Mark Parker
Candidate for: City Council, 1st District
www.markparker.cc
Facebook | Instagram | Twitter
Describe your vision of a healthy, safe, and equitable transportation system for Baltimore city and what roles walking, biking, and public transportation play in that vision.
Every resident in our city should have multiple safe, accessible, affordable, and reliable options to move through our city for their regular responsibilities and for occasional trips. Our road design, our laws, our long-term planning, and our capital and maintenance expenditures should all aim toward ensuring those multiple good options for those trips. This should be a reality for people in different communities, with different incomes, and with different physical abilities. Walking, biking, and public transportation are not lesser alternatives, are not secondary options, in comparison to cars. For many people, for many trips, those could and should be the primary options--and we should plan accordingly.
To meet Baltimore City’s adopted climate goals, we must shift at least 10% of current automobile vehicle miles traveled to active transportation and public transit. What is your plan to achieve this goal?
Expanded Public Transportation options: 1) Construction of the Red Line (with a huge impact here in the First District). 2) More robust bus service, especially to major employment centers along the North shore of the Patapsco River (from Canton through Tradepoint Atlantic). 3) An East Baltimore (Bayview) MARC station, serving the huge DC and smaller AGP commuter population here. 4) Expanded bike infrastructure and Complete Streets improvements. Southeast Baltimore is a great place for active transportation, but safety is the most significant barrier.
Access to Bayview Hospital as a cyclist or pedestrian is dicey at best--the same with the industrial areas to the Southeast. Meanwhile, the Washington Street cycletrack will be a huge step forward in providing active transportation safety for commuters to Hopkins East Baltimore campus. We also need bike infrastructure on Bank and Gough, to connect between Patterson Park and President Street. And the current North/South infrastructure on Conkling and Highland (from O'Donnell north to Fayette) is just a painted lane between the parking lane and the travel lane. That needs to become a key North/South protected bikeway.
Again, you'll pardon me for focusing particularly on how we can best contribute to these goals by improvements specific to the First District, where I spent most of my time.
More broadly, across the city, we work to shift automobile vehicles miles through expanded bike and pedestrian-friendly infrastructure, in protected and interconnected ways. We also need to pursue density- and transit-family development projects so that, as the city grows, we do so in ways which lessens our sprawl and vehicle dependence. Limiting parking space requirements for new development is part of that effort. We need to zone and build for the future sustainable city we want and need, for our well-being and for that of our climate.
What is your plan to continue to reduce the number of injuries and deaths on Baltimore City roadways each year?
Speed injures and speed kills. We do as much as we can with design (narrower lanes, getting rid of two-lane one-way streets like Washington and Wolfe, tighter turning areas and pedestrian bumpouts at intersections, speed humps), we lower speed limits on pedestrian roads, and, yes, we have more enforcement. There's room for more camera-based enforcement--though we always need to be generating good data about disparate impacts across our communities. It's pretty simple: don't run red lights and don't drive at reckless speeds through neighborhoods. As someone who commuted to school on I-83 for twelve years (and drove that way to visit my future wife for years as well), the speed cameras on that road have been game-changers. Meanwhile, there is a role for expanded BDP traffic enforcement--so long as it is actually focused on safety and isn't a pretext for harassment of our neighbors.
How often do you walk, bike or use public transit to reach daily destinations? If not often (or at all), what would make you more likely to use non-personal vehicle modes of transportation?
I sold my personal car ten years ago and get around mostly by bicycle (we are a one-car household, so I generally run errands when necessary on Fridays). My neighborhood is very walkable, so often I'm on foot as well. Depending on my transportation needs (destination and purpose), as well as weather conditions, I'll gladly make use of the buses running on Eastern or Fayette. Again, under the right circumstances (local trips, heat considerations), I'll use a scooter. I am a ZipCar member for longer professional journeys, or journeys with particular cargo needs. Overall, I would say 90% or more of my daily trips don't involve a car.
In 2017, Baltimore City adopted the Separated Bike Lane Network Plan Addendum to the Bike Master Plan. This called for connecting 85% of Baltimore’s neighborhoods to safe, all-ages bike infrastructure by 2022. Less than 20% of this network has been built. What would you do to accelerate implementation?
We need consistent leadership in DOT related to bikes. I'll build a close and supportive relationship with whoever happens to be in that role when I'm in office--so they can help us accomplish our goals, and so that we can retain them long enough to build some momentum.
Certainly I'll work to ensure that the necessary funds are allocated toward this end.
But more significantly, I'll work together with other elected officials, Bikemore, other organizations, and neighbors to educate and build coalitions which can shift the political dynamics on these issues. Every single piece of infrastructure seems to generate a massive conflict, stirred in particular by those who are looking to score political points rather than to contribute something substantive to a conversation about safe and reliable transportation in our city.
In 2018, Baltimore City received national recognition for passing the first equity driven Complete Streets ordinance in the country. This legislation contains a modal hierarchy prioritizing vulnerable road users and mandates best practices in roadway configuration and design. Are you committed to retaining this ordinance and the current practices and modal hierarchy it mandates?
Yes, absolutely. This is one of the most significant pieces of legislation in Baltimore over the past decade. It actively saves lives, and makes our streets and communities much healthier and kinder spaces. It rebalances design and road space toward all kinds of different users. Especially here in Southeast Baltimore--our communities were not built and designed for a car-dominant transportation system. Complete Streets helps us return our streets to full use and enjoyment by all our neighbors, and makes our communities more livable.
