IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/urecxx/v1y2020i1-2p87-108.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Colorblind transit planning: Modern streetcars in Washington, DC, and New Orleans

Author

Listed:
  • Anna Livia Brand
  • Kate Lowe
  • Em Hall

Abstract

This article analyzes case studies of the H Street Streetcar in Washington, DC, and the Rampart Streetcar in New Orleans, two newly built U.S. streetcars that are part of a national trend of modern streetcar investments. We situate these investments within state-led gentrification that exacerbates racial disparities by expanding White privilege in Black neighborhoods and reshaping racial geographies. While supporters rationalize streetcars as economic development strategies, we contextualize modern streetcars within a broader framework of colorblind neoliberalism. We advance the concept of colorblind transit planning to codify a critique of current practices and advance an argument that colorblind transit planning minimizes the ongoing salience of institutionalized racism and exacerbates existing racial geographies and experiences of race, symbolically and materially reproducing a city of exclusion. Our findings caution against further public investment in streetcars, as they contribute to state-led gentrification and private accumulation, rather than address unequal modern public transit systems.

Suggested Citation

  • Anna Livia Brand & Kate Lowe & Em Hall, 2020. "Colorblind transit planning: Modern streetcars in Washington, DC, and New Orleans," Journal of Race, Ethnicity and the City, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 1(1-2), pages 87-108, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:urecxx:v:1:y:2020:i:1-2:p:87-108
    DOI: 10.1080/26884674.2020.1818536
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/26884674.2020.1818536
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/26884674.2020.1818536?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:urecxx:v:1:y:2020:i:1-2:p:87-108. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/urec .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.