St. Louis: More Light Rail vs. Streetcars vs. Bus Service
Few topics raise so much debate as public mass transit. Some, mostly wealthy suburbanites that profit from sprawl, suggest we shouldn’t subsidize mass transit (leaving money to subsidize their sprawl). Others strongly advocate expensive light rail systems including our own MetroLink. Still others advocate an expansion in bus service as a means of reaching more people, in particular those that can’t afford private cars. And finally you have streetcar advocates looking to use their retro charm to invigorate areas while providing transportation.
In July Post-Dispatch reporters Shane Graber and Elisa Crouch questioned the $550 million being spent on eight more miles of MetroLink:
So, what if that $550 million could have been spent on, say, improving bus service instead? As it is, about 70 percent of St. Louisans who use public transit ride the bus anyway. More bus service, some customers might argue, might have been a good thing.
Metro tells us it costs $78 to keep one bus in service for an hour. That includes everything: fuel, maintenance, operator salary and those bus stop announcements that no one can understand.
But Metro says about half of the passengers who ride MetroLink make between $50,000 and $75,000 a year. Only 17 percent of bus riders make that much. In fact, more than half of them make less than $15,000.
Graber and Crouch continue their argument with some interesting math:
So for $550 million, here’s how many more buses Metro could have put on the road every day of the year for 16 hours a day: 241 new bus routes for five years; 120 bus routes for 10 years; 80 bus routes for 15 years; or 60 for 20 years.
That is a lot of buses. Perhaps too many? But their point is well made. Light rail is very expensive and doesn’t always serve the population that needs it most.
I’ve been utilizing our bus service in combination with my bike quite a bit over the last few months. I’ve been very impressed with the cleanliness of the buses, their on-time rate and the friendliness of my fellow riders. The economic difference between riders on the bus and light rail is pretty apparent but in the end not a deterrent. But the stigmatism of the bus is alive in many people’s mind.
Streetcars are basically a bus on a fixed rail. Well, in truth, the bus was a streetcar removed from the rails and given a diesel engine. People universally seem to love streetcars. Even new streetcars that don’t have the retro look. Something about the rail and the overhead wires. Not even the wires so much. Seattle’s buses become electric in the city, connecting to overhead wires. It really comes down to the fixed rail.
You’d think the flexibility of the bus would be more appealing but I believe we all have this secret love of railroads and the rails. The streetcar is the most accessible form of rail transportation. Light rail is superior to streetcars in that one train can hold many more passengers. Each operator carries more passengers a day than would an operator of a streetcar or bus. This is ultimately the big argument in favor of light rail. However, the cost to get those people from place to place is high.
Before people start attacking me let me say that I love our MetroLink system and I’m glad we are expanding it. But I’m wondering about the wisdom of expanding the system further. I’m not suggesting we stop building our mass transit system, just changing from light rail to streetcar.
Part of my reasoning is purely selfish. Where I currently live MetroLink will never be convenient. In about 20 years I might have a stop about a mile West of me that will take me downtown. Twenty years! I’ll be pushing 60 years old by then. Sorry, but I’m not that patient. The #40 Broadway bus is just three blocks to the East and it gets me the six miles to downtown in very short order.
I see the future Northside MetroLink route as being a critical component to repopulating and reinvigorating North St. Louis. But can we afford to wait the 15+ years for it to be finished? As much as I love light rail I think we’d be better off substituting streetcars along the Northside and Southside routes. We can have an efficient system in place years earlier and for millions less. Streetcars offer the lower cost per passenger of buses while increasing ridership through their magical charm.
Ultimately, the sooner we get more mass transit in place the better off we’ll be as a region. Streetcar lines would reach more people in more neighborhoods than light rail. And, after all, that is the goal of mass transit.
– Steve
Rode almost exclusively Metrolink for a few years, then switched to bus service a couple of years ago. My experience on the bus has been similar to yours. Completely agree with the stigmatism aspect – though there seem to be more people willing to take the Express lines, which is a good first step, I guess.
One major difference is the speed – bus service is subject to the whims of traffic, and makes a ton of stops. One thing that I wish Metro would do is to eliminate some of the stops – sometimes one every block in places.
