This is wonderful news, also known as great news. The proposed route was simply preposterous. Even by Metro’s own overly generous predictions, it was only going to have about 5,000 boardings a day. (That isn’t very many boardings for a billion dollars.) It was bad enough that it generated significant opposition at the East-West Gateway Board of Directors (EWGBOD) project vote, which almost never happens. At the Show-Me Institute, we released a study by Randal O’Toole in 2023 that highlighted why this project was unnecessary and wasteful, and I provided testimony against it before the EWGBOD in early 2024.

The federal government gives away a lot of money for expensive transit projects, so St. Louis invented an expensive transit project to go get that money. Never mind that few people were going to ride it, and that people along this route could be served much more affordably by buses.

But let’s give credit where it is due. The new mayor of St. Louis and Metro deserve credit for making the right decision now. Whether they did it because they realized it was a bad choice all along, or whether they just succumbed to the political reality that the current administration in Washington, D.C., was highly unlikely to fund this project, doesn’t really matter. I am just happy that it is done for, or at least as done for as a project like this can ever be.

Which brings us to the other part of the good news. The city and Metro are redirecting their efforts along this route to consider a bus rapid transit (BRT) route. BRT has worked well in Kansas City (unlike the streetcar) and deserves consideration for this route in St. Louis. I am still amazed, though, at how expensive BRT itself is. (That will be a topic for a future post.)

An affordable (for both taxpayers and riders), changeable, safe, and on-time bus system is what the St. Louis region needs for public transit. We should stop dreaming about getting suburbanites out of their cars and start focusing on serving the needs of people who depend on public transportation. Cancelling the Green Line is the right move in that direction.

The post Green Means Stop appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The “Green Line” is dependent on approximately $600 million in federal funds; funds I hope it doesn’t get. I suggest that cutting the national debt can start right here. As national politics affects local policy, I am hopeful that upcoming changes to federal policy will be the death of this plan. Indeed, some key voices, including Les Sterman, the past director of the East-West Gateway Council of Government, have recently called for the project to stop.

In 2004, MetroLink planners predicted there would be 80,000 boardings per day on MetroLink trains by 2025 in St. Louis, Missouri (that number excludes Illinois users). In the first quarter of 2024, there were about 18,800 actual boardings per weekday for the entire system, including Illinois (page 23 in link). (Ridership goes up slightly in the summer with baseball games, but not that much this summer, for obvious reasons.) We can just admit that MetroLink usage has been substantially less than projected. St. Louis should focus on serving the existing system as best it can instead of doubling down on failure with this latest expansion fantasy.

The “Green Line” plan only projects 5,000 boardings per day, at best. Even if that turned out to be accurate—and history suggests it won’t be—that is a very low number. Serving about 2,500 people per day (one person equals two boardings, on average) for over $1 billion is a terrible use of tax dollars. This project should not move forward.

The post Absurd Light Rail Project Marches Onward appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The plan is for the trolley to resume services on August 4 under the new leadership of the Bi-State Development Agency, with a few tweaks. The trolley will only operate Thursday through Sunday, and in addition, it won’t run year round. Per the St. Louis Post-Dispatch story linked above:

But in a change, Bi-State CEO Taulby Roach said plans now call for the 2.2-mile line to operate only in warmer-weather months. It will shut down Oct. 15 and probably crank up again next April, he said. “We have made the professional opinion that it will run better on a compressed schedule,” Roach said. “We’ve really tried to make a realistic and nonflinching assessment of these assets.” He said it’s more likely that people will ride the trolley cars, which he described as a tourist attraction, during good weather conditions. Moreover, he said, “the equipment simply doesn’t work well” during colder times of the year.

A ”realistic and nonflinching assessment of these assets” is certainly long overdue—it remains to be seen if that’s actually what’s happening here. It is disconcerting to read that this equipment doesn’t work well in the colder months. The original plan was for the trolley to run all the time.

Projects of this size are complicated, and we should be understanding when things that can’t be controlled or predicted cause problems. But “cold winter months in St. Louis” does not qualify as an unpredictable obstacle, and the lack of foresight here is a perfect distillation of the lack of care or seriousness with which this entire process has unfolded.

While describing the Loop Trolley an ill-conceived boondoggle seems like an understatement, it is possible that resurrecting the trolley might be the least bad solution right now. The federal government is threatening to claw back $37 million in grant money (as a reminder, the total price tag so far is $51 million) if the trolley doesn’t operate again. But there are still more questions than answers at this point.

Even with a new schedule, can the trolley function without repeated breakdowns? Will the projected August 4 re-opening date actually happen, or will it be delayed, as so often happens with trolley-related matters? How long does the trolley need to operate going forward to satisfy the federal grant requirements and avoid any financial claw backs? And what happens if East-West Council of Governments declines to give the $1.26 million in grant money that trolley leaders are requesting and claiming they need in order to keep the lights on?

