What is clear, though, is that the north–south MetroLink expansion isn’t the panacea advocates claim it is.

It isn’t a solution to automobile dependence. Saint Louis’s low population density and dispersed employment centers make the city a bad fit for light rail. Popular, cost-effective light rail systems require population densities upwards of 20,000 people per square mile, but Saint Louis City has fewer than 5,000 per square mile. And experience with existing MetroLink routes demonstrates our region’s preference for the car. Today, a lower percentage of Saint Louisans use transit than in 1990, before MetroLink even operated. Even more embarrassing, MetroLink has lower ridership today than it did in 2005, the year before the Shrewsbury line opened.

It isn’t a solution to poor transit service, either. Firstly, the proposed north-south line operates along a route already served by numerous bus routes. Secondly, the reason less than 4% of Saint Louisans commute on transit isn’t because they have trouble going from North City to downtown. It’s because the antiquated “hub and spoke” model Metro uses makes travelling from North City to employment centers in Central and West County a multi-transfer odyssey. If regional leaders truly want to improve mobility, they’d do better by advancing bus-rapid-transit (BRT) lines. BRT uses sleek, rail-like vehicles, well-appointed and generously-spaced stations, and exclusive rights-of-way to deliver service comparable to light rail. For just a fifth of the local cost of expanding MetroLink, the region could construct the five BRT lines in its long-range transportation plan.

Nor is MetroLink a cure for anemic urban development. Despite claims of rail advocates, the economic consensus is that light rail is not a catalyst for economic growth. Even putting aside the wildly inflated figures touted by rail advocates, we can see with our own two eyes that MetroLink has failed to spur development in Saint Louis. Far from rejuvenating depressed areas, MetroLink has even failed to prevent decline in areas that seemed to be on the rise in 1994 when the first lines opened, like Union Station and Laclede’s Landing. Nor did it ever bring the fantastically improbable golf course to East Saint Louis.

And MetroLink will not solve historic segregation or achieve the nebulous goal of “connectedness.” There simply is no evidence, save the endless, unfounded repetition of rail advocates, that light rail is a solution to economic, social, or racial segregation. (Just think: how might riding a train downtown, where so few jobs exist, make life better for an average North City resident?) And if “connectedness” means residents and visitors have the ability to travel from North or South County to downtown, then we’ve achieved it, as these areas are already connected by bus and bikes routes, streets, and sidewalks. No, these areas are not connected by rail—but if the argument is that we need rail because we don’t have rail, then advocates are running in circles.

Soon, the Mayor and rail proponents will stop begging the question and start begging for money. When they do, Saint Louisans should carefully consider what benefits could possibly justify a $2 billion MetroLink expansion, and whether or not it’s just an expensive “remedy” to treat problems for which we already have more sound solutions. 

The post North-South MetroLink Expansion: Snake Oil for Saint Louis appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

First, let’s analyze MetroLink’s effect on public transportation usage. It is true that people (including myself) use the MetroLink; the system handles an average of about 44,000 trips per day. However, MetroLink’s effect on total transit ridership has been modest. Despite the immense expenditures (around $3 billion) and multiple expansions, total bus and rail ridership today is lower than bus ridership alone was in 1991, three years before the MetroLink opened. Even worse, not all MetroLink expansions have even resulted in sustained higher MetroLink ridership. Take the case of latest expansion, from Forest Park to Shrewsbury, which opened in 2006. While the addition initially pushed rail ridership to new heights, ten years later total MetroLink ridership is lower than it was the year before the expansion opened.

The increasing supply of light rail, along with flagging enthusiasm for its use, has meant that in terms of passengers, MetroLink now has the lowest rate of use it has ever had, with only 2.55 riders per vehicle revenue mile.

Next let’s evaluate the MetroLink’s impact on development in Saint Louis. Consider the expectations of MetroLink’s proponents when the initial line opened in 1994. They hoped rail would generate urban renewal, with specific hopes that it would save Saint Louis Centre and bring life (and even a golf course) to East Saint Louis. Far from rejuvenating areas that were down on their luck, the MetroLink failed to prevent decline in areas of its route that appeared on the ascendency in 1994, like Union Station and Laclede’s Landing. Some areas near MetroLink stations have done well, like the Central West End or the Loop, but in these places development seems to be happening near the MetroLink, not radiating from it. With few exceptions, MetroLink platforms remain areas of quiet repose, far from businesses, residences, and crowds. It’s ironic, given the claims of rail advocates, that the true success stories of urban renewal in Saint Louis City are places like Soulard, South Grand, the Grove, and now Cherokee Street, located far away from any MetroLink station.

