All results are detailed in Tables 2–10. A few key results are highlighted in this section

Table 2. Thematic clusters.

Theme	Descriptive Summary
Neighborhood Sense	Neighborhood sense describes the elements in a place that local residents associate an identity with. A strong neighborhood sense supports a “sense of community” and community health as it is vital for community resiliency, collective empowerment, citizen participation and access to ethnic resources (Perkins and Long 2002). The design of a transportation system, which is a vital part of everyday life, can support or hinder community life. The local neighborhood described themselves as a hispanic immigrant community. They worried about losing their neighborhood identity as familiar ethnic businesses are replaced with large commercial chains that cater towards a different clientele.
Benefit for Outsiders	The local community where the forthcoming Purple LRT resides identified that the new train line will benefit “outsiders” more than them. Although they looked forward to the coming of the new train line, they recognized that it will not impact their daily commute patterns. Rather, the Purple LRT route will connect destinations that are more relevant for “outsiders”. Specifically those commuting from Washington DC or the Bethesda area. In addition, it will provide outsiders with opportunities for more affordable living while raising their own rent
Perceived Transit Benefits & Barriers	Transit users held different perceptions about the benefits of the forthcoming Purple LRT and whether they would be able to access them. Some transit users looked forward to easier access to the heavy rail rapid transit, work and work opportunities, a more direct transit route, and decreased local traffic congestion. By eliminating the need to enter the “the loop”, users anticipate that the LRT will minimize bus transfers, reduce missed transit connections, shorten travel time, avoid bus use altogether and ease Metro access. However, these same interviewees reported no impact to their personal daily commutes as they seldomly traveled into the “metro loop”. Others discussed worrying about increased local traffic congestion and more expensive transit fares. In addition, many transit users expressed frustration as the new Purple LRT route will not reduce the number of transit transfers required to reach a destination.
Neighborhood & Transit Crime	The local community is acutely aware of the crime in their local neighborhood and aboard their current modes of transit. Transit users are bothered by the amount of crime that exists in the local communities and onboard transit vehicles. The severity of crime identified broadly ranges from homicide to public indecency. Some transit users hope that new transit infrastructure investment will reduce crime in the transit vehicles and in the surrounding area. Others worry that the new LRT will make it easier for crime to spread to previously safe neighborhoods.
Perceived Impact on Local Businesses	Opinions related to the impact on local businesses are mixed. All transit users felt that local businesses will be impacted by the opening of the Purple LRT. Some recognized that revitalization projects to improve neighborhood aestheticssuch as sidewalk and storefront beautification, encourages greater business diversity, service diversity, and pedestrian traffic to frequent local businesses. However others recognized that this same revitalization can increase operation costs and uproot existing family owned and ethnic businesses in the area.
Environmental Impact	Local transit users identified current and future environmental impacts of the Purple LRT The impacts identified ranged from noise pollution to destruction of trees and greenery. Some users felt sad as current construction resulted in trees being torn down
Communication	Communication about the forthcoming Purple LRT to communities representing the three transit centers was poor. Although 66% (n = 42) heard of the Purple LRT, only 11% (n = 7) had correct knowledge. Many participants erroneously thought the Purple LRT was an underground metro line. The Hispanic community even named the LRT line the “Morado Metro”. Numerous excited transit users expressed disappointment when they learned about the LRT route as it will not service needed destinations. The MDTA made efforts to communicate plans with the local community through community forums, a Purple LRT Website, signage at transit stations, Purple LRT informants at transit stations and news reports. Yet, the local transit communities were still poorly informed.
Voices of the Marginalized Community	Despite a concerted effort to obtain transit interviews from the immigrant community, most refused interviews when approached. Most refusals occurred at the bus ramps. Whereas, interviews were easily obtained on metro platforms at the same transit centers. This suggests that bus transit users and metro transit users represent two different social groups. Although benefits exist for the transit community, it is questionable whether the marginalized and most vulnerable members will benefit from the forthcoming LRT.

Thematic analysis of 63 transit interviews surfaced eight themes.

Table 3. Theme 1: neighborhood sense.

