Does Transit Work?

A Conservative Reappraisal

Part 3

Case Studies

St. Louis

San Diego offers a look at the oldest post-war Light Rail system in the country; St. Louis is one of the newest, having opened in 1993. Known as MetroLink, the single 18-mile line runs from East St. Louis, Illinois, across the Mississippi River to St. Louis, Missouri, through the downtown and out to the airport. It serves many of the city's central attractions, including the historic riverfront district at Laclede's Landing, the Convention Center, Busch Stadium, the Kiel/Civic Center, Union Station (redeveloped as shops, restaurants, and the Hyatt Regency St. Louis), Washington University Medical Center, the University of Missouri-St. Louis and the Lambert-St. Louis International Airport. A fleet of 31 electric Light Rail Vehicles provides service every seven minutes during rush hour and at 10 to 15-minute intervals otherwise from 5am to 1am daily.

MetroLink offers service of the highest quality. Since opening day, trains have been 99+% on time. Cleanliness is to Swiss standards. Among its amenities, one is unique: a corps of unpaid volunteers mans stations to provide information and assistance, especially to first-time riders. Perhaps most important, MetroLink goes where people want to go – something not always true of rail transit lines in other cities.

MetroLink was built for the remarkably low price of $20 million per mile, total system cost – track, overhead wires, cars, everything. Part of the reason for the low price – freeways in cities can easily run $100 million per mile – was highly imaginative use of existing facilities. MetroLink crosses the Mississippi River on the Eads Bridge, built in 1874. It passes under downtown St. Louis in an old railroad tunnel, opened at the same time as the bridge. Most of the rest of MetroLink runs on the right-of-way of the former Wabash Railroad. Both in its construction and its operations, MetroLink offers a model for other cities considering Light Rail. In fact, if MetroLink does not offer its services as a consultant, it should.

MetroLink's availability is excellent in terms of destinations. However, the line does not serve many residential areas directly (planned extensions will change this). And parking is limited, currently to about 3000 spaces.

Yet from its opening day, MetroLink has been highly successful, carrying far more riders than projected. An early study, done only a year after the line opened, noted that

Ridership graphs (for all public transit in St. Louis) swung from a long trending downward slope to a sudden and steep upward climb with the introduction of the multi-modal transit system. Total ridership on Bi-State's bus, rail, paratransit system for Fiscal Year 1994 was 45.6 million commuters, an increase of 21 percent over the past fiscal year. The reason for the increase was the popularity of MetroLink which brought new customers scurrying to public transit.73

Specifically, "Bi-State projected 13,000 MetroLink riders for initial service, increasing to 17,000 at the end of the first year. By July 1994 – the twelfth month of service – weekday ridership was 44,414. Average Saturday and Sunday ridership for July 1994 was 50,725 and 50,623."74 So much for the critics who claim that Light Rail systems always carry fewer people than projected.

Absent better data, one of the strongest inferences that a transit system is competing effectively for transit competitive trips is the proportion of riders from choice, and, more broadly, "upmarket" passengers. "The survey (in 1993 of public transit riders in St. Louis) substantiated past findings in that patrons use buses due to limited access to automobiles and to avoid traffic congestion, while most MetroLink passengers use Light Rail for economical reasons and are customers of choice."75 In a 1997 survey, only 27% of MetroLink's passengers either did not drive or had no car available, compared to 61% of bus passengers.76 38% of bus passengers owned no car, but only 9% of rail riders; conversely, 55% of rail patrons owned two or more cars, but only 32% of bus passengers.77 34% of train passengers were black, and 62% were white; for buses, the numbers were almost reversed, with 63% black and 32% white.78 59% of bus passengers had incomes below $25,000, compared to 24% of rail riders; 32% of the latter had incomes over $55,000, compared to 8% of bus patrons.79 The survey makes clear the relationship between quality transit and upmarket passengers: Light Rail passengers gave satisfaction percentages in the 70s, 80s, and 90s, compared to the 50s and 60s for bus riders.80

Nor can it be argued that MetroLink has merely shifted riders from buses to trains. In 1993, the year the rail line opened, "79% of MetroLink passengers were new to public transit."81 In a 1995 survey, 85% of MetroLink's passengers had not previously used the bus.82 In fact, bus patronage rose when MetroLink opened, and between five and nine percent of local bus riders started using transit because of Light Rail.83

