St. Louis MetroLink: One good line, with not-so-good stations and urban impact

 I revisited St. Louis not long ago and took the opportunity to ride the MetroLink, which I had not done in a few years.  MetroLink is the region’s one-line (with branches) light rail system, which serves several important destinations, including the airport, the University of Missouri at St. Louis, and downtown St. Louis.  As I was headed to the ballpark, which has its own station, it was especially convenient for me.

The good news is that the line worked fine, with clean cars and a smooth ride.  What was not so good was some of the stations.  And the impact on the surrounding urban fabric was disappointing.  

I’ll mention a few of the stations.

Airport

There may have been an easier way to get there, but I found myself traversing an underground parking garage and going up an elevator which looked like it hadn’t been cleaned in 10 years.  The station platform was spartan and was inhabited by a homeless man who was busy checking out the platform for any usable refuse.  And the headway between trains was 30 minutes, at least twice as long as it should be.  In fairness, the transit agency is no doubt starved for operations and maintenance funding and does the best it can.  (Not good enough, America!)  Photo below.

Wellston

Missouri’s poorest, nearly all minority town, Wellston is fortunate enough to have a MetroLink

station near the center of town with lots of clear space around it.  What an opportunity for public

investment in mixed-use development that could spur revitalization!  But this is Missouri, so it’s

not happening.  Photo below.

Central West End

Not much to see here at the station, which is in a cut, but a great location convenient to the

vibrant, mixed-use Central West End neighborhood.

Cortex

This is an infill station, built to serve the burgeoning “Cortex Innovation District.”  Great idea,

but couldn’t something be done at the station to make a more appealing pedestrian connection? 

Photo below.

Stadium

Again, pretty basic station in a cut.  The station and neighborhood are very lively during

St. Louis Cardinals game days, perhaps not so much at other times (a nearby sign reminds

people that public urination is illegal).  The area itself – Busch Stadium, Ballpark Village –

still looks good, but I didn’t see signs of urban revitalization spreading very far. 

Photos below.

8th and Pine

This is the central downtown station, as well as one of the main access points via

transit to the Gateway Arch.  I wasn’t in the station itself (now closed for renovation) but

I have to say that the surrounding area is a bit scruffy.  Adjacent to the station is the

Wainwright Building, an architectural gem, which should be the centerpiece of transit

oriented development at this location.  Ideally, that development would include taking

down the ugly 1980s annex, which is fronted by garage doors, and replacing it with a

plaza of some sort.  The Wainwright Building has been occupied by state offices, but the

benighted state leadership has decided to sell off the building and move all 600 state

employees to an exurban office park.  (How much do Missouri Republicans hate cities

and transit?) Fortunately, the building has been purchased, and we can hope for proper

redevelopment (story here).  Photo below.

So, not much visible progress in transit-oriented redevelopment since my last visit a few

years ago.  But the light rail line still purrs right along, there are plans for expansion (good

luck with the funding), and lots of raw opportunity in what was once – and could be again –

one of America’s premier cities

Baltimore’s Red Line: We have light rail, now we need tunnels!

 It was super good news to learn that Maryland Governor Wes Moore decided to move forward with light rail as the preferred technology for Baltimore’s Red Line (story here).  Moore resurrected the Red Line after taking office in 2023.  Former Governor Larry Hogan had cancelled the project in 2015, with disastrous consequences for the city of Baltimore, the regional transit network, transportation equity, and Maryland’s long-term economic development.

I have been an active supporter of the Red Line for years (see, for instance, my blog posting here), so it was very heartening to see the project reborn, especially as a light rail line.  Bus rapid transit – while great in some applications – is not what we need here.  What we need is light rail – and tunnels!

Why tunnels?  If you have ever tried to drive along an east-west route through central Baltimore, you will know that it is very constricted both by the limited street network and by water.  Even if you could carve a dedicated surface route through it, you would be limiting yourself to providing streetcar-type service.  With judicious use of tunneling, you could provide real rapid-transit service.  Realistically, however, comparative costs (very expensive vs. very very expensive) will tend to tug decision-makers toward surface options.  (An overview of the options under consideration can be found on the project web page here.)

So, carry on, Red Line advocates!  More work to be done!

Tim Walz's Transportation Bill

 You have no doubt heard a lot about what Tim Walz and the Democratic legislature havd accomplished once they had a “trifecta” (majorities in both houses and the Governor’s mansion).  But it’s worth doing a quick bullet list of some the high points:

• Free school breakfast and lunch for students;

• Guaranteed paid leave and paid sick days;

• A child tax credit to cut child poverty by a third;

• Expansion of voting rights, including automatic voter registration;

• A guarantee of reproductive freedom;

• Reduced prescription drug costs;

• A plan for 100% clean energy by 2040;

• A $1 Billion investment in affordable housing;

• Legalization of recreational cannabis; and

• New gun safety laws.

Impressive stuff!  And I’m sure you can add to that list.

What hasn’t been talked about much is Governor Walz’s legislative record on transportation.  And that is just as impressive.  In 2023 the legislature enacted an appropriations bill with very robust and innovative