	Quote #	Verbal Quote				Demographic
A	Hispanic Identity - A large number of transit users at one transit station felt the local neighborhood was a hispanic community
	VQ 1	“A lot of, like, immigrants come and that place, they’ve made it their homes. Because if you go to Langley Park there’s so many Hispanics there”				Black, F
	VQ 3	“ … the Hispanics made their homes here”				Hispanic, M
B	Impact to Neighborhood Sense - Overall there were mixed reactions about the neighborhood impact of the forthcoming Purple LRT. Concerns were felt about losing familiar places and their neighborhood sense.
	VQ 5	“It’s gonna bring a lot of white people … I don’t like white people”				Black, F
	VQ 6	“It’s (influx of white people) probably gonna mess up Langley Park a little bit”				Black, M
	VQ 7	“wipe out that (points to an ethic Hispanic supermarket). The people that live there and try to modernize it”.				Black, F
	VQ 8	“they took away a good restaurant … So it’s really changing the things, the services that are here … a lot of these stores around here, are gonna be shut down, ‘cause it, ‘cause of this (gestures to the bus station and light rail construction) … .it already is (affecting businesses) and it (light rail station) isn’t even built yet”				White, M
	VQ 9	“cause with Langley Park I think they’re gonna probably will wipe out that [points to an hispanic supermarket] … Like they’ve done with a lot of neighborhoods in DC … . I think that’s bad … immigrants come and that place, they’ve made it their homes”				Black, F
	VQ 10	“I just seen houses had to be like, broken down so that the train could go through those, so I feel like maybe it might be noisy for the people in that area, I don’t know how they’re gonna have to adjust to it”.				Hispanic, M
	VQ 11	“Where it’s gonna run is some people are going to kind of have to evacuate their homes”				Black, F
C	Change to neighborhood - The majority of interviewees expected changes to the demographic makeup and overall identity of their neighborhood. Local communities looked forward to a more diverse and aestheticallyimproved neighborhood even though rental prices would increase. Some expected increasing diversity
	VQ 4	“It’ll probably bring a lot more people, different races, uh, ‘cause right now it’s just, it’s like a Hispanic place community, but uh, the more people the better”.				Black, M
	VQ 13	“Yeah, I’m looking forward to it … Well, I’m just saying, it’s going to be convenience for the neighborhood. Even though it’s going to raise the price of the rent, then everything then. But, uh, I think it’s convenience”				Hispanic, M
	VQ 14	“It’s going to raise the, the rent, uh, price of the apartment houses and everything. But it’s progress, you know?”				Hispanic, M
	VQ 15	“It’s (Purple LRT) not for me … It’s public good”.				Asian, M
	VQ 17	“Then put tax so that everybody can have, uh, metro train, um, bus, I don’t care to pay. It is for, it is for growth, everybody”				Black, M

Table 4. Theme 2: benefits for outsiders.

	Quote #	Verbal Quote	Demographic
A	No Impact on Commute - The new train line will not connect the local community to relevant destinations. Therefore, there will be no changes to their current commute patterns.
	VQ 19	“Well, I live around here [points to a neighborhood in Prince George’s County on map] … I don’t, I don’t, think it will affect me, because it doesn’t go through where I live”	Asian, M
	VQ 20	“Um, not really nothing’, [no benefit from purple line] ‘cause I don’t normally go to Montgomery County, but it’ll give me the option of ridin’ the train out there”	Asian, M
	VQ 21	“So, I don’t usually come that way. So, the, you know, I’m sure when I will need it it’ll be good to know that it’s there”	Black, M
	VQ 24	“I take a lot of buses. I live here in … Langley Park”.	Hispanic, M
	VQ 25	“A lot of these places that’s in between have other subway stations and buses that go through there. In Laurel, they have two buses, and they don’t run on the weekend. And so, you’re, like, stuck. I … I think it’s a waste of time. I-I thought the purple line was something totally different and so, now that I’m seeing, I really don’t really see the necessity of them having it. I think that’s a lot … a waste of time and then that’s probably going to make the-the fares go up higher”	Black, F
B	Improved Opportunities for Outsiders - Local transit users recognized that the new Purple LRT will have more benefits for “outsiders” than their own community members by providing easier access to work opportunities and sources of affordable housing.
	VQ 22	“Like, where you would move cause it’s really expensive in D.C., it could get up to like $1000, $2000 for like just a studio … or like rental. So, having more options, like on the Metro line, that’s like maybe a bit farther … But yeah, at least have the choice to like be able to commute in”	Black, F
	VQ 23	“I don’t think it really is going to affect my way to travel … It’s going to help, like, people that, that work from … to Bethesda from here, it’s going to make them easier to get there, and faster”.	Hispanic, F
	VQ 16	“Rich people benefit. But poor people cannot ride bus free. That’s not fair”	Black, M

Interviewees identified those who work in Washington DC or Bethesda MD as primary beneficiaries of the new system. According to one interviewee, the new LRT will provide access to cheaper housing so white people working in Washington, DC will move into their neighborhoods resulting in elevated rental rates. Local businesses will change to cater towards the new population.