I live in Minneapolis and have never been to Saint Louis. I do take the bus, though, and feel that the only drawback is that it takes prohibitively long to cross town. Rail transit solves that problem (as I experienced when living in towns with extensive rail). So once your bus system is pretty good, it becomes key to start setting up a rail system, then later adapt the bus routes to feed the rail. That speeds up the whole system and addresses those accessibility issues you brought up.
I hate to say it, but if your only priority when building transit is to accomodate those who can’t afford cars, then your transit system will never accomodate anyone but that population. And unfortunately, because that population is less likely to vote, you’re just going to end up with less and less transit. So I feel that all populations should be accomodated with transit.
Maybe my first comments don’t apply as much to a dense town like St. Louis, but trust me, crosstown is key in a region like mine. Regardless, the second comments should apply everywhere.
Nothing would make me happier than putting the St. Louis streetcar system back in place, starting tomorrow. If the choice was between immediate streetcar service or light-rail fifteen years from now, I would take the streetcars. However, my first fantasy choice would be to immediately start building all proposed light-rail lines (with some tweaking of alignments), and then connect the disconnected areas with streetcars. The idea of waiting 15 years from now for any progress depresses me. I want to be around to see it happen and I am getting older every day.
Wouldn’t it be nice to get someone in charge of Metro that actually knew what they were doing?
Wouldn’t it be nice if everyone at the national, state, and local level, actually knew what they were doing and understood the importance of good transit? Metro can’t do it without the support of the people and the government. The problem is not Metro, not really. The problem is those people than can make a difference but don’t care to do so. Think about that when you vote.
Great blog post! I enjoyed reading it. Within the past few months I have switched my bicycle work commute to using Metrolink. I used to use it only a few times (during cold months). Now I buy monthly passes. I ride to the UMSL North Mthe North County Bikeway. I then take Metretrolink using a new trail (Jones Trail) part of of the North County Bikeway. Then take metrolink to Delmar. I ride my bike through U. City and then onto Olivette where I work. Total ride is about an hour and mileage is 10. If the weather gets bad I can take the bus. Yesterday I just walked across Olive from my work (US Bank) and put my bike on the Metrobus bike rack. The Metrobus stops at the Delmar Metrolink station. I missed having to deal with rain and traffic! I took it for a test run earlier this week and it ended up being about the same time as riding from my work to Delmar! The timing of the bus and metrolink is really good. I got off of the Olive Bus and then the Metrolink headed to airport arrived a few minutes later! I love using these modes (bike/rail/bus). $56 monthy metrolink/bus pass is awesome!(get mine mailed via the Citizens for Modern Transit web site). Lots of people pay that much in gas for a week! I would like to see more Metrolink! But I can see the cost factor being a problem. I wouldn’t mind a combination of street cars / metrolink / buses taking us from one place to another more quickly than the auto! Just takes more time and money. I believe that more people are waking up and will jump on the bus! Versus paying into the failed autodependance (autogeddon) system that we have in place now!
Could you clarify some points for me? First, what do you mean by this line:
Some, mostly wealthy suburbanites that profit from sprawl, suggest we shouldn’t subsidize mass transit (leaving money to subsidize their sprawl)
Who exactly profits from sprawl?
How is sprawl subsidized?
What exactly are you talking about by sprawl?
I agree with your conclusion – that as a metro area we’ll be better with more mass transit – but your ideas about suburbanites are ridiculous.
[REPLY – Hum, you don’t understand my points yet come to the conclusion they are ridiculous. Is that possible?
A number of well-funded groups exist in nearly every major city, including St. Louis, that routinly fight against all mass transit because it is subsidized. When you follow the money trail it is most often the people who own road & bridge companies, and large commercial developers. Home builders that create tacky low-density subdivisions on former farm fields also get into the act of working against urban mass transit. These groups are all highway dependent and want to keep it that way. These owners are generally wealthy and live in the suburbs. I did not say that all suburbanites profit from sprawl – but some clearly do.
Sprawl is subsidized in countless ways. With the exception of a few private streets in subdivisions all streets are public streets and they don’t come cheap. Suburbia, with its low density, requires far more roadway per home than a more urban environment or even older suburbs like Webster Groves or Ferguson. Then you have school systems struggling to build new schools while older districts deal with loss of students. These sprawling school districts also have enormous fuel costs because students simply can’t walk from home to school.