These last numbers point to a surprising fact: in St. Louis, people do seem willing to use a bus to get to a train. The 1995 passenger survey notes, "The rate of transfer from train to buses has moved from 26 percent in 1993 to 43 percent in 1995."84 One reason may be that St. Louis did an unusually thorough job in rerouting its bus lines to become feeders to the rail system. Professor William D. Warren notes, "Rail transit systems should be networked with existing bus services, a feature that is often absent or ineffective in old and new rail systems. MetroLink interfaces directly with 46 Bi-State bus lines…. Many bus routes have at least two station connections with MetroLink."85

The data make it clear that MetroLink has greatly enhanced the ability of St. Louis' transit system to compete effectively for transit competitive trips. Les Sterman, Executive Director of the East-West Gateway Coordinating Council, the region's official Metropolitan Planning Organization, says, "It's reinvigorated the public transportation system, which was an object of scorn and lightly used by people who had no choice. Now, MetroLink is used by all kinds of people from all economic strata."86 The trends noted in earlier studies have continued. By FY 1997, transit ridership in St. Louis was up to 53.4 million, a 41% increase since MetroLink opened. 90% of that increase was due to Light Rail, yet bus ridership also rose by one million. Light Rail has also proved economical to operate. In FY 97, the farebox recovery rate for MetroLink was 41.8%, compared to 20.3% for the bus system. Light Rail's cost per passenger was 22 cents, compared to 68 cents for bus.87

How effectively does MetroLink compete for work trips and recreational trips? The 1997 riders' survey showed 69 percent were commuting to work, a respectable figure. On the other hand, the same survey found only 7% of trips were for recreation, down from 20% in 1995. Here, the earlier figure may be more representative; the 1997 survey was taken in April, a time when there are very few sporting events or tourists. The 1995 survey was taken in the summer.88

Other evidence points to substantial recreational travel:

For each St. Louis Rams football game, Bi-State buses and trains carry 20% to 25% of game attendance, one of the highest market shares in the NFL (3000 on buses and 15,000 on trains). As a result of the destination orientation of the existing system and special event marketing, Light Rail ridership remains high throughout the work day. On weekends, Saturday ridership averages 84%, and Sunday 56%, of weekday ridership. This ridership pattern is in sharp contrast to most other Light Rail systems which are often underutilized outside the morning and afternoon peak commuting periods.89

St. Louis offers a final way to assess the ability of Light Rail to compete for transit competitive trips. Here, history reaches out her skeletal hand, taps us on the shoulder and asks, "May I draw your attention to a surprising fact?"

In 1886, St. Louis installed its first cable car line (many cities, not just San Francisco, once had cable cars). The cable cars ran from downtown, at Sixth and Locust Streets, northwest to Morgan Street. There, they connected with a narrow-gauge steam railroad that ran far out into the countryside, ending at the town of Florissant.

The fact that this corridor was the first to be converted from horsecars to cable cars suggests that it was the city's most important artery. In 1891, the same line became the first in St. Louis to be converted to electric traction. Astoundingly, not only was the cable line converted, but the narrow-gauge steam railroad as well, resulting in an eighteen mile electric railroad – the longest in the country.90 The conversion further attests to the corridor's importance.

By the mid-1920s, at the height of streetcar patronage both in St. Louis and in the United States generally, a portion of this corridor, the Hodiamont line, was one of the five principal streetcar routes in the city. All five routes ran parallel to one another, closely grouped, toward the west-northwest from downtown. The map "Daily Flow of Traffic on Streetcar Lines, 1926" shows the grouping clearly.91

What do we find if we compare St. Louis's early transit corridor with MetroLink? Here is history's first surprise: MetroLink, which opened in 1991, is exactly the same length as the city's first electric line, eighteen miles. Further, it runs almost parallel to that first line, from beginning to end, usually less than a mile away – that is, within walking distance.

It is astonishing that two lines separated by precisely a century in time should be so similar in length and location. Mere coincidence? Maybe. But maybe not. Cities, like other great institutions, have remarkable continuity over time, continuity that often escapes the usual models and analysts.

Whatever the cause, the fact of these two lines' similarity is beyond dispute. Again, the map "MetroLink Route Compared to Early Streetcar Line Route" is helpful.