What about ridership? Here, clearly, the historical parallel must break
down. St. Louis in the 1990s is vastly different from St. Louis in the 1920s. The
population of the city proper is smaller; suburban population is greater. The city center
is less important in terms of jobs, shopping and other activities. In the 1920s, the
streetcar was the principal means of local transportation, a role long since assumed by
the automobile. MetroLink can hope to carry only a tiny fraction of the ridership of the
earlier streetcar line at its heyday. Right?
In 1925, the three lines which together parallel MetroLink –
Hodiamont, Ferguson and Florissant92 – carried 25.5 million passengers.
20.5 million of that total rode the Hodiamont line, line 15. Discounting for segments of
the other two lines not paralleled by MetroLink, the total ridership in 1925 on parallel
lines was about 23 million.93 In FY 1997, the total ridership on MetroLink was
14,485,500 – almost two-thirds of the total on the parallel streetcar routes at
the height of the streetcar era!94
No one would argue that the streetcar was unimportant to St. Louis in
1925 or that it carried only a tiny fraction of transit competitive trips. So how can it
be that Light Rail today is unimportant, unsuccessful or unable to compete, when it
carries two-thirds of the ridership it carried in 1925 in the area it serves?
Nor is the statistic a fluke. We can also compare ridership across the
Eads Bridge in 1925 and 1997. In 1925, that bridge carried a streetcar line, as today it
carries MetroLink. In 1925, streetcars carried about 21,000 people across the Eads Bridge
daily.95 In 1997, MetroLink carried 9,220 daily over the Eads Bridge, almost
half the 1925 ridership.96
And we can compare totals. In 1925, St. Louis’s streetcars carried
about 800,000 people each work day on 463 miles of single track.97 In 1997,
MetroLink carried 42,000 weekday riders on 36 miles of single track,98 or about
one-twentieth the ridership on about one-thirteenth the track.
However we compute it, we see roughly the same picture: despite
enormous changes in the city of St. Louis and the displacement of the streetcar by the
automobile as most people’s primary means of travel, Light Rail now carries between
one-half and two-thirds the ridership it did in 1925, in the area served. As a sober,
scholarly historian might put it, Wow! Clio sits back with a quiet smile on her face, her
mission accomplished and the critics confounded.
Taken together, what do our three case studies say to our basic
question, does transit work? They establish beyond question that when we measure transit
with the correct yardstick, transit competitive trips, it measures up well. Chicago’s
Metra, the San Diego Trolley and St. Louis’s MetroLink Light Rail line all carry far
more than 1% or 2% or 5% of transit competitive trips. We cannot determine exactly what
percentage of transit competitive trips they do carry, because the question has not been
asked this way before. As we said earlier, one of the purposes of this paper is to
encourage the field work and other research necessary to answer the question definitively.
But if we don’t know precisely what the answer is, we know what it is not: the
tiny number assigned by transit critics.
Not only is their answer wrong, so is their question. It is useful to
review why it is wrong, why "total trips" is not a useful measurement in light
of our case studies. Total trips does not consider whether transit is available. Metra
service is eagerly sought throughout the Chicago area, but not everyone has it. Nor does
total trips take quality into account. Both San Diego and St. Louis show riders’
marked preference for rail over buses, but most people in both cities have nothing but bus
service available near their homes. Total trips does not take trip purpose into account.
When we do so, we find quality transit competes effectively for the kinds of trips transit
has always carried, including not just commuting but also recreational travel. At the San
Diego Super Bowl, both teams had to be "trolley dodgers."
In contrast, transit competitive trips is a real-world measurement. It
only measures transit where transit is able to compete, that is, where it is available. It
recognizes that all transit is not created equal, that many people are willing to take a
train even when they have a car available, but they are not so willing to take a bus on a
traffic-clogged street. We may wonder why this is so, and some may lament the fact, but it
is a fact and our measurements must reflect it. Finally, transit competitive trips
recognizes that transit never competed for certain types of trips, and it is unreasonable
to expect it to do so now.
So, does transit work? Yes, it does. Each of our case studies shows
independently, and all together demonstrate conclusively, that high quality rail transit
can compete effectively for work and recreational trips in the area that transits serves.
We would add that buses on busways and in other "express" service can also
compete for transit competitive trips, though perhaps not so as well as rail. The plain
fact is, a lot of Americans have always liked riding trains and trolley cars, and they
still do. They like it well enough to leave their car at home or in a parking lot when
there is a train or trolley they can ride.
Making Transit More Competitive
In our previous study, Conservatives and Mass Transit, we argued
that there were sound reasons for conservatives to support mass transit. However, we also
said that transit advocates and officials should listen to some conservative critiques of
the industry, because they offer ways transit could be improved. Now, having argued that
"transit competitive trips" is the correct measuring stick for determining if
transit works, we again want to turn the telescope around. We believe the transit industry
could do better than it does in competing for those trips. To see how it might do so,
let’s look at each of the elements that make up our definition of transit competitive
trips: availability, quality and trip type.
Improving Transit’s Availability
As both this study and its predecessor have emphasized, all transit is
not created equal. If our goal is to attract riders from choice, buses on city streets are
not sufficient. Therefore, when we speak of transit availability, we mean availability of
transit people may actually want to use. That means rail or express bus service.
The easiest and most efficient way to improve the availability of
quality transit can be stated in five words: more parking at transit stations! St.
