INTERSECTIONS: TRANSIT INVESTMENT AND MULTI-SCALAR POLITICS A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Catherine R. Lowe August 2011 © 2011 Catherine R. Lowe INTERSECTIONS: TRANSIT INVESTMENT AND MULTI-SCALAR POLITICS Catherine R Lowe, Ph. D.; Cornell University 2011 Regional transportation plans describe comprehensive planning processes and visions, but long-range transportation planning is only one among many decision sites for transit investment. As most plans are only partially implemented, this research aims to illuminate the factors that determine which transit projects are implemented. It combines case study research (Miami, Orlando, and Boston), with quantitative analysis of federal transit funding. The work addresses three broad questions about metropolitan decision making and action: how does significant action happen across jurisdictions? What is the state and federal role in metropolitan governance? How does equity fare in implementation? In each of three papers, I start at a different government scale: metropolitan planning organization (MPO), state, and nation. The first paper describes critical decision making processes external to MPO planning. Case studies of Boston and Miami demonstrate that MPO planning responded to, rather than determined, transit implementation choices. Due to the influence of external decisions or bypasses, I argue federal directives for equity in regional transportation planning were insufficient to advance equity in Miami and Boston. Community mobilization in Boston was sustained and moderately successful; advocacy groups advanced two projects toward implementation. Next, I examine the sub-national state’s role in transit implementation, based on projects proposed in Miami and Orlando. The Florida Department of Transportation adopted a leadership role for projects that had greater economic significance and regional consensus behind them. By selectively contributing capacity, ―power to,‖ state actors exerted ―power over‖ regional outcomes in Orlando and Miami. The third paper presents a quantitative analysis of the federal New Starts program, which funds transit expansion. Local financial commitment most correlates with federal funding, according to statistical results. All funded projects met a minimum threshold of benefits. Yet, the Federal Transit Administration was not more likely to fund projects with higher benefits ratings. Findings suggest regionally significant action happens not simply nor easily through planning, but instead through established government entities and through the mobilization of capacity. Altshuler and Luberoff’s ―bottom-up‖ federalism is a useful concept to describe how powerful federal actors respond to and enable action at smaller scales. In this conceptual frame, local initiative and mobilization are pivotal, aligning with increasing interest in governance. At the same time, however, findings indicate the need to further develop governance as an analytic category that incorporates multiple types of power and spheres of action. In addition, this research shows that equity advocates can sometimes affect outcomes. Due to existing constraints for metropolitan planning organizations, the conclusion describes options to strengthen or alter their role. I conclude with reflections on the ideal rail deal. Political will behind infrastructure investment can be an opportunity to enable other critical environmental and equity interventions. BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Catherine Lowe was born in Minot, North Dakota, where she attended primary and secondary school. She received her bachelor‘s degree (Cultural Anthropology) from Bard College in 2000. At Clark University, she earned a Master of Arts in Community Development & Planning (2006). Her professional experience includes working for 1199/SEIU, Community Catalyst and TransitWorks. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I‘d like to thank the many stakeholders who generously gave their time for interviews. Florida fieldwork is part of a larger research network, Building Resilient Regions, supported by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. A fellowship from the Clarence S. Stein Institute of Cornell University and an appointment at the George Perkins Marsh Institute of Clark University supported my Boston fieldwork. An Eisenhower Graduate Fellowship from the US Department of Transportation supported by analysis of the New Starts program. My committee chair, Rolf Pendall, repeatedly encouraged me and helped me develop my ideas and drafts. My other committee members, Ann Forsyth, Susan Christopherson, and Juliet Gainsborough, provided valuable insights and comments throughout my research. Other faculty also helped me progress through the program, especially Mildred Warner through her research design class and guidance. My colleagues in City & Regional Planning helped me tremendously as well, especially Lesli Hoey, Andrew Rumbach (and the fall writing group) and George Homsy. The women in my Boston-based dissertation writing group helped me tremendously through the final stages. A huge thank you to all. I‘d like to thank several people from my personal life: my sisters, Beth and Sarah; my parents, Stephen and Margaret; Devorah Steinberg; and Nathaniel and the rest of the Hazelton family. Thanks to my grandmother, Dr. Portia Glindeman Morris (who would have been 100 this year) for easing the way for my pursuit of a PhD. