The Proposed Community Owned/Run, Surtaxed Trolley Line –

Charles & St. Paul Sts.

 

Dear Members:

             Although we are on a meeting break for the summer, there are always on-going plans and projects that come through to Peabody Heights Alliance and some, as important as this Trolley Line plan, need to be disseminated to our members before our meetings resume in September. 

            Several years ago, when Baltimore was in the running to host the next Olympic Games, the idea of a tourist trolley line surfaced.  Baltimore lost its bid and the trolley idea went dormant only to resurface again.  On June 25th we attended at the BMA the second public meeting on the proposed trolley line.  We think that the best way to present this plan to our members is to provide the information as presented at that meeting and to list our comments/questions relating to each item.  This way you can form your own opinion as to the benefits of the proposed trolley line and to express to your elected officials and Greater Homewood Community Corporation which is representing us in this “community-led” project that has now begun a 2-year feasibility study with $800,000. approved by the Board of Estimates and additional funding from private sources.

            It is important to remember that this is not an additional commuter service but a “destination” line.

            We are attaching a copy of the flyer from the meeting.  The flyer shows the route of the trolley and the anticipated stops.  Unlike the MTA commuter buses which stop at each block, the trolley is a “destination” transport with only 1 to 3 stops in each neighborhood. 

            Also attached is a questionnaire also handed out at the meeting.  To express your thoughts on this plan, please complete it and return it to Kristin Speaker, Charles Street Development Corp., 100 N. Charles St., 22nd Fl, Baltimore, MD 21201.  Her phone number is: 410-649-2052/fax: 410-649-2110.                                                              

1.  Financing the project – A variety of funding sources is being considered, including funds from local government, TIF (tax increment financing), as well as from residents owning property along the route.  Federal funds are unlikely to be sought.

Question:  We were told Federal funding will not be sought in order not to drain funds from other MTA projects.  Is there also a benefit to not including Federal funding for the trolley line so as not to be subject to handicapped-accessible laws?  Will this so-called privatization also allow restrictions as to those using the trolley?

2.  A Special District tax – part of the sources of funding include an additional tax on those benefiting from the trolley line, people along the route. 

Question:  The trolley route travels through three special taxing districts in the City.  This will add a third tax (real estate tax, benefits district tax, trolley tax) on property owners or others along the route.  Won’t this have a negative impact on real estate values as the tax burden in the trolley corridor will be much greater than that of other neighborhoods in Baltimore City? 

Will this burden of a triple tax not serve to drive middle and lower income people from their homes along the trolley’s route? 

Will the new surtax be subject to a State law and a referendum by those to be taxed?

And, if there is a tax on businesses along the line as suggested it might be, will this not drive away businesses along the route that are struggling now? 

If ridership does not fulfill the anticipated revenues need to run the trolleys, will the surtax be increased?  What will be the mechanism for this?

3.  The community will own and govern the trolley line through a non-profit community board. 

Question:  This is similar to how the Charles Village Community Benefits District is run (although the CVCBD is a governmental agency and not a non-profit).  There has been little success from the community-led board of the CVCBD in providing simple supplemental cleaning and security services.  What will be the qualifications of the trolley board when few community people have any experience or expertise in running a transportation company?  How will the board be set up?  Will there be any input from the surtaxed community in choosing board members?  Or will the board members be appointed and by whom?  Where will the accountability be with a non-public, private non-profit running the trolley line which probably would not be subject to public scrutiny through the Open Meetings and Freedom of Information Acts?

What is the liability of the surtaxed pubic who will “own” the trolley line?  What if the line does not succeed?

4.  Purposes of the Trolley Line –

     A.  Tourism to the various institutions along the route;

     B.  A better connection from JHU to the Inner Harbor;

     C.  Economic Development;

     D.  Enhancement of Urban Livability

Question for “A”.  Tourism to the various institutions along the route.  How will tourists who are here for the Inner Harbor, the Aquarium, the Downtown Stadiums, Fells Point and Little Italy be convinced to visit universities and art museums just because of the availability of a trolley line?  Isn’t it unlikely that many tourists will, at best, go no further north than the Walters and the Basilica as has been seen over the years when special tour buses tried to bring tourists farther north with little success?

Question for “B”.  A better connection from JHU to the Inner Harbor. If this is one-fourth of the reason for the trolley line, why not have Johns Hopkins University pay for it?  Will the trolley allow JHU to save money when there will be no further need for the JHU buses? 

Question for “C”.  Economic Development.  Bill Struever of Struever Brothers was one of the speakers at the meeting and was described as playing a leadership role in getting funding for the trolley line study.  It was also announced that there are 50 acres of property along the neighborhoods along the trolley route that are ripe for development which will be greatly encouraged with developers seeing financial investments in a trolley line.  What is the criteria being used for describing areas as under-developed?

Where exactly are the 50 acres “ripe for development”?  Will eminent domain, through Urban Renewal Ordinances (URO’s) be used to take property for developers as we were concerned about several years ago when a segment of the community put a URO in a non-blighted neighborhood, telling the City that they represented the community?

How will the historic architecture of the buildings along the route be preserved or will the desire for more density result in demolition of these buildings for the density of high rises? 

Question for “D.”  Enhancement of Urban Livability.

Since this will not be a commuter line how will this enhance liability in the area?  At a time when burying utility lines is considered desirable, won’t the overhead trolley lines clutter the look of the historic architecture? 

On some streets parking at least one side may have to be eliminated.  Won’t that increase the demands for parking throughout the route and on surrounding blocks? 

Because a fixed track trolley line has an effect on impeding traffic, won’t the parallel streets outside the route face increases in traffic? 

Will there be an increase in pedestrian accidents due to the need for pedestrians to acclimate to various types of traffic, passenger vehicles, trucks and trolleys when crossing streets.  Will the streets with tracks be handi-capped accessible?

Won’t the trolley compete for space with bicycles and destroy any plans for bicycle paths along the route?

 How will delivery trucks, FedEx, UPS, postal trucks, etc. be accommodated when needing to park to make deliveries when at least certain areas of the route are extremely narrow (15 feet from curbstone to curbstone)?  What about stalled vehicles?  What about emergency vehicles such as fire trucks, police cars and ambulances?

Is there a noise factor to be considered since, in some areas, the trolley lines will be very close to the houses along the route?

We were told that the following steps are scheduled for this project:            

  • Field Surveys

  • Public Involvement – a Community Steering Committee to be set up with approx. 30 people representing the people along the route;

  • Traffic Engineering Estimate

  • Cost Estimate

  • Plan for Financing

  • Mapping of the utilities

  • Study of ridership from the universities

We will send this letter to both the Charles Street Development Corp., to Greater Homewood Community Corp. and to the Mayor and City Council Representatives along the line.  Maybe you have more concerns or questions.  Express them to your elected officials as well as to the various entities involved in the trolley project. 

We have provided the contact information for the Charles Street Development Corp. at the beginning of this letter.  The website is:

 http://www.charlesstreet.org/trolley

You can also contact trolley@charlesstreet.org and Karen Stokes, Executive Director of Greater Homewood Community Corporation at KStokes@greaterhomewood.org

 

Back