What is your position on The Red Line alternatives? If a surface route is selected, are you committed to ensuring the route has 100% dedicated right-of-way, even if it may require significant parking removal? Are you committed to the in-development multi-use trail segment along Boston Street and a parallel separated bike facility in a northern alignment, even if they may require significant parking removal as well?
My position on them... alright, well, here's what I think will be the likely outcome of the current alternatives:
A surface Light Rail line running along Boston Street, with no tunnel downtown.
I would prefer the northern alignment along Fleet and Eastern, but I recognize that it is far more disruptive to neighbors there than on the dangerous stroad that is Boston Street. On Boston Street, we can take advantage of the width, the median, the generous set-backs from the street, and the commercial character of much of the surrounding area. Replacing higher-speed travel lanes with lanes for bikes and scooters, and with the Red Line, would go a long way toward making Boston Street safer and more accessible for everyone.
If the Red Line is in the northern alignment (which I doubt), then I'd want to have a longer conversation about what is envisioned. I already mentioned Gough/Bank for a separated bike facility west of Patterson Park, and I'm committed to that regardless of the Red Line alignment. It's a critical safe corridor where none now exists. East of Patterson Park, you could probably run things on Gough and Bank again to get over to Haven Street (or at least to Conkling). But Gough gets narrow after Highland, and Bank does after Conkling, so it gets tricky. Anyway, inasmuch as I don't think it's likely, and I'm not sure exactly where that parallel facility would run through Highlandtown, I'm not prepared to make that full commitment without further conversation about how best to accomplish it.
Agree or disagree?Do you support maintaining the city’s micro-mobility program that provides dockless bikes and scooters?
Yes
Would you support creation of a government subsidized bike share system?
I am not opposed to this, but I've also never experienced a functional public bike share system. I'm aware that bikeshare here in Baltimore didn't achieve its goals. That doesn't mean we can't try again, or shouldn't! But I would want to explore the lessons of that attempt, and do some traveling and learning in other cities with a successful program, before committing to it here. But, I certainly commit to doing that work so that I can have a better understanding, and then act on the basis of that knowledge.
Would you support local legislation to subsidize the purchase of e-bikes and membership for micro-mobility or bike share systems?
Yes
Are you committed to retaining every piece of separated bike infrastructure in the city that’s been built?
Yes
Cars are often longer than a single rowhome is wide. Households with multiple vehicles compete for parking in front of other neighbors’ homes. Do you support scaling residential permit parking fees to either the size of or number of vehicles in a household so those with more vehicles parked on city streets pay their fair share?
This is an interesting question. Scaling it to vehicle size, yes, that makes sense and I would be supportive. To the number of vehicles? I mean, isn't that already the case? I thought it was $20 per decal in most areas (sorry, I haven't lived in an RPP zone since 2005). Anyway, yes, $20 is too low, AND you should pay it per vehicle (not per household).
Do you support a citywide speed limit of 25mph on arterials and 20mph on neighborhood streets?
I would consider this, but would need more details on how it’s implemented.
Do you support banning turns on red at all intersections that permit pedestrian crossing?
I've heard/read really encouraging data on pedestrian safety in terms of eliminating right turn on red. But I haven't done enough research to fully commit to a ban at this point. I'm also mindful that, were we to take this action without similar action by surrounding jurisdictions or the state, we might create a confusing and potentially dangerous set of circumstances.
Do you support expanding automated enforcement to all roads that have high rates of crashes and speeding, not just near school zones?
Yes
Do you support legislation to create income-based traffic enforcement fine reductions or waivers locally?
Yes
Do you support allowing increased density adjacent to high-quality transit, grocery stores, Main Street districts, and in other high-amenity neighborhoods?
Yes
Do you support increasing Transit Oriented Development zoning to include all areas within a quarter mile of high-frequency bus routes and a half-mile of light rail and metro stations?
I support expanded TOD zoning around high-frequency bus routes and rail transit stations. Inasmuch as a quarter mile for buses and a half-mile for light trail stations would cover almost every residential neighborhood of the 1st District, once the Red Line is built, I'm not prepared to support those particular distances without having far more conversations with community members and stakeholders about the potential impact (helpful and potentially unhelpful) across our communities.
Minimum parking requirements are shown to increase housing costs while limiting potential density and making neighborhoods less walkable. Do you support removing parking minimums from new development?
I support severely limiting parking requirements for new development. It's a subsidy for car ownership, a detriment to our communities and environment, and limits housing availability and affordability. That being said, I could imagine a high-density multi-family project in an area with little available street parking and very poor public transit coverage, where completely eliminating parking requirements would not be appropriate.
Do you support removing single family residential zoning categories, so that people can choose to build and live in a variety of housing options citywide?
I support opening up the zoning code to allow more density, and to end single-family zoning restrictions for larger buildings. I do think, however, that certain structures are best suited for single-family zoning. That's particularly true in already-dense, small square foot, rowhouse neighborhoods like many in the First District. I note that Councilperson Dorsey's bill from 2023 began adding additional units at 1500 sq feet of finished space. I've spent far too much of my time working with, and responding to crises among, lower-income, often immigrant and refugee, families living in poorly-maintained (even dangerous) small rowhouses. They are already a vulnerable population, and are regularly abused by negligent landlords. I see breaking up smaller rowhouses into multiple units in my district as mostly a path to enrich negligent landlords at the expense of the quality of life and safety of my immigrant neighbors.