Table 5. Theme 3: perceived transit benefits and barriers.

	Quote #	Verbal Quote				Demographic
A	PERCEIVED BARRIER: Fare Costs - LRT fares will be too expensive. The community will seek cheaper travel alternatives. Bus users report they will not be able to use the LRT if fares are the same as the Metro
	VQ 26	“Because it’s cheaper taking the buses”				Black, F
	VQ 27	“I calculated the costs and it’s much cheaper taking the buses”				Black, F
	VQ 28	“Yeah so, maybe if they would return it back to the regular fare, more people would ride?”				Black, M
B	PERCEIVED BARRIER: Multiple transfers still required - Users anticipate a more direct commute by eliminating the need to enter “the loop”. However, these same interviewees reported no impact to their personal daily commutes as they seldomly traveled into the “metro loop”. Transit users still need to make multiple transfers and rely on alternative modes of transportation.
	VQ 29	“I used to work in Greenbelt, and it used to be really hard for me to get there with the metro. The only way I used to go there is to use Uber or Lyft”.				Black, M
	VQ 30	“I don’t mind waiting on a bus. It’s just that I gotta get on a bus, then I gotta get on a train, and then I gotta get on another bus. It’s like I gotta get on Uber if I want to save time, but if I just get on one bus in my area, get on Purple Line and end up right here, there ain’t going to be no point”				Black, M
	VQ 31	“It’s about the same for me, like I said, sometimes I can’t even trust the bus I’ve gotta take an Uber to Fort Totten and then head wherever I’m going”				Black, M
C	PERCEIVED BENEFIT – Easier access to work and work opportunities
	VQ 18	“You just get your little quiet place (on the train) and what you, where you need to go to. But it’s more expensive”.				Black, F
	VQ 32	“Oh, it’s gonna be good because a lot of us work in Silver Spring”.				Black, M
	VQ 33	“More people will probably go out there to work. Jobs … ”				Hispanic, F
D	PERCEIVED BENEFIT – Better access to more destinations - The community will have more access to more destinations.
	VQ 35	“Well, um, um, for me is good because uh I no driving. Uh, I take a, sometimes I go to New Carrollton. I take a lot of buses”.				Hispanic, M
	VQ 36	“Instead of staying confined in … out here, I can, like, ride the train out there … you know, see what they have out there”.				Hispanic, F
	VQ 37	“I’m excited, because like I said, it’ll take me out of this area, like- … instead of havin’ to ride, change over to the Red Line into Montgomery County. And plus, like I said, I’m disabled, so it’ll give me more opportunity to get out of the area”.				Hispanic, F
	VQ 40	“Yeah, I’m looking forward to it … Well, I’m just saying, it’s going to be convenience for the neighborhood. Even though it’s going to raise the price of the rent, then everything then. But, uh, I think it’s convenience”				Hispanic, M
E	PERCEIVED BENEFIT – Improvements in traffic congestion in the local area
	VQ 38	“There is so much traffic, it will take you probably about 50 [minutes]. You will end up getting late basically. The reason why I think the trains would actually help with this is because, like I said before, a lot of people here prefer to take the train so I think you will get a lot less cars”.				Black, M
	VQ 39	“Maybe the traffic’s gonna be better when the [light rail] working because now too many buses outside and the University Boulevard of Silver Spring, uh, but I think it’s a good idea”.				Hispanic, M
F	PERCEIVED BARRIERS – Worsening traffic congestion creating more delays and incidents for the local community.
	VQ 41	“I’m pretty sure it will [increase traffic] if they’re adding that extra line. I’m sure, uh, it’ll be probably more traffic, more delays on the train. Hm, more incidents”.				Black, F
	VQ 42	“ … because it’s not here yet and it’s already have a lot of traffic. So, just imagine when it’s here … .it may be convenient for some, but then like people who commute will really have to give themselves time, leave earlier, or maybe go to work earlier to get the job done and leave earlier to get back and get away from that traffic”.				Black, F

Table 6. Theme 4: neighborhood and transit crime.