With regard to increasing transit usage in Saint Louis and spurring urban revitalization, the MetroLink has, to this point, been an expensive disappointment. There is no reason to think any MetroLink expansion will create different results. It’s time for the region to start looking for better, more cost-effective ways to achieve progress toward public transportation and development goals. 

The post Saint Louis Should Learn from MetroLink’s Disappointing Past appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Remote Area Medical, one of the charity clinic pioneers in the United States, will be having a free health care expedition from August 14th through the 16th in East St. Louis, IL. As always, the clinic will be open to the public, and while I haven’t heard any indication that the group will be making any historic drone deliveries at this particular event, what is certain is that there will be a lot of people seeking help — and a lot of people giving up their weekend providing it. That events like RAM’s remain necessary in a state like Illinois, which has gone whole hog for Obamacare, is its own commentary. 

But setting that aside for the moment, I think the most important takeaway from the event for all of us is ultimately this: that people should be able to help one another without the undue interference of government. Both Missouri and Illinois deserve kudos for making these sorts of clinics more available to their citizens.

The post Charity Clinic Coming to St. Louis Area Next Month appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Creating special zones to channel development is not a new concept in Saint Louis. Much of the city is part of a federal “Empowerment Zone,” which gives distressed areas tax incentives and federal grants. East Saint Louis is already part of an Empowerment Zone and an “Enterprise Community.” Saint Charles became a federal “Renewal Community” following flooding in the 1993. In addition, areas of North County have Foreign Trade Zone (FTZ) status (the entirety of the city and county are FTZ eligible), which qualify some businesses for customs-free imports. Much of the city and parts of the county are in “HUBZones,” which are designed to give federal procurement preference to small businesses in distressed areas.

Even at the state level, the Saint Louis area has special development zones. Much of Saint Louis City is an “Enhanced Enterprise Zone,” which provides state tax credits to certain types of businesses setting up in certain areas. Nearly 100 census tracts in the Saint Louis area are designated as distressed communities, making businesses eligible for large tax credits through the state’s Rebuilding Communities program.

Aside from special zones, the Saint Louis area has been the recipient of just about every type of development aid that HUD has available. In the 1990s, the state received $15 million in Section 108 grants to spend on housing. In the late 1990s, the city received $20 million in Community Development loans and $2 million in Community Development grants. The city spent that money on the Renaissance Center hotel, which turned out to be a financial disaster. More recently, HUD gave a grant for the planning of the Lemay Community Center. The only major HUD programs the Saint Louis region has not benefited from are those targeted at rural areas and arson/terrorism.

When we consider that Saint Louis City, North Saint Louis County, and East Saint Louis have, since the early 1990s, benefited from exactly the kind of federal attention the “Promise Zone” would bring, it is difficult to conclude that adding yet another zone is part of the answer. Given the continued “disinvestment” in these targeted areas over the last 20 years and the growing evidence that such zones do not generate progress, it may be time to consider other policy solutions to combat economic decline.

The post Promise Zone Just the Latest of Many Development Zones for Saint Louis appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

So how much will the proposed line cost? According to the Post-Dispatch: “The original north-south proposal was initially estimated at $1 billion in 2007 dollars. Members of the coalition would not venture a guess this week at the current price tag.”

The latest plan actually goes further north than the $1 billion plan suggested by East-West Gateway (EWG) in 2008. According to East-West Gateway’s Vision 2040 (released in 2011), the cost for a route from Florissant Valley Community College to Butler Hill (going further south than the current proposal) was more than $1.6 billion. It is therefore safe to assume that the plan will cost between $1 billion and $1.6 billion, probably closer to $1.6 billion when adjusted for inflation. To put that in perspective, this MetroLink expansion would cost between $2,700 and $4,406 for every person living near the proposed line.

Proponents hope, and likely require, that the federal government will pay up to half of the costs of building the new route. Even allowing that, the city and county would be on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars in capital costs and additional annual operating costs likely to exceed $20 million per year. That will mean tax increases in the city and county, all to add 12,000 to 15,000 transit riders per day. For perspective, Saint Louis City and County combined have more than 630,000 daily commuters.

