Given demographic trends since 2000, the District of Columbia will no longer have a Black majority somewhere around 2014. That’s what I found after completing a simple projection using U.S. Census population data from the 1990 and 2000 census, and 2006 and 2007 American Community Survey population estimates. No matter the approach (trends since 1990 or 2000, projecting population numbers or percentages), every projection (using the best fit line) found somewhere around 2014 would be the turning point when D.C. would enter a new racial era where no major group could claim a majority.
Since 1990, the Black share of the D.C. population has fallen 11.2%. That decline was made up by increases in four other categories: White (6.2%), Asian (1.2%), other (2.2%), and two or more races (1.6%). The U.S. Census Bureau allowed respondents to select multiple races for the first time in 2000, and asks separate questions for race and ethnicity. Over the same time period, the percent reporting Hispanic ethnicity has increased 2.9%.
Here is the Census data, with projections for 2010 and 2014 calculated from the trends since 2000 only:
My projection finds the Hispanic population relatively slowly growing. But unlike the Black and White population, this group may be subject to unique external influences such as immigration policy and global economic patterns that may reduce the validity of this projection.
A couple comments about these numbers. First, they show relatively gradual and ongoing demographic shifts, not abrupt change that most seem to assume is happening. Despite massive investments in a tiny majority of the city’s neighborhoods, D.C. only recently stabilized its population, let alone began to add significant population. Second, since 1990 the city has lost 77,958 Blacks but only gained 30,665 Whites. Collectively, the groups other race, two or more races, and Asian gained almost as many over the same period, 28,979. Overall, from 1990 to 2007 the city shrank by 18,608 people. The declining Black majority thus has three main causes: Black flight, growing White population, AND growing other racial categories.
Here’s the full table, including 2010 projections based on patterns since 2000:
1990
2000
2006
2007
2010
Black
399,604
343,312
322,105
321,646
310,613
White
179,667
176,101
200,395
210,332
221,657
American Indian
1,466
1,713
1,903
1,172
1,373
Asian
11,214
15,189
19,827
18,066
20,739
Other Race
14,949
21,950
28,127
27,591
30,898
Two Or More
0
13,446
8,970
9,485
10,833
Obviously, when the shift occurs it will have profound effects on the city. While I will refrain from making a judgment about what it will mean overall, I hope the analysis above shows it’s not primarily caused by any one factor, but several.
Descending into Boston’s Logan Airport last August, I noticed an unexpected element among the rocky islands and weathered colonials. At the end of a narrow neck of land just feet from seaside homes was a massive, commercial-sized wind turbine turning lazily in the wind.
After moving to Boston, wind power seemed everywhere. Setting up the utilities at our new apartment, my girlfriend and I opted for plan that would power our computers and toaster with 100% wind energy at only a slightly higher rate. (The electricity is produced by a New York wind farm so large it featured prominently in a New York Times story about the challenges of wind power transmissions.) On the way to a meeting, I passed a large mill installed alongside I-93 near downtown Boston. At a community meeting, attendees from coastal communities discussed pending proposals in their towns.
I was already familiar with the controversy surrounding a major wind farm proposed off Cape Cod, notoriously delayed by wealthy property owners. A recent story in the Boston Globe described quite a different environment for a farm a bit farther south along the coast. Thanks to astronomical power prices caused by the high cost of diesel for the island generator, the residents of Rhode Island’s Block Island were considering an offshore farm.
Did I unwittingly land in some sort of New England wind paradise? Not exactly. According to the American Wind Energy Association, the few turbines already mentioned unfortunately comprised half of the state’s wind power generation capability. With a total generating power of just 5.32 megawatts, among the states Massachusetts ranks 31st, far behind wind behemoths like California (5,604 MW), Texas (3,162 MW) or Iowa (1,375 MW). Although experiencing rapid growth in the past decade, wind-generated energy comprises only a small portion of energy consumed.
The turbines visible from flights into Logan are known as Hull I and II, named after the small community that owns them. Their story began with a small turbine installed during the 1980s. After it blew down in a storm in 1997, the community-owned power utility decided to install a larger turbine. Success beget success, and in 2006 the Vestas-manufactured Hull II began operations. Local boosters eagerly track the power production online and plans are underway for yet more turbines.
The turbine alongside I-93 was installed at the Dorchester headquarters of a the IBEW 103 union, as a demonstration project demonstrating their commitment to wind power. According to the American Wind Energy Association, in addition to these two others sit atop mountains, and the last is owned by the Massachusetts Maritime Academy, all installed since 2001.
Although Massachusetts has a long way to go before wind would contribute a significant portion of all power generation, there has been interest in renewable energy. Some of the 600 programs in renewable energy funded by the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative are shown here in a regional map created by my employer, the Metropolitan Area Planning Council:
The local interest in commercial-scale wind power production is no accident. Thanks to geography, the state’s coast enjoys some of the best wind conditions in the country.
Although there’s all kinds of newwebsites to investigate wind power potential, the map above from a government report clearly illustrates the issue. When it comes to wind power, the west is king. But unlike the flatlands of the Midwest and South, the New England seacoast and mountain peaks are blessed with high “wind power density,” meaning more proposals are sure to come.