Quote #	Verbal Quote	Demographic
VQ 44	“The whole area just made me feel uncomfortable. People on the road. I can’t imagine someone, like a single lady walking across those roads at night”.	Black, F
VQ 45	“Did you see on the news how the-the-the boy got stabbed in his neck? A fifteen-year-old, stabbed in his neck by a fourteen-year-old girl. In D.C. … like, you can’t say anything to these kids and stuff because they-they are trying to fight you and stuff” (Transit user who describes her discomfort with riding with students on the metro line)	Black, F
VQ 46	“You know those drunk people always talking on the buses, and that’s really annoying. And, um, there’s always arguments and fights. “	Black, M
VQ 47	“It’s a lot of violence on the trains now. So, you gotta be really careful … .I don’t like it because it’s kinda scary”.	Black, F
VQ 48	“This is the killing grounds, it’s been that for years. And, there’s gonna be a lot, lot of people getting robbed on that, on that, on the purple line and … I’m just waiting to see it”.	White, M
VQ 49	“You really don’t see the-the metro transit police. So, I think it’s kinda … it’s kinda dangerous, but I don’t drive, so I have no choice but to catch the train”.	Black, F

Some transit users anticipate improvements in crime rates with public investments while others anticipate increased crime rates in areas with historically low rates as the Purple LRT will increase ease of travel for crime.

Table 7. Theme 5: perceived impact on local businesses.

Quote #	Verbal Quote	Demographic
VQ 52	“It’s good for the area. Infrastructure’s good. I mean, every time you build something … Like PG Plaza was dying … they put in the Metro and it’s revitalized”.	White, M
VQ 53	“Because the most people using during the day this area, but not in the night … the stores open late, even using the transportation for the metro. uh … so it will be good for the businesses”	Hispanic, M

Opinions related to the impact on local businesses are mixed. Revitalization projects to improve neighborhood aesthetics encourages greater business diversity, service diversity, and pedestrian traffic. As crime reduces, local businesses would operate longer hours. However, family owned and ethnic businesses may get pushed out by bigger companies.

Table 8. Theme 6: environmental impact.

Quote #	Verbal Quote	Demographic
VQ56	“Yeah. Good ‘cause like it’ll [light rail] help people get where they need to get faster. But bad ‘cause it’s like kind of hard on the environment with the cutting down the trees and like building all the things that they’re doing”.	Black, M
VQ 57	“ … there’s an apartment complex out there too, and they’re like … You hear all the noise and stuff”	Bi-racial, F
VQ 58	“I feel like maybe it might be noisy for the people in that area [LRT vicinity], I don’t know how they’re gonna have to adjust to it”.	Black, M

Individuals expressed sadness about the loss of trees and noise pollution.

Table 9. Theme 7: communication.

Quote #	Verbal Quote	Demographic
VQ 59	“Morado Metro” (translation: “Purple Metro”	Hispanic, M
VQ 60	“I thought the purple line was something totally different and so, now that I’m seeing, I really don’t really see the necessity of them having it. I think that’s a lot … a waste of time and then that’s probably going to make the-the fares go up higher”	Black, F

Communication about the forthcoming Purple LRT to communities representing the three transit centers was poor. Most interviewees had erroneous knowledge about the Purple LRT.

Table 10. Theme 8: voices of the marginalized community.

Quote #	Verbal Quote	Demographic
VQ 61	“There’s a need. They (the Hispanic community/non-English speaking) want to say something … . Most people that live here is only from Guatemala. El Salvador”	Hispanic, M

Neighborhood sense

A challenge to the neighborhood sense was a particularly strong theme that emerged from the transit interviews. While some welcome increased diversity and accompanying amenities, others felt uneasy about the infiltration of white people in their neighborhood. Concerns were felt about the prospective loss of familiar businesses, their neighborhood identity, and disruption of the local way of life.

End users needs

Transit needs of end users are not met with the Purple LRT. The Purple LRT will not connect to needed destinations or fares will be too expensive (See VQ 27). Current users still need to rely on multiple modes of transit to reach destinations. In fact, the local community realized the Purple LRT would benefit ‘outsiders’ more than their community (See VQ 22, 23).