Louis’s experience notwithstanding, we believe that in most places many potential
riders from choice are not willing to take a bus to get to a train, nor to take a local
bus to get to an express bus. If the distance is such that they cannot walk, they will
either drive to the train station or express bus stop or not use public transit at all.
Yet how often do we see rail systems costing hundreds of millions or
even billions of dollars skimp on parking to save a few centimes! Soon after the
system opens, it reports – as if with pride – that all the parking spaces at its
outlying stations are filled by 8 AM or perhaps even earlier. Frankly, at that point
someone should be fired, or sued, or – happy conservative thought – exiled. That
system may be turning away thousands of customers.
Why does it happen? Part of the reason may be that transit authorities
and consultants have it backwards. They think they look good if all the available parking
is occupied, but may be criticized if some sit empty. The opposite is the case: parking
should be sufficient so that at any time of day, anyone wanting to use the system knows
that if they drive to a station, they will find a place to park. In fact, we should make a
"planner’s rule" of it: parking is only sufficient when some spaces are
always empty.
But we think something else is at work here as well: a liberal mindset.
Liberals believe that people should be willing to take the bus. The "omnibus"
is, by its name, "for all," and liberal egalitarianism is offended by the notion
that some people don’t see themselves as merely "all." Who do they think
they are, anyway, wanting to drive their Volvo to the train instead of taking the
"sensible, environment-friendly" bus?
As conservatives, we insist on the Reality Principle. "They"
are potential customers of transit, and if we want to turn them into transit users, we
must meet them on their terms. That means parking spaces at rail transit stations. So the
first suggestion we would offer for improving transit’s ability to compete is
parking, parking and more parking.
A second challenge is more difficult: providing more rail transit. We
recognize that buses on busways and other express bus service can offer quality transit,
and we encourage transit systems to provide more of both. But in most cities, we believe
riders from choice will respond better to rail service than to any variety of bus.
Further, as the costs in St. Louis illustrate, rail can be substantially more efficient to
operate than bus service.
The problem with rail service is capital cost. Here, we think an old
conservative habit can be helpful: look to the past.
As we said in our first study, "hi-tech" can be the enemy of
rail transit. Both of the authors have operated electric rail vehicles built before 1910
that have balancing speeds in excess of 80 miles per hour. Both have ridden PCC streetcars
and rapid transit cars that provide smooth, quiet, comfortable rides with 1930s
technology. Why must Light Rail systems so often overbuild track, stations and wiring and
pay $3 million for modern Light Rail Vehicles when older technologies and approaches,
vastly simpler and less expensive, did the job just fine?
We don’t have to theorize about the value of history in lowering
rail transit costs. Heritage Trolley lines in a growing number of cities offer concrete
examples. In Dallas, Memphis and New Orleans, Heritage Trolley lines designed as tourist
attractions are providing useful transit service to local residents. Those lines are built
and operated at a fraction of the cost of modern Light Rail systems.99
A typical transit consultant might say, "But those are only
downtown circulators. You couldn’t run a regular suburban Light Rail line that
way."
Why not? Have we forgotten the Chicago, Aurora and Elgin? The North
Shore Line? Those lines operated into the 1950s and 60s, carrying large numbers of people
with high reliability and comfort, using equipment that in some cases dated to the wooden
car era. Let us offer another rule of transit planning: What worked then can work now.
And, we would add, it might work better. Riders might prefer the
ambience of a classic interurban car to the plasticized blandness of a "Standardized
Light Rail Vehicle." Why else is New Orleans building new streetcars to a 1920s
design, using trucks, motors and controls from the Czech Republic?
In our view, volunteer labor also has potential for making Light Rail
more affordable. Unlike buses, trains and trolleys draw large numbers of fans. Many are
willing to work as well as ride. St. Louis again shows the way forward. Part of the reason
St. Louis now has MetroLink is the work done over many years by a volunteer group,
Citizens for Modern Transit. This organization worked tirelessly to educate local people
about Light Rail and its benefits. Once the referendum approving MetroLink passed, CMT did
not disband. On the contrary, its members now work as volunteers throughout the MetroLink
system, providing information and guidance to riders. They are especially helpful to
first-time riders, and their friendly presence helps first-timers have a good experience
and return as regular customers.
Commuter rail is currently the fastest-growing segment of the rail
transit industry, largely because capital costs are kept comparatively low and start-up
time is reduced by use of existing tracks. A new generation of rail buses can reduce
start-up costs further. Rail buses are simple versions of the classic "Budd
car," or Diesel Multiple Unit rail vehicle. Some are nothing more than bus bodies on
rails. Europe now offers a flood of new designs of rail bus, many quite innovative and
comfortable, and some inexpensive.
Most American cities have overbuilt rail systems reaching out from the
city center, dating to the days when everything moved by rail. Often, these lines have
surplus capacity. Just as cities are wise to begin Light Rail with a single "starter
line," so rail bus service on some of these existing railroads can be a good
"starter" for commuter rail. As the passenger count builds, regular commuter
trains can be introduced, and the rail buses can be shifted to new routes. This way,
initial costs are kept low, and expansion comes as a political support base is built among
people who use the new service.
Remember, many Americans have never even ridden on a train. You
can’t expect them to support spending public money on trains until they have a chance
to ride one. Rail buses can give them that opportunity at small up-front cost.
Go to Part 5
Some of these pages may include links to documents in the Adobe PDF format. Please download the Adobe PDF reader if you have not already done so.
