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
|