There exists a much more cost-effective way of increasing transit service along the city’s north-south corridor: Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). BRT can, and does in other cities, provide the speed and comfort of light rail service for a fraction of rail’s price. Metro is in the process of implementing BRT in Saint Louis right now, and we have argued that BRT routes serving the city and North Saint Louis County make the most sense. According to EWG, running BRT on Grand from Natural Bridge to Chippewa would cost a total of $24 million to implement. That’s less than half the cost of one mile of the proposed MetroLink expansion. In fact, Metro could afford to implement all five of its preferred BRT routes for less than 20 percent the cost of the north-south MetroLink proposal.

MetroLink proponents make the same ungrounded claims about the rail transforming marginalized communities as they did two decades ago (remember the golf course in East Saint Louis?). Now, just as then, it is not rail, but rather improved transportation that raises living standards. And in terms of improving transportation, the relative merits and incredible cost differential between BRT and light rail should be the end of the argument.

The post North-South MetroLink Line Wasteful, Unnecessary appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

St. Louis’s light rail, MetroLink, has been built on press events and promises. The CMT made-for-media race earlier this month is a great example of the former, but consider some of the promises made to sell MetroLink:

* “…some of Metro Link’s heaviest use could come from lunch-hour passengers moving among downtown, Union Station and the Central West End.” – St. Louis Post-Dispatch 10/26/1988

* “The city is talking with investors and developers about building a golf course just north of the King Bridge, an area of abandoned rail lines… City planners picture light industry around the golf course.

“Conventioneers, just five minutes from East St. Louis by rail, offer a natural market for a golf course…” – St. Louis Post-Dispatch 10/17/1993

During our race, Joseph Miller provides the numbers behind MetroLink. It’s incredibly expensive and there are better ways to improve public transportation. For example, money used on MetroLink would be better spent improving bus service.

Note 1: When Joseph Miller refers to “city” and “city planners” he means the “St. Louis region” and “regional planners”.

The post MetroLink: The Great Race – Part Deux appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

But the problem, Lynch says, is the lack of financial incentives available for movie production in Missouri. Though the state still offers the film production tax credit, Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon shut down the Missouri Film Commission in 2011, and the Missouri Accountability Portal shows that no film tax credits have been issued for 2012.

From KSDK:

Missouri actually has $4.5 million to use for tax breaks, but the Department of Economic Development doesn’t have anyone to recruit out-of-state productions.

“It hurts the city, it hurts the state and it ultimately hurts us because we’re forced to go elsewhere for monetary reasons,” said Lynch.

One way to answer the question of whether a lack of film tax credits hurts the state is to look at what film tax credit money has subsidized in the past.

The 2009 film “Up in the Air,” which starred George Clooney, was filmed in Saint Louis, and was issued $4.1 million in tax credits from the state. Under Missouri’s Film Production Tax Credit program, movie productions are reimbursed for a portion of their expenses.

In 2010, the Show-Me Institute requested documentation from the state Department of Economic Development (DED) that showed what expenses associated with the film tax credit program were deemed eligible for partial reimbursement. The documents we received are now posted online.

Below are some expenses that the production of “Up in the Air” incurred and the DED deemed eligible for the Film Tax Credit program:

* More than $11,000 in living allowance money for Director Jason Reitman.

* $5,600 for George Clooney to stay at the Chase Park Plaza.

* More than $8,500 in living allowance money for Vera Farmiga.

* More than $11,000 in living allowance money for Executive Producer Michael Beugg.

If having state taxpayers fund living expenses for high-paid actors and directors while working on “Up in the Air” is not concerning enough, recent reports have found state film tax credit programs lacking.

If Lynch really thinks Saint Louis is the best place to film her movie, then make it here. But if tax credits are necessary, I would prefer she stay in East Saint Louis.

P.S. Lynch is not the first person to think that using film tax credits to subsidize a movie about a serial killer is a good idea. Jack Donaghy ran with that in 2011.

The post Sorry, Film Directors: Taxpayers Should Not Have To Pay For Your Luxury Hotel Rooms appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The Metro East area has two of these high school clinics, the one in East St. Louis and another in Cahokia.

In contrast, the whole state of Missouri has just three, according to the National Assembly on School-Based Health Care, a nonprofit group in Washington.

Providing preventative health care to poor children is imperative, but attaching the service to public schools is the wrong way to go. The existing system of public schools excacerbates disparities in education, because the children with the fewest choices are stuck in the worst schools. If a child’s health care provider also depends on his address, we’ll have greater health care injustice.

The post We Don’t Need More Clinics in Schools appeared first on Show-Me Institute.