Communication

Although the MDTA made efforts to communicate with the local community, strategies utilized were ineffective. These include community forums, a dedicated Purple LRT Website, media notifications, mail invitations to property owners, signage at transit stations, Purple LRT informants at transit stations and news reports (MNCPPC 2013). More importantly, none of the strategies utilized by the MDTA directly engaged the end-user community in key decision-making processes.

Bus users vs rail users

Our findings show that metro train and bus users represent different social classes. Transit benefits and burdens are distributed differently amongst the different social classes in the Purple LRT community. While metro users interviewed looked forward to the convenience offered by the new train line, bus users typically could only look forward to the improvements in neighborhood aesthetics as they anticipate not being able to afford light rail fares. For metro users, the Purple LRT offered an additional convenience. Numerous metro users discussed using the metro as an alternative to driving and finding parking in the DC metro area, especially for leisure trips. The majority of bus users were bus dependent and did not distinguish between leisure and work trips. They were not vehicle owners and utilized the bus system for every aspect of life. Transit interviews were difficult to obtain at bus stations due to refusals while metro users talked with much enthusiasm about the perceived benefits of the new Purple LRT. Metro users talked about the comfort, privacy, and convenience of trains over buses (See VQ 18) illustrating the privileged nature of train access.

Missing voices

It is important to acknowledge the missing voices from this study. Prince George’s County is unique in that it houses a large Black (>60%) and Hispanic (19%) community that are both difficult to access due to a long history of discriminatory and racist government policies in the US. Our data collection process reflected this distrust as we received numerous refusals for each successful interview collected, especially at bus platforms. On one data collection occasion, there were no successful bus user interviews collected, despite several successful rail user interview collections at the same transit station.

According to Vanoutrive and Copper, ‘the accessibility poor often rely on bus transportation use while the accessibility affluent make use of other transportation modes such as road and rail’ (2019, p. 118). The injustice, as Vanoutrive and Cooper (2019) argues, is that both transportation planners and transportation literature fails to account for this social class distinction between bus users and rail users. Both users are collectively called ‘public transit users’ and treated the same in research and transit development. As a result, financial supplementation is often inequitably distributed in favor of rail systems as urban planners look to develop long-term transportation infrastructure through financially promising avenues.

Guided by the oversight that exists in transport literature, our initial research design also did not distinguish social classes as our interview questions did not differentiate bus users and rail users. However, this awareness began to emerge during the interview collection process as we noticed response differences in bus and metro interviews. As a result, our study placed more effort in collecting interviews at bus stations in addition to training Spanish interviewers for data collection. Unfortunately, the COVID-19 epidemic prematurely halted our data collection phase before we were able to implement Spanish interviews. The voices of marginalized Spanish speakers is missing from our results. This group represents the bus-dependent community who often experience transport injustice as they are often overlooked by developers.

Overall, members of the Purple LRT community positively anticipate the opening of the new train line. Many welcome the prospect of cleaner and safer communities that are more pleasant to walk through while at the same time express worry over the loss of familiar business and communities. This juxtaposition of opposing feelings from within the same community highlights their everyday human struggles. Benefits of transit infrastructure development are not shared equally amongst all members of the community. Especially powerful social justice testimonies are narratives from transit users that look forward to these neighborhood improvements while they anticipate not being able to afford light rail fares. These individuals, at best, hope to passively benefit from Purple LRT infrastructure investment.

Discussion

The Purple LRT Corridor currently under construction sits 12 miles north of the renowned Rosslyn-Ballston TOD on the other side of Washington, DC. This TOD, although wrought with political and financial setbacks, will become an important back bone connecting two Maryland counties spurring revitalization in many economically challenged neighborhoods, especially in Prince George’s County, Maryland. Planning for the Purple LRT was conducted with great care and underwent many revisions over a significant amount of time. Purple LRT developers and planners mindfully followed TOD best practice guidelines and set specific strategies to obtain stakeholder feedback. Despite careful planning, the results of our study show that it will propagate problems related to TOD idealism. The Purple LRT fails to account for the socioeconomic differences between bus and rail users creating a system that does not meet end-user’s needs, especially those who need its services the most. The Purple LRT, impacted by neoliberal urbanism ideology, prioritizes the needs of the transit system ultimately contributing to worsening health disparities and social inequities amongst the local community.