So the argument goes from these wealthy suburbanites with a vested interest in keeping the road building sprawl continuing that they should not be paying for “subsidized” mass transit but why is it that my taxes should be used to “invest” in roadways & sprawling school districts on what should remain a farm field? Sprawl is costly and does not pay for itself – it is also subisized by the public. Just because someone goes from their tract house to work in their Expedition does mean that whole arrangment didn’t require public tax dollars to make that work.
And why are we fighting the war in Iraq? Don’t even say freedom. It is about oil. I saw a funny bumper sticker in San Diego, “How did our oil get under their sand?” Our sprawl consumes far too much of the world’s fossil fuels. The cost of the war in Iraq is basically to subsidize sprawl.
Then we have the costs of air pollution caused by all these cars making all these trips in sprawl. Look at the figures – the number of trips by car and the number of miles traveled is far greater in sprawl than in urban densities. Sprawl is polluting our country. Even small rurul towns that used to have a walkable town center are experiencing the drive-to subdivisions and Wal-Mart strip centers are having increasing problems with pollution. Again, my taxes are subsidizing sprawl to deal with the problem.
And let’s not forget loss of life. Beside the environmental issues we have the much higher auto accident rate. My auto insurance rates are higher in the city yet I’m more likely to get in an accident in sprawl. My insurance is subsizing suburbanites insurance.
Sprawl is a bankrupt way of building and living. It will self implode within the next 3-5 years. – SLP]
True, the cost for one MetroLink line in capital costs could pay for more MetroBus lines. But the fare recovery, the degree to which fares actually cover the cost of operations, is double for MetroLink, compared to your average MetroBus line. IOW, MetroLink is more expensive in upfront construction, but by attracting more riders, light-rail is ultimately cheaper than buses in operations.
And ultimately were talking about travel time savings for transit passengers. MetroLink works as a trunk line with bus connections for those accessing common destinations. Streetcars don’t provide the time savings over longer distances that light rail can. Ultimately, high-speed subways would be best in time savings, but light-rail is the financial compromise. Streetcars risk operating like expensive buses.
Brian where did you find those stats on fare recovery. I’ve been looking for them off and on for awhile. To make sure I understand them, using ARBITRARY numbers: for every $1 Metro spends operating a bus it might bring in $0.25; for every $1 spent operating MetroLink it would bring in $0.50. Is that what your saying?
To add to the conversation, it seems Metro and East-West Gateway should be advocating dedicated bus lanes as the next step. Dedicated lanes would require less capital improvements to infrastructure than street cars and would avoid the addition of another type of vehicle to service(this drives the operations people nuts). You loose the nostalgia and possible environmental benefits of street cars, but you get the flexibility of buses and the transit time benefits.
Bus rapid transit (BRT) is being explored as an option, but many roadway interests will block a dedicated lane for BRT as much as they fight in-street running of light-rail transit. And yes, BRT is cheaper yet offers improved passenger time savings. But BRT often fails in attracting riders (the bus stigma), and especially development, since the investment is not as fixed or committed. Light rail seeks to improve travel times of current bus riders as well as attract new riders.
As I see it, here’s how public transit speeds rank, fastest to slowest:
1) Light-rail on a dedicated right-of-way
2) Bus on a dedicated right-of-way (“BRT”)
3) Bus on a highway (“express” bus)
4) Light-rail on a street
5) Streetcar on a street
6) Bus on a street
The one option I didn’t list is streetcar on a dedicated right-of-way. That might be faster than a bus on a dedicated ROW, I’m not sure.
The question for me is:
How fast does transit need to go in order to compete with other options? Pretty fast, I think.
The faster we can make transit, the better. Likewise, the more frequent we can make transit, the better.
The only bus route with comparable service frequency to MetroLink, currently is the #70 Grand. It stops a lot, so it’s not particularly fast. OTOH, it’s pretty crowded, so it’s probably the one bus route that’s closest to being ‘profitable.’