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1: Introduction p. 1 Chapter 2: Bypassing Equity p. 25 Chapter 3: Sub-national states, Power and Transit Implementation p. 59 Chapter 4: Federal Transit Funding, Politics and Local Factors p.101 Chapter 5: Conclusion p. 137 Appendix I: Interviewees p. 158 Appendix II: Mann-Whitney U Scores p. 162 iv LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1: Boston rail infrastructure and black population p. 41 Figure 2.2: Miami rail infrastructure and black population p. 46 Figure 3.1: Metrorail proposals p. 73 Figure 3.2: Orlando-area proposals p. 79 Figure 3.3: Diagram of projects with state sponsorship p. 90 Figure 4.1: New Starts application process p. 105 v LIST OF TABLES Table 1.1: Types of transportation equity p. 13 Table 2.1: Metropolitan profiles p. 37 Table 2.2: Boston timeline p. 39 Table 2.3: Miami timeline p. 47 Table 3.1: Project profiles p. 67 Table 3.2: Demographic profiles p. 70 Table 3.3: Case summaries p. 91 Table 4.1: Dependent variables and methods p. 111 Table 4.2: Independent variables and anticipated effects p. 112 Table 4.3: Independent variables by outcome p. 117 Table 4.4: Model 1 predictions p. 118 Table 4.5 Coefficient results for binomial models p. 119 Table 4.6: Model 2 predictions p. 120 Table 4.7: Sample predicted project outcome p. 120 Table 4.8: Last ratings by outcomes p. 121 Table 4.9: Spearman‘s correlation p. 122 Table 4.10: Models 3 & 4 goodness of fit scores p. 123 Table 4.11: Linear regression coefficients p. 124 Table 4.12: Sample project application p. 124 Table 4.13: Statistical findings of significance p. 129 vi LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS CBO Community-based organization CLF Conservation Law Foundation DOT Department of Transportation FDOT Florida Department of Transportation FHWA Federal Highway Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration HSR High-speed rail ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Act (1991) LRT Light-rail transit MBTA Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority MDT Miami-Dade Transit MPO Metropolitan planning organization NR New regionalism NS New Starts program RTP Regional transportation plan (usually refers to long-range plan) SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (2005) TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998) vii CHAPTER 1: Introduction Orlando conjures up images of Walt Disney World and Floridian auto-oriented sprawl, but local elected officials, business leaders, and civic organizations have voiced support for a regional vision of contained growth and increased transit use. In fact, within a few years, metropolitan Orlando will have its first intrametropolitan rail service. The project has so much support that a republican county mayor and a democratic city mayor lobbied together in the state capital for it. The professional basketball team even promoted it during game-time announcements. However, the region has seen numerous failed rail attempts over the last twenty years, and its long- range plan has contained other rail proposals. In this regard, the region is similar to others, where many of the rail investments in official plans have not materialized. This research explores what factors and government interventions lead to the implementation of some regional rail projects, while other projects fail to attract sufficient support and funding. For many planners, support for alternatives to automobile-dependency translates into enthausism for transit expansions. Yet, the logic of this project could seem dubious to outside observes, even to planners promoting alternative transportation modes. The Federal Transit Administration‘s review shows the commuter rail costs more but delivers fewer benefits than many other projects seeking funds (FTA, 2008). The project does not do well on equity criteria. The project‘s riders will include a disproportionately low share of transit dependent riders, compared to the metropolitan population (FTA, 2008). Is this the best investment for federal 1 dollars? Or even the best investment within the region? Planning