End user needs

Under the guidance of transportation justice critics (Vanoutrive and Cooper 2019, Karner et al. 2020, Wood 2021), two areas of deficits in Purple LRT planning emerges. First is that the low income and most vulnerable community was not identified and therefore unheard from during TOD planning. The lives of the transit-dependent community, represented by bus users, is the most impacted by Purple LRT development. During the planning process, stakeholder outreach primarily targeted property owners and business owners. The transit-dependent community, however, are more likely renters than property owners. Flyer distribution and media outreach was implemented to local news stations but did not tap avenues most utilized and trusted by this community. Outreach to this community must be tailored to the community’s trusted media preferences (Torres et al. 2016). Ideally, earned media is a better form of outreach as compared to paid media (Torres et al. 2016) when reaching out to this particular community. As Wood (2021) states, TOD development needs to take into consideration the everyday micro transactions that occur, not just macro transactions of broad-scale transit infrastructure development.

The second area of deficit pertains to how the general transit community was engaged during key transportation planning phases. Despite Purple Line Corridor Coalition (2019) efforts, some users are already experiencing rental price increases even before the train line begins operation. Although the PLCC was created to protect the interests of the most vulnerable urban residents, the coalition did not form till 2013, which is 4 years after official LRT planning began and after the Purple TOD studies were completed. Successful TOD design must include the local community in key decision-making processes at inception (Padeiro et al. 2019, Karner et al. 2020). Events like community forums and public hearings that seek the perspective of the community after key decisions have already been made are ineffective. The PLCC’s recommendations on strategies to preserve existing affordable housing, protect existing tenants, and encourage affordable housing in TODs are important for reducing health inequities. However, these recommendations are responding to decisions already made. Future local stakeholder involvement should be proactive and collaborative rather than defensive and reparative during TOD planning.

Socioeconomic groups

An important contribution of this study to future TOD research is the recognition of two distinct transit groups, bus users versus rail users. As already discussed, these two commuter groups represent two distinct socioeconomic groups, each with their own commuter personalities, needs, and limitations. TOD planning and research, therefore, needs to distinguish and address the needs of each of these groups separately. Overgeneralizing all commuters as one single commuter community contributes to transport injustice and health disparities, especially amongst the transit dependent and low-income earners.

Rail users, who represent middle to upper income groups, have more flexibility for accessing not only transport destinations, but also the resources at those destinations. This community is able to afford the fastest and most efficient forms of transportation (i.e. rideshares, private vehicles, metro) to fulfill daily tasks. This community has more time, space, and energy for health promoting, social, and leisure activities. Indeed, rail users in our study indicated that metro use occurred mostly on weekends or evenings for leisure trips into the metro dc area in order to avoid the hassle of searching for parking. The rail system, designed exactly for this function, is accompanied by a large parking structure at each station. Additionally, rail users are less likely impacted by transit burdens such as air pollution, crime, and accidents. Rail stations in the metro DC area are cleaner and more aesthetically pleasing than bus stations. They are a testament to the neoliberal influences on transit planning. Considering that urban planners and transit developers are more likely to be rail users, TOD planning invariably caters to the needs of the rail user community.

The bus user and transit-dependent community represents the lower to middle lower income groups. As they are less able to afford efficient modes of transportation, long commute times result in less completed tasks per day. Access to resources is reduced as it becomes more difficult to reach destinations where they are located. With little disposable income and time, this community must choose between securing financial stability, career development, and managing health. As the Purple LRT resides in a society structured by neoliberal capitalistic values, more often than not, securing financial stability is prioritized over other activities like family life and health management. Limited family time weakens social relationships which traditionally buffered against the consequences of poverty. In this context, the impact of health resources, such as health centers and fitness centers, is nominal. Without access to reliable and efficient transportation, bus users face additional hurdles in being able to improve their own socioeconomic status and quality of life (Chetty et al. 2014).

Housing and transit are intimately tied. In US market driven context, desirability drives investment. Thus, more aesthetically pleasing housing choices that are located within 15 min walk from a rail station are more expensive. Affordable housing choices are typically further requiring an additional bus or bike trip to access faster and more efficient modes of transportation. It is important to recognize that these extra trips are not additional opportunities for health promoting physical activity. Rather, they are forms of deleterious burdens on already tired bodies. Long daily commutes are exhausting, especially when they involve multiple transfers. Under these conditions, it is understandable why this community is so difficult to access for research. However, new research examining the impacts of perceived TIG among the residents of Purple Line LRT community is underway. Specifically, the GENTS (Gauging Effects of Neighborhood Trends and Sickness: Examining the Perceptions of Transit-Induced Gentrification in Prince George’s County) will evaluate the association of perceived TIG with anxiety, cardiovascular disease risk, walkability, and crime (Roberts et al. 2020).