This is a little dated, but in 1998, when Bi-State planned some major service cutbacks, the Post-Dispatch published the following data:
June 12, 1998 – Mei-Ling Hopgood of the Post-Dispatch:
“Cost of routes
The more people who ride a Bi-State route, the less it costs. Here are some bus routes and the daily cost-per-passenger:
Most Expensive:
No. 58, Clayton Ballas, Sunday, $21.64
No. 58 Clayton-Ballas, Saturday, $21.12
No. 657 Maplewood Limited, weekdays $14.88
No. 17 Clayton-Oakville, weekdays $11.07
No. 49 Lindbergh, Saturday, $6.94
Least Expensive
No. 70 Grand Avenue, weekdays, 9 cents.
No. 70 Grand Avenue, Saturday, 11 cents.
No. 70 Grand Avenue, Sunday, 22 cents
No. 96 Kingshighway, Saturday, 48 cents.
No. 97 Delmar, weekdays, 50 cents.
Other:
MetroLink, 80 cents.
Call-A-Ride, $14.60
Source: Bi-State Development Agency.”
In 2001, Ken Leiser reported that Bi-State said the #17 Clayton-Oakville cost $22.15 per passenger in subsidy. The #70 Grand? Only 15-cent subsidy.
This list came along with that 2001 story:
July 6, 2001:
“Most highly subsidized bus routes
Rank Route Average passengers Deficit per passenger, per day
1. Clayton-Oakville 31 $22.15
2. Spirit of St. Louis Shuttle 21 $16.50
3. Northland Shuttle 11 $12.59
4. Kirkwood Express 53 $11.04
5. St. Louis Hills Express 76 $8.76
6. Maplewood-Airport 262 $8.75
7. Litzsinger 30 $8.51
8. Riverview Gardens Express 65 $8.48
9. Tesson Ferry Express 131 $8.15
10. Ellisville Express 66 $7.51”
I would note that most of these “expensive” or “highly subsidized” routes on both lists were indeed either eliminated or dramatically restructured in 2001. A lot of the fat has already been cut from the bus system. As a result, some people who may have used the bus to get to-and-from work probably drive now.
I live near the CWE, and have made it around with bike and public transportation for the last 3 years or so. I loath taking the bus, and only do so when I must. Not because I inherently dislike buses – I’ve ridden buses regularly outside the United States, and even in worse off countries the buses are almost exclusively 1) clean and 2) on-time. I cannot count the number of times buses on the routes I use have been horribly late. Buses are also ‘less clean’ than alternative mass transit like the Metrolink. Plus, oftentimes I will have to transfer 2 or 3 times to get where I need to go (no doubt due to underfunding and limited routes).
The current Metrolink system is woefully limited. It’s regretable that the Metrolink is such a long-term development project, but I greatly prefer a future filled with light-rail than a future filled with buses.
Fixed-rail mass transit is a 19th century solution to 21st century problems. It’s too expensive, too restrictive, too romantic.
Buses are the way to go, but not the loud, bumpy, ugly clunkers we’ve got now. If we had buses that were clean-running (and easily cleanable inside), attractive, quiet and, yes, ontime, then people would ride them. Middle class people too.
I’m spending a year in Germany, where buses are a basic part of life, and they are wonderful. They’ve also made them handicapped accessible, which is a tremendous benefit to parents with strollers.
Metrolink is an absurd waste of resources.
[REPLY – I certainly question the high costs of MetroLink but I don’t question fixed rail in the form of street cars. Seattle has nice clean & quiet electric buses but they don’t get used at the rate of European buses. Our American culture is differernt and buses have a major stigma here. I have found our buses to be quite clean but that still doesn’t make them appealing. Buses might be great for other countries but I just don’t see the middle class giving up their cars for the bus until gas hits $5.00/gallon. – SLP]
Even though the northside/southside MetroLink lines have significant in-street running sections (Chouteau, Natural Bridge, N. Florissant, downtown loop), trains will likely run in semi-exclusive lanes. That is, lanes separated from traffic but at-grade crossings at major intersections with signal prioritization for the trains.
A streetcar runs more like a bus in traffic with other vehicles traveling in its lane. Indeed, the only difference between a streetcar and an electric bus with overhead supply are in-street rails.
In-street MetroLink will likely run mostly in a median on the northside and in Chouteau, while side-running on the downtown couplet/loop. The streets preliminarily identified, like Chouteau, have excessive width for their volumes, meaning the needed lane reductions for semi-exclusive in-street light-rail will likely have minimal impact on motorized traffic. Also, minor streets will likely be changed to right-turn only access to minimize at-grade crossings.
