Florida State University Libraries Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School 2008 Urban Politics and the Role of Planners in the Decision to Build Light Rail in Charlotte Lewis Alexander Bell Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected] FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES URBAN POLITICS AND THE ROLE OF PLANNERS IN THE DECISION TO BUILD LIGHT RAIL IN CHARLOTTE By LEWIS ALEXANDER BELL A Thesis submitted to the Department of Urban and Regional Planning in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Planning Degree Awarded: Fall Semester, 2008 The members of the Committee approve the Thesis of Lewis Alexander Bell defended on October 27, 2008. Gregory L. Thompson Professor Directing Thesis Jeffrey Brown Committee Member Richard Feiock Committee Member The Office of Graduate Studies has verified and approved the above named committee members. ii For my father, Ronald A. Bell, Jr. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS During the course of this research project, several individuals provided guidance and assistance that were invaluable to the completion of the work. Greg Thompson was instrumental in developing the concept of utilizing multiple political models to analyze transportation politics in Charlotte. He guided the project from the conceptual phases through the study of the literature to the historical research and ultimate conclusions. Jeff Brown also critiqued the paper throughout its development. Dan Gallagher of the Charlotte Department of Transportation provided information about potential interview subjects and provided copies of several important documents. Finally, John Muth and Lynn Purnell were both crucial contributors to the historical research undertaken for this paper. They were always available for follow-up questions by phone, e-mail, or additional meetings and were never short of valuable information. John Muth also provided copies of numerous printed materials from CATS’ archives. I thank you all for your support in this project. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures vii List of Abbreviations viii Abstract ix INTRODUCTION 1 1. EXPLANATORY MODELS OF METROPOLITAN DECISION- MAKING 4 1.1 The Elitist Model 5 1.2 The Pluralist Model 6 1.3 The Class-Dialectical Model 6 1.4 The Growth Machine 8 1.5 Regime Theory 9 1.6 Consensus Building 11 2. METHODOLGY 13 2.1 Theoretical Expectations 14 2.2 Sources 22 3. CENTERS, CORRIDORS, AND WEDGES 28 3.1 A New Direction 28 3.2 Early Rapid Transit Planning 31 3.3 The Regional Sourcebooks of 1992 and 1994 33 3.4 The Committee of 100 36 4. THE TRANSIT SALES TAX REFERENDUM AND THE METROPOLITAN TRANSIT COMMISSION 46 4.1 The Committee of 10 47 4.2 The Mecklenburg Delegation 52 4.3 The 2025 Integrated Transit/Land Use Plan 56 4.4 The Metropolitan Transit Commission 68 v 5. EVALUATION OF DECISION-MAKING MODELS AND PLANNING POLITICS IN CHARLOTTE 77 5.1 The Elitist Model 77 5.2 The Pluralist Model 81 5.3 The Class-Dialectical Model 83 5.4 The Growth Machine 86 5.5 Regime Theory 89 5.6 Consensus Building 92 CONCLUSION 95 APPENDIX A – HUMAN SUBJECTS FORMS 102 APPENDIX B – COMMITTEE OF 100 AND COMMITTEE OF 10 ROSTERS 116 REFERENCES 122 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 126 vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Map of Charlotte Metropolitan Region 3 Figure 2. Mecklenburg County Spheres of Influence 41 Figure 3. Annexation History of Charlotte 42 Figure 4. Illustrations of Various Metropolitan Transportation Strategies from 1992 “Concepts of Growth” Sourcebook 43 Figure 5. Illustration of the Centers and Corridors Strategy and Descriptions of Its Elements from 1998 “Centers and Corridors” Sourcebook 44 Figure 6. The Committee of 100's Proposed Metropolitan Roadway Plan 45 Figure 7. Comparison of Residential Densities from 2025 Integrated Transit/Land Use Plan 72 Figure 8. Regional Rapid Transit Network from 2025 Integrated Transit/Land Use Plan 73 Figure 9. Regional Road Plan: Programmed Projects and 1998 Road Bond Projects 74 Figure 10. Front of Advertising Brochure for the 1998 Transit Sales Tax and Road Bond Initiatives 75 Figure 11. Schematic Diagram of Structure of Transit Decision- Making in Charlotte-Mecklenburg 76 vii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS BAC – Bay Area Council BART – Bay Area Rapid Transit BRT – Bus Rapid Transit CATS – Charlotte Area Transit System CBD – Central Business District (also referred to as “Uptown” in Charlotte) CDOT – Charlotte Department of Transportation CMPC- Charlotte Mecklenburg Planning Organization CTAG – Citizens Transit Advisory Group DMU – Diesel Multiple Unit EIS – Environmental Impact Statement FTA – Federal Transit Administration HSC – Human Subjects Committee HOV – High Occupancy Vehicle ISTEA – Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act LRT – Light Rail Transit MIS – Major Investment Study MPO – Metropolitan Planning Organization MSA – Metropolitan Statistical Area MTC – Metropolitan Transit Commission MUMPO – Mecklenburg-Union Metropolitan Planning Organization NCBOT – North Carolina Board of Transportation NCDOT – North Carolina Department of Transportation NS – Norfolk Southern PBQD – Parsons, Brinkerhoff, Quade, and Douglas, Inc. SCDOT – South Carolina Department of Transportation SOI – Spheres of Influence T-PAC – Transit Planning Advisory Committee TSAC – Transit Services Advisory Committee UNCC – University of North Carolina Charlotte USDOT – United States Department of Transportation viii ABSTRACT This paper applies six theoretical models of metropolitan decision-making to analyze the history of rapid transit planning in Charlotte, North Carolina. The political models employed include: the elitist model, the pluralist model, the class-dialectical model, the growth machine model, regime theory, and consensus building. The hypothesis under consideration is that none of these models fully explains Charlotte’s decision to build rapid transit, but each one provides unique insights that, when combined, provide a rich understanding of the region’s transportation and planning politics. To begin, I develop a set of expectations for how each model would explain Charlotte’s decision-making. Next, utilizing information from technical documents, newspaper articles, and interviews with planners in the region, I describe the history of transportation and land use planning in Charlotte from the early 1980’s to the late 1990’s. Then I compare the historical events observed with the expectations outlined for each model to evaluate the power of the respective models to explain Charlotte’s decision-making process. The comparison of observed events to theoretical expectations reveals that each of the models presents unique insights into the region’s political process, but none adequately tells the full story, which unfolds over the course of nearly 20 years. Throughout the course of that history, different modes of decision-making seem to come and go, demonstrating the dynamism of metropolitan politics. However, there appear to be relatively consistent parallel streams of political momentum: one which seeks to corral elite interests in support of rapid transit, and a second that focuses on public involvement and neighborhood interests. The successful marriage of these streams by planners in Charlotte was a significant factor in the region’s decision to build rapid transit. Finally, Charlotte’s history demonstrates that transit planning does not need to operate in direct opposition to highway interests, and the coordination of transportation and land use planning can be achieved without significant state intervention. ix INTRODUCTION On 24 November 2007, a new era in transportation began for Charlotte, North Carolina. This is the date that a new rapid transit improvement, the LYNX Blue Line light rail, first became a relevant travel option for the general public. The city’s investment in rapid transit signaled a departure from transportation policies centered around the automobile and highway building that had typified most urban growth in the United States (especially the Southeast) for the greater part of the twentieth century. This change in philosophy was made to position the region to continue to enjoy growth and investment well into this century. The decision to rethink the region’s growth and transportation strategies evolved over the course of about two decades and was influenced by a number of individual and collective actors. This paper utilizes newspaper articles, planning documents and other public records, and interviews with some of the planners involved with the region’s transformation over that time to retrace the history of transportation and land use planning in the Charlotte metropolitan area and provide insight into the political interactions that led to the region’s endorsement of rapid transit. It examines the roles of planners, politicians, and business leaders in defining (or redefining) the goals and policies of a city and a region in the American metropolitan complex. Broken into five chapters, the manuscript begins by reviewing several explanatory models of metropolitan governance in Chapter 1, outlining the basic theoretical premises of each one. Chapter 2 then defines the paper's hypothesis and discusses how the political models will be applied to test it. The objective is to identify what historical details would need to be observed in Charlotte in order to endorse each model. Chapter 2 also outlines the sources used to understand the history of Charlotte's transportation planning. Together these initial chapters provide a theoretical