Neoliberal urbanization

Creating TODs that promote health equity and transportation justice require transit planners to account for the influences of neoliberal urbanization. Neoliberalistic values that overemphasize self-sufficiency and productivity prioritize land value increases and commercial revenue generation. Although important, prioritizing these goals over community social needs creates a system that burdens, rather than supports a community. In other words, the community must support the transit system (i.e., high fares or government subsidiaries), rather than a transit system supporting the urban community. At this time, our study results suggest that the Purple LRT does not support the local community. Current transit users were disappointed with the Purple LRT route and many users recognized the Purple LRT will benefit outsiders more than the local community. Bound by the influences of neoliberal urbanization, the Purple LRT system is being built with the expectation that users will change their lives to fit the needs of the new transit system. Unfortunately, neoliberal ideology infiltrates every aspect of every community and is accepted with little challenge.

It’s going to raise the, the rent, uh, price of the apartment houses and everything. But it’s progress, you know?

(Hispanic, M).

Social progress is measured by cost of living and the ability to afford more life commodities. This perspective ignores the neoliberal capitalistic context that sets consumer pricing based on supply and demand, self-sufficiency, and productivity. In contrast, a social justice perspective for social progress is measured by the proportion of a community who is able to achieve all life potentials unhindered by socially created barriers. Transportation infrastructure, therefore, should provide unhindered access to all life opportunities to all members of a community. Transportation elements (i.e. fares, station platforms, and crowdedness) should not be a deterrent for public transit use. Public transit belongs to everyone.

TODs are social projects. Conceptually, their purpose is to become a backbone that supports a community’s everyday life function. Neoliberal urbanization, which opposes this purpose, has transformed this social resource into a business enterprise. TOD benefits, therefore, become inaccessible to those who cannot afford it. The incongruency in the theoretical underpinnings of transit services and neoliberal’s open market concept contribute to many TOD problems (i.e. transit-induced gentrification, transit burdens, revitalization failures, etc.). Nevertheless, the TOD concept continues to be important for addressing many urban problems that society faces today. Future TOD planning must address TOD idealism and minimize the impact of neoliberal urbanization. Transit planners must ask, ‘Whose needs are prioritized, the transit system itself or the transit community?’ (Martens 2017). Only then can a livable, sustainable and fully inclusive TOD exist, meeting the needs of the urban community.

Conclusion

As the world becomes increasingly urbanized, a reliable and community-based transportation system is critical to support equitable housing, sustainable living, urban health, and environmental health. Careful and conscientious transportation policy that recognizes the influences of neoliberal urbanism is required to address transportation poverty and a lack of accessibility. Transit development that prioritizes the needs of a transportation system does little to support any urban community. The qualitative results from this study urges transportation planning to move beyond logistics and algorithms in order to accurately capture the needs of the urban community. Bus users, who represent the transit poor, need to be separately and carefully incorporated from the start. Although the Purple Light Rail community positively anticipates neighborhood changes, they are highly susceptible to the impacts of transit-induced gentrification and transit injustice. In order to minimize the impact of TOD idealism, it is important to consider the repercussions of neoliberal urbanization so that communities do not become displaced by an inaccessible public transit system built in their own backyards.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

Dr. Roberts received funding through The JPB Environmental Health Fellowship Program

Notes on contributors

Shuling Wu

Shuling Wu is a PhD student working under the advisement of Dr Jennifer D. Roberts in the Public Health Outcomes and Effects of the Built Environment (PHOEBE) Laboratory at the University of Maryland. Wu seeks to identify how built environment infrastructures contribute to the physical manifestations of health. In her work examining public transit infrastructure, Wu highlights how the impact of transit design supports or hinders transit justice. Prior to her research work with Dr Roberts, Wu has worked clinically with marginalized communities both as an Occupational Therapist and an Acupuncturist. Wu offers a diverse and extensive background to enrich her perspective in her work within transportation justice.