But ultimately, why we’re running light-rail in-street, albeit semi-exclusive, instead of exclusive dedicated right-of-way are financial and takings constraints. Most every other city with light-rail has in-street running. St. Louis to date has benefitted from abandonned railroad infrastructure close to popular destinations. Where such infrastructure did not exist, as between Forest Park and Clayton, we have seen the expensive cost of creating a new exclusive right-of-way along Forest Park Parkway.
The new northside/southside study for lines within the City between I-70 and I-55 is more than double the mileage of Cross-County, yet the capital budget is actually the same or less. Thus, we’re trying to build more than double the miles of Cross-County, including a downtown loop, for less cost. And that’s the financial constraint leading to semi-exclusive light-rail as the preferred rapid transit option.
The bottom line is that St. Louis doesn’t need a rail system.(light rail, metrolink, street car, whatever). It just isn’t needed. It’s so easy to get around St. Louis by car that not enough people would find any benefit to change to public trans. I don’t think its fair to force people to pay for something (metrolink) they neither want or need. I hate buses as much as the next guy but they are sufficient to pick up the slack for those people who for whatever reason cant purchase a car.
[REPLY – Doesn’t need a rail system? How can anyone possibly come to that conclusion? We are about to spend $2 Billion dollars on highway projects because it is not easy to get around by car. I know a number of people that either can’t drive or chose not to drive yet somehow they are expected to subsidize private car ownership. As a society we owe it to our citizens to be able to get around without having the burden of owning a car. – SLP]
Well give me your reasons for why STL needs a rail system. And the $2 billion? Are you talking about the redevelopment of 64/40? The purpose isn’t to make car travel easier, its to make the interchanges safer for higher traffic loads. Are you opposed to making the roads safer? Also I don’t use buses yet I’m expected to help subsidize that. btw, what % of people cant afford cars anyway?
REPLY – Why we need a rail system? Well, we already have a rail system. It serves many people that if they were all in cars we’d need even more roadways and more parking. I personally don’t like places dominated by either so the fewer massive roads and parking lots/garages we have the better. A properly functioning city has many ways of getting from point A to point B with private cars being just one choice. Others include walking, biking and mass transit. Before GM and other companies illegally conspired to replace rail with buses our cities enjoyed the benefits of rail — compact and walkable communities.
Read you own statement on 64/40. The project is not to make it easier but safer. But then you mention higher loads. Well, the talk is to ease congestion which does translate to an easier trip which will encourage more trips which will lead to higher loads which will then make the new road unsafe. It is a process that cannot be solved by building more and more lanes.
The bottom line is a member of society should not be forced into driving a private automobile to be mobile in society. Not everyone is physically or financially able. Others may be able to drive but chose not to confine themselves to the private car. I’d love for St. Louis to be so urban that I could not have a car — that would be ideal. – SLP]
Once again, the bottom line is that StL is not big enough to warrant a rail system. StL is not Chicago. We don’t have over a million people commuting to work in the downtown area.
From what I can gather from your reply, you just hate cars. Why? They have liberated people by providing mobility not possible through a rigid rail system. In Socioeconomic terms, the automobile has helped expand the middle class and even given low income people opportunities not possible before.
[REPLY – Actually, I love cars. I can easily identify nearly every European car ever made. I love driving. What I don’t like is a society where ALL are forced to drive and those that can’t are just stuck at home. Rail is about mobility for everyone, not just those that drive. – SLP]
Here in Salt Lake, we are contemplating installing streetcar (more as a development tool than a trunk service) in addition to the Light Rail and Heavy Rail commuter services we already offer.
These are the reasons we have rail:
1) More people ride it
2) downtown Salt Lake has been able to eliminate parking lots and replace them with development (increasing property values)
3) suburban Salt Lake has been able to build more dense residential near the light rail line (increasing property values)
Still, SL has the advantage of being geographically constrained by 11,000 ft mountains on one side and a brine pond ten miles away on the other side. The Wasatch Front has 1.5 million people living in a corridor 80 miles long and 15 miles wide. We are lucky, but other cities will still see many of these same benefits when they invest in rail construction.