There’s only thing we can say for sure right now: Given the track record of this project, nobody involved should be given the benefit of the doubt.

The post Once More unto the Loop Trolley Breach appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

While members of the council had different reasons for rejecting the proposal, one question from the head of the council board summarized the objections nicely:

“Why is it always other people’s money?”

Other local officials were fine with the trolley receiving the grant, as long as no taxpayer money from their respective municipalities would be dedicated to the trolley and Bi-State Development assumed its operation. Others objected to the idea of Bi-State operating the trolley, arguing that its responsibility is to provide public transportation, not manage tourism projects.

Show-Me Institute analysts have argued for years that the Loop Trolly should not be subsidized by public tax dollars. It’s good to see regional leaders taking the same approach.

It’s unknown what comes next for the trolley. Trolley backers could seek out private funding, either from investors or from Loop businesses who see a benefit to having the trolley run. Whatever the trolley’s future, hopefully the next ask will be to private sector investors, not taxpayers.

The post Trolley Grant Rejection Summed Up in One Question appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on Sticher 

Listen on SoundCloud

The post End of the Track for the Trolley, Election Preview and DST Ends Next Sunday appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The East-West Gateway Council of Government’s preliminary plan is to award a $1.3 million federal grant on October 27 to help restart the trolley (the East-West Gateway already has the federal grant money but is still making final decisions on how to spend it). The trolley has already received $51 million in taxpayer funding but didn’t even last two years because ridership and revenue were less than one-tenth of what was projected.

Members of the East-West Gateway board must remember that this is the same trolley organization that comes back to taxpayers in different costumes every year asking for more candy—er . . . money. Some years the disguise is construction delays; some years it’s money to get more cars on the tracks.

The costumes this year are congestion mitigation and air quality, but these new costumes aren’t any more convincing.

For the trolley to relieve traffic, Delmar Loop shoppers traveling from miles away must stop their cars just short of their destination and take the Loop Trolley for the final two miles of their trip rather than driving the last two miles and parking closer. Shoppers simply haven’t been willing to do this, as poor ridership numbers attest. More to the point, anyone who drove on Delmar Boulevard when the trolley was still running knows that a gigantic train car sharing the road with cars driving and parking only creates more confusion and congestion, not less.

Since the trolley runs on electricity it may in theory improve local air quality, and supposedly the trolley scored well on an East-West Gateway greenhouse gas emissions reductions test. But claiming that the trolley is going to significantly reduce emissions seems questionable. An electric trolley only reduces transportation emissions if it gets people out of their cars. Moreover, don’t forget how that electricity is generated—coal. Given that coal emits much more greenhouse gases than gasoline per unit of energy, the trolley would have to get a lot of people out of their cars to make even a slight difference.

If backers of the trolley really want to start the party again, securing funding from private investors would be much better than handing out tax dollars this Halloween.

Until this happens, however, maybe the most appropriate costume for the trolley is a zombie.

The post Here’s a Scary Halloween Idea: Restarting the Trolley appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

While low fuel prices may give an unexpected boost to the economy at-large, they confound the expectations of city and state planners. Whether the source is the Mid-America Regional Council (MARC) (the Kansas City area planning agency), the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT), or East-West Gateway (the Saint Louis regional planning agency), they all expected rising fuel prices to continue into the future. For example, in MoDOT’s October 2014 Financial Snapshot, they figured gas would average $3.26 in the upcoming year.

None of this is to blame these agencies for failing to predict future gas prices. The price of oil is historically volatile, and few predicted prices to fall as they have. What these government bodies should be faulted for is using what was at best an educated guess about the direction of gas prices as a standard plank in their arguments for billions of dollars of state and local investment in alternative transportation and restrictive land-use policies. For example, MoDOT used the trend in fuel prices as part of its argument that they needed the ability to fund billion-dollar passenger rail lines as well as support urban transit. MARC predicted that rising gas prices, along with other trends, would “demand for more walkable, transit-friendly development closer in.” This is part of their reasoning for recommending regional densification and urban refill.

Regional planners have consistently made the argument that citizens will increasingly use public transportation and live in denser environments, due in part to more expensive fuel. But instead of waiting for these markets to materialize and responding to steadily rising needs, residents are asked to spend billions today to meet uncertain demand down the road. What the precipitous fall in oil prices should remind us is that long-term predictions can be mistaken. While the estimates themselves may be prudent, using them to speculate with public dollars is not.

The post Fuel Prices Falling, Along With Planners’ Expectations 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.

The St. Louis Streetcar project, which did not receive a TIGER grant, has garnered less attention. The plan would have built a 6.9-mile streetcar system from downtown Saint Louis to the Central West End, at a cost of $270 million (likely a low estimate).

You may not have heard much about this project, because Metro never mentions adding streetcars in its Long-Range Transit Plan. Their long-term improvements are focused on expanding MetroLink or adding bus rapid transit, but not adding a streetcar network. Nor was the project part of East-West Gateway’s (the Saint Louis metropolitan planning agency) Regional Transportation Plan when it was released in 2011 (it was added in 2013). City leadership did not discuss the plan until it was suddenly to receive tens of millions of dollars from the ill-fated Amendment 7.

