A Political and Institutional Analysis Lauren
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
The Transport Planning Process: A Political and Institutional Analysis Lauren Ames Fischer Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy under the Executive Committee of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 2019 © 2019 Lauren Ames Fischer All rights reserved ABSTRACT The Transport Planning Process: A Political and Institutional Analysis Lauren Ames Fischer The governance of urban transport involves a complex amalgam of intergovernmental actors, revenue sources and normative justifications. In recent decades, there has been a clear shift toward decentralized approaches to urban transport investment. This devolution of responsibility supports the development and deployment of new governance strategies that rely heavily on sub- regional implementation strategies and that justify urban transport in terms of economic development, not mobility impacts. This dissertation provides a grounded view of the devolution of urban transport planning through an in-depth case study of the implementation of a modern streetcar investment in Kansas City, Missouri. Using a combination of institutional analysis and phronesis, it illuminates the antecedents of local governance strategies, like value capture and non-profit governance, and shows how local conditions and history are shaping transport policy in unanticipated ways. While new governance strategies support enhanced investment, they also shape who benefits from new investments. In the Kansas City case, policies in the streetcar’s proximity emphasized the importance of lifestyle diversity and nurturing the development of an emerging arts community but eschewed notions of race and income diversity in ways that reflect and exacerbate the city’s dismal history of segregation. Devolution is facilitating new governance arrangements that reflect local conditions but, as this case shows, these new strategies may also be setting urban transport on a troubling institutional trajectory that – without intervention – will only lead us away from equitable and inclusive cities. TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Exhibits ii Introduction and Methodology 1 Essay 1 19 Rules, Resources and Realities: An Institutional Analysis of Urban Transport Investment Essay 2 45 How Does Financing Shape Project Implementation? Lessons from Kansas City, MO Essay 3 68 Urbanity, Community and Equity: Assessing the Social Sustainability of Streetcar-led Revitalization in Kansas City, MO Conclusion 100 Bibliography 111 Appendix 124 i LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit 1: 9 Database of Streetcar Project in U.S. Cities Exhibit 2 14 Interview Subjects by Organizational Affiliation Exhibit 3 15 Semi-structured Interview Questions Exhibit 4 23 Institutional Triangle of Rules, Resources and Frames of Reference Exhibit 5 31 Revenue Raising Strategies for Urban Transport Exhibit 6 32 Revenue Sources for Urban Transport, by Mode and Period Exhibit 7 34 Transport and Transit Spending As % of GDP Exhibit 8 41 Discourses of Urban Transport Investment Exhibit 9 53 Kansas City and Streetcar District, Land Value by Tax Parcel (2014) Exhibit 10 64 Value Capture Process: Theory vs Practice Exhibit 11 79 Population Change 2000 – 2010, Kansas City Region and City Exhibit 12 83 Land Use and Vacant Parcels in the Streetcar District Exhibit 13 86 Crossroads PIEA, Art Galleries and Streetcar District Exhibit 14 93 Demographics in the Streetcar District, City and Region, 2008 – 2016 ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS While completing this dissertation, I lived in seven cities across six states, buried two cats and produced two human beings that, as of February 2019, I have also managed to keep alive and happy. I was challenged intellectually, by formulating and executing a qualitative and critical research protocol, and personally as I juggled my own professional pursuits with the needs of my growing tribe. This adventure would not have been possible without the support of many. I would like to thank my dissertation sponsor, David King, for his guidance and collaboration over the past seven years. I would also like to thank my chair, Elliott Sclar for the many opportunities to expand the scope of my work, fight for justice and always hear a good joke. I am also appreciative of the conversations and feedback of my other committee members, Hilary Nixon, Nicholas Klein and Malo Hudson. During the course of my graduate studies, Bob Beauregard provided a constant source of mentorship, taught me how to run a well-organized intellectual seminar and always made sure I left his office with a new book (or two). Prior to my doctoral work, Joseph Schwieterman first turned my attention to the interesting dynamics of transport and land