Light Rail: The Smoking Gun

From the pages of the June issue of Governing magazine leaps conclusive proof that Charlotte’s light rail scheme is a fraud on local voters.

This article, and its various sidebars, is of vital importance. It spells out in city officials’ own words exactly how residents have been misled and duped. Only here, speaking on the record for a friendly niche publication, do they let their guard down and speak about the true purpose of CATS’ $9 billion train plan.

I urge you to read and spread this article far and wide in its entirety, but for now the high — or low — points as detailed by writer Zach Patton.

First up “Charlotte’s transit-oriented development czar” Tracy Finch.

In Charlotte, it was the city’s rise as a national banking center that began discussions about finding a new way to grow. In the early 1990s, Bank of America relocated its corporate headquarters to Charlotte. Other banks, including what is now Wachovia Corp., also proliferated there. With the banks came an influx of employees transferring from cities such as Philadelphia, New York or San Francisco. “These were people used to an urban lifestyle,” says Finch. “They didn’t want to live on a half-acre lot at the end of a cul-de-sac. They understood the value of a walkable neighborhood.” At the time, Charlotte didn’t have many of those to offer; Finch says that a lot of bank employees refused to make the move.

Really? Now that is damn fascinating info right there. First off is it true? Did BofA or Wachovia/First Union really have trouble getting execs to come to Charlotte because it didn’t have a light rail plan? Because we didn’t yet have condos Uptown next to rail stops?

Even if false, Finch clearly believes the story to be true and it is doubtful that Charlotte’s transit oriented development czar is alone in that belief.

Next up, city planning director Debra Campbell:

Planners began thinking about transit by mapping where population growth was already occurring around Charlotte. What they came up with was a five-armed figure, a slightly askew star with downtown at its center. The city council adopted this “Centers and Corridors Vision” in 1994. From that, planners started to see how they could use trains or rapid buses to channel future growth along those corridors. “We always saw transit as a means, not an end,” says planning director Debra Campbell. “The real impetus for transit was how it could help us grow in a way that was smart. This really isn’t even about building a transit system. It’s about place making. It’s about building a community.”

Couple massively important items here. One, our current transit and transportation plan dates to 1994. Might we want to update it to reflect recent lessons in land-use and transportation planning?

Two, We always saw transit as a means, not an end. The real impetus for transit was how it could help us grow in a way that was smart. This really isn’t even about building a transit system. It’s about place making. It’s about building a community.

Funny, “place making” was not on the ballot in 1998. Nor did it come up the other day at the Astrotuf press conference to save the half-cent transit tax. Nor did the Uptown paper of record mention “place making” in today’s clumsy attempt to define ‘”the real transit issue.” Instead it was all about “choking on traffic.”

The public is systematically being fed one line — that Charlotte’s $9 billion transit plan has something to do with traffic congestion, or sometimes air quality — while the real reason stays hidden. That is because local officials know that voters would not willingly hand over $9 billion so central planners can play at “place making.”

Next up Mayor Pat McCrory:

Nobody worked harder than Mayor Pat McCrory to sell Charlotte on this vision. A Republican elected in 1995 and now Charlotte’s longest-serving mayor, McCrory excelled at translating planner-speak into terms that resonated with everyday people. “Planners use acronyms and words like ‘density’ and ‘R6 zoning,’ ” McCrory says. “People can’t relate.” The mayor liked to present two competing images of Charlotte’s future. One included tidy tree-lined streets with bikeways and sidewalks. The other showed “traffic lights every 15 feet, strip malls and unlimited pavement.” More than anything, McCrory stressed the idea that a transit system isn’t intended to be a quick fix but rather a long-term investment.

Rather speaks for itself. Mayor Pat is proud of the way he has hoodwinked voters over the years.

Now, the $40 million trolley revealed as the stalking horse some of us long suspected it was:

Charlotte did two creative things to build momentum, turning its effort into a national model for transit-oriented development. First, the city ran a commuter trolley along existing freight tracks in the South End — the same tracks the light-rail trains will use. The trolley opened in 2001 and ran for only a couple of years along a relatively short section of tracks. But as a public relations tool, it helped residents and developers taste the potential. Campbell calls the trolley an “instrumental catalyst” for showing what this transit thing was all about.

So $40 million for light rail PR is fine with the city. Patton evidently does not know that the trolley is unlikely to ever run again, having served its purpose as a “catalyst.” Was this true purpose ever disclosed by city officials? Of course not; not even as the trolley’s cost spiraled out of control from $9 million upward. The city was going to pay whatever it took to run the trolley given what was at stake. This provides further evidence of CATS’ and the city’s willingness to mislead the public.

On the half-cent repeal issue:

Charlotte’s transit boosters are confident they’ll prevail in November. Voters have supported transit several times in the past, and city officials, from the planners to Mayor McCrory, have worked hard to build support within the community. Tina Votaw, a planner with the city agency in charge of light rail, says it’s important to convey a big-picture message to the public. “You have to be honest and say, ‘You’re right. This transit line might not help you. But it might help your neighbors. It might help your children.’ ” Votaw adds that traffic congestion isn’t going away, and that adding lanes to busy freeways is a short-term solution to traffic problems. “We’re not traditionally good at taking the long view,” she says. “But you’ve got to impress that upon people one by one.”

More Votaw:

You’re not going to see people throwing away their car keys. We don’t expect everybody to get out of their cars. But I’m afraid that’s what these critics think we believe. We’re just trying to give people a choice.

More Campbell:

It’s also about giving lifestyle choices. Charlotte had gotten to the point where there was really only one lifestyle: suburban half-acre lots. We will never ever do away with our suburban cul-de-sac communities. They’ll always be a choice for our residents. … We never, ever, ever said transit was going to be a panacea. It’s just about providing a choice. A big part of that was bringing in the transit folks, the engineers, the planners and the developers to talk to the public, so it wasn’t just seen as a transit project. … Your perspective on transit has to be based around adding choices. And there should be a strong linkage between the vision you have for your community and this tool — and it has to be considered a tool. Transit is just one additional piece of infrastructure, like roads or utilities, that shapes your community.

City officials have already unilaterally decreed that adding road capacity will not relieve traffic congestion, but nor will light rail. Light rail is merely a “choice.” Congestion then, is evidently a natural phenomenon beyond the reach of human hands. But “place making” is not. Strange.

Here’s is what we’ve learned from the city’s own officials.

Those are the primary goals. There cannot be any dispute. Here then the big question the Uptown crowd so does not want to hear: Given those goals, should we spend at least $70 million a year in half-cent transit tax revenue to secure them?

Or do we need new goals and a new plan?