I would be remiss if I didn’t note the launch of a campaign for a new federal transportation policy. The news about the launch of the Transportation for America campaign was noted on StreetsBlog, Greater Greater Washington, and a number of other sites.
As I have writtenbefore, the federal law setting transportation policy will expire next year, and this group has been created to lobby Congress about the new policy.
First, some history. The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 was a bold law, which set the mold for America’s surface transportation policy up to today. The act established a federal gas tax which funded a highway trust fund. States could apply for funds to build highways, and in general the federal government would pay most of the cost (recently, roughly 80%) so long as it helped complete their planned national network. The idea was simple, and it worked at achieving the federal goal: encouraging states to plan and develop a national network of limited access freeways. That policy has remained largely unchanged to today, over 50 years later. However, in that time we’ve built the entire planned freeway network. Meanwhile, our public transit systems have languished. The 1991 transportation bill known as “ISTEA” was a significant shift from the old mold. It required metropolitan planning and gave significant funding for transit improvements. However, since then applications for transit funds have far outstripped the limited funds available. Even if applicants succeed in getting transit funds, the federal government only paid roughly half the cost — or less. Federal bureaucrats, especially under President George W. Bush, have created elaborate applications for the limited funds and pushed specific ideological perspectives. The highway bills have also become politicized, laced with Congressional earmarks including the famous Alaska “bridge to nowhere.”
The old model is obsolete for two major reasons:the gas tax, and our transportation needs. First, the federal per gallon gas tax hasn’t been changed in over a decade. Thanks to inflation, and more recently, declining gasoline use thanks to high prices, the amount of money coming in simply isn’t enough for all our transportation needs. Second, we don’t need to build a national highway network: we have one. More highways are not the answer to metropolitan congestion. We must shift gears profoundly, to focus on highway maintenance, urban mass transit, and overall sustainability in transportation. This leads us to what the new campaign is advocating. Their five-point platform is as follows:
1. Build passenger rail between and transit systems within cities
2. Invest in a green future including clean vehicles, new fuels, public transit, walking and biking
3. Restore our existing highways, bridges, and transit systems
4. Stop wasteful spending on projects with little economic return
5. Save Americans’ money by coordinating transportation and housing
I’ve focused on the bare bones of the platform, but the short policy statement released this week explains the other related issues: jobs, climate change, and oil dependence. Their materials say little so far about how these values relate to how federal policy should be organized. Earlier this summer I discussed some of the various competing proposals, including an infrastructure bank, capital budgeting project, or some version of what we have now. Its weaknesses aside, the report completed by a study commission set up by the last highway bill suggests how the existing federal programs and departments might be streamlined and reorganized.
The conventional wisdom surrounding the bill — echoed in the Roll Call story below — is that the “road lobby” that kept money flowing for roads over the past 50 years remains strong in Washington. Regardless of the political opponents, the Transportation for America advocates will have their work cut out for them trying to curb the congressional love of the earmark and corral diverse, locally-based activists and convince them to get involved in high-level policymaking.
This November, supporters of a plan to construct a high-speed rail network in California could have something many thought they’d never see: $9.95 billion in cold, hard cash.
If approved by a simple majority on the statewide ballot, California Proposition 1A would provide $9 billion to construct a high-speed rail line between San Francisco and Los Angeles, and $950 million for other rail improvements in the state. Although a fraction of the total system cost, the money would provide leverage for federal matching funds (possible made available through a hypothetical Green-TEA) or private funds.
The entire plan would connect the state’s major cities with modern trains traveling up to 220 miles per hour over a new, 800-mile rail network. Although some complain the system tries to do too much — provide express service as well as local service to smaller cities — and anti-rail ideologues have bludgeoned the plan with usual complaints, the proposal has been unusually resilient to criticism thanks to high gas prices, concern over global warming, and frustration with traffic congestion. The 12-year-old California High-Speed Rail Authority has made good use of the planning money allocated thus far, producing slick online maps, animations, renderings, and videos, that show brightly colored yellow and gold trains whizzing through un-built tunnels, stations, and transit oriented developments (strategically located throughout the state).
The agency has posted a number of videos to YouTube, and this somewhat stiff 10-minute promotional film has been viewed over 300,000 times:
Is all this too good be true? Fearing the worst, one rail supporter predicted in 2007 a failure of leadership, failure on the ballot, or public apathy would be enough to stall the plan. The bitter diatribe provoked some young commenters to respond. “You may have enjoyed most of your life but mine is just starting!” wrote a 16-year-old, who added, “if you’re going to sit at your computer preaching how high speed rail is never going to work maybe you could be more proactive.”
At a national level, much work remains to be done to improve inter-city passenger rail service. Despite isolated success stories (such as the subject of a previous post, the Downeaster), as a whole Amtrak faces serious financial and infrastructure obstacles. (Described in detail in a recent article in the Next American City magazine.) As for high-speed rail, no serious national planning effort even exists. The U.S. Department of Transportation plan itself doesn’t even propose an nationwide, interconnected network, and only a few activists have begun to consider what it might look like.
Then again, what could be better to convince a skeptical nation of the benefits of high-speed rail than a successful, functioning state system? For now then, we wait for the decision of California voters on November 4th.