use, hired me as a research assistant and let me (occasionally) take charge of the Chaddick Institute. I am also in debt to my graduate school colleagues: the urban planning and engineering doctoral students who patiently listened to my musings on institutions, power, and the plight of midwestern cities in colloquium, seminars and reading groups; The Critical Transport Collective, especially Do Lee and Hector Agredano Rivera, for their critical eye, and passion for justice (as well as their administrative leadership); Eric Goldwyn for his ear, editing prowess, trove of NYC examples and knowledge of tea; Sophonie Joseph for her stark honesty and theory-laden late- night texts; Adèle Cassola and Valerie Stahl for their reliability, friendship and all the future papers we will write together. To Rush, Air and Phish for providing the appropriately ambient, edgy and poignant soundtracks for the majority of my field work. To the downtown library in Salt Lake City for furnishing fantastic views and facilities during interview transcription and for the parks in San Francisco where many of the arguments in the final manuscript first made their way onto (little scraps of) paper. And finally, to Kathleen Fischer and Ed Kleese for their support, enduring optimism and emergency relief services, particularly in the last stages of writing. iii DEDICATION This endeavor would not have been possible without the support of Casey Wade. For rolling with all the late nights at the library, weeks spent in the field, contagious rants about the state of contemporary society and last-minute trips abroad, For making sure I ate, showered and remained human even at the height of discovery, For pushing me, and pulling me back when needed, For never questioning my success, even as you continue to doubt the value of my post- enlightenment philosophy, And for Phoebe and Kellen, who provide unending inspiration to make the world a better place, I dedicate this to you. Car Go Beep, Beep. iv Introduction Urban transportation in the United States involves a complex amalgamation of federal, state and local actors and revenue sources. Over the past century, the balance of funding sources and the parties involved have shifted considerably, with recent decades being marked by a clear trend toward devolution (Goldman and Wachs 2003, Taylor 2004). Devolution, or the decentralization of public service provision, is part of a larger historical trend of transport provision – and other public services – moving toward and then away from centralized provision during the 20th century (Graham and Marvin 2001). By providing localities with wider discretion to plan, finance and manage urban transport investments, decentralization encourages the development and deployment of innovative governance strategies that facilitate investment. These strategies also shape provision in ways that challenge traditional planning doctrines (King and Fischer 2016) and may lead cities further away from sustainable, equitable urban development. This dissertation is about the politics of urban transport in the age of devolution. Transportation planning and investment is inherently political, a term I use to emphasize the primary role that value-laden political processes – not technical concerns – have in the practice of transport planning (Altshuler 1965, Flyvbjerg 1998, Wachs 2004). Contemporary transport policies are concerned with facilitating change – both in transport modes and in urban development patterns (Curtis et al. 2009, Cervero 1998) – but policy efforts are often stymied by 1 institutional path dependencies that hinder change to the status quo (Curtis and Low 2012). Approaching urban transport from an explicitly political perspective allows for an assessment of the causal mechanisms shaping contemporary urban transport, an identification of the actors leveraging those mechanisms with success, and an evaluation of the goals, implementation strategies and outcomes of emerging trends in urban transport policy. Existing work on the decentralization of transport planning focuses on how changes to federal and state policies facilitate enhanced roles for metropolitan and county actors (Goldman and Wachs 2003, Taylor 2004, Green 2006, Sciara and Wachs 2007), while also identifying an iterative relationship between local planning decisions and federal funding allocations (Lowe 2013). Past research is largely based on aggregated federal (Taylor 2004, Lowe 2013) or state level (Goldman and Wachs 2003) data and by experiences in the state of California. As a result, research on devolution tends to emphasize the withdrawal of federal and state actors from the planning process, and pays less attention to how local governments are leveraging devolution to their advantage. This research shifts the loci of analysis by taking a grounded view of devolution. In this