The downtown streetcar is primarily the creation of Partnership for Downtown St. Louis, an organization whose membership is mostly made up of corporate representatives and whose budget comes from property taxes collected from a Community Improvement District (CID) located downtown. They created the plan and lobbied the city to submit the TIGER grant application. Although the process used to create the streetcar plan did not come from city residents, the methods of payment would have. The proposed methods of payment included a Transportation Development District (with accompanying sales and property taxes), Tax Increment Financing, tax credits, and parking fees.

Those new taxes and fees would have been a hard sell for a transportation mode that shadows the MetroLink and does not provide rapid transit. However, Saint Louis residents should be upset that non-elected corporate representatives were promising residents’ local tax dollars in order to get a piece of residents’ federal tax dollars. This episode also should be a warning that local non-governmental organizations have the ability to push forward wasteful civic projects with taxpayer money.

The post Light Rail Never Sleeps: The Saint Louis Edition appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

This is exactly why I listen to the Freakonomics podcast, which highlights the ways that economics can provide insight to seemingly inexplicable situations. Recently, Freakonomics discussed efforts in Romania to fine witches if their predictions fail to come true. The jail-time punishment being proposed for multiple false predictions could result in six months to up to three years in jail.

I suppose that if you acted on a false prediction, you would want to punish the person who led you astray. But think of all of the people and organizations who make predictions that affect the way our economy runs. We don’t penalize, say, politicians, economic development officials, or coalition groups when the promises they make fail to materialize.

As Steven Dubner, host of the Freakonomics podcast put it, “I don’t care if you’re anti-witch or pro-witch or witch-agnostic. Why should witches be the only people held accountable for bad predictions?”

In Missouri, it isn’t very hard to find evidence of bad economic development predictions. The recent Mamtek scandal is one. The 2006 prediction that the Ballpark Village development in downtown Saint Louis would result in more than $700 million in economic impact looks unlikely, to put it kindly. And, for a recent example, we have the ever-changing job estimates associated with a proposal to dedicate $300 million in state tax credits to construct warehouses and facilities.

Consider also a state audit report that found, among many other problems, that Missouri’s Low Income Housing Tax Credit is much more costly than initially predicted. How about the overly rosy economic growth assumptions used to sell Tax Increment Financing (TIF) projects? An East-West Gateway Council of Government study found that “broad measures of regional economic outcomes strongly suggest that massive tax expenditures to promote development have not resulted in real growth” (emphasis mine).

Of course, I’m not advocating that we throw politicians and economic development officials in jail for making the wrong promises. But I would suggest, for the health of Missouri’s economy, that we start holding these people responsible for their predictions.

As Freakonomics co-host Steve Levitt points out in the podcast, people have every incentive to make absurd predictions:

So, most predictions we remember are ones which were fabulously, wildly, unexpected and then came true. Now, the person who makes that prediction has a strong incentive to remind everyone that they made that crazy prediction which came true. …But if you’re wrong, there’s no person on the other side of the transaction who draws any real benefit from embarrassing you by bringing up the bad prediction over and over.

Levitt’s point reminds me of the St. Louis Regional Chamber and Growth Association’s outlandish predictions. The RCGA frequently issues press releases touting incredible job and investment numbers. Sometimes, the message of one RCGA study (say, that the region needs to build millions more in warehouse space) conflicts with another RCGA press release (that the region has an abundance of cheap warehouse space). The agency clearly isn’t worried about making an unlikely prediction, either.

I also wonder about the Missouri Department of Economic Development, and the state legislature’s propensity to create tax credit programs in the hopes of attracting jobs to the state. Audit reports have shown that these tax credits are more expensive than anticipated, and that the state gets little in return. And yet, in the face of  bad earlier predictions (and even blatant overstatements), state legislators continue to fail to pass substantive tax credit reform.

A solution that Freakonomics proposes is a little unexpected, but elegant. We all are familiar with baseball players’ batting averages. Let’s apply those to people who make economic development predictions.

Consulting organizations should report their track record of success (and failure). What if every estimate of job and investment creation the RCGA publishes had to be accompanied with a percentage showing the accuracy of previous estimates the agency predicted? What if, when contemplating creating new tax credit programs, we considered whether existing programs delivered on the promises used to create them?

If we are considering whether hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars should be allocated to a particular project, it is not enough to take proponents’ claims for fact, especially if those organizations have a track record of poor prediction. We need to know how frequently those predictions actually become reality.

We wouldn’t throw anyone in jail. We might find that some organizations are really good at making predictions. And, like Romanians burned by a bad prediction from a witch, we could stop relying on organizations and individuals that provide wildly unreliable predictions.

The post Witches, Economic Development Promises, and Baseball appeared first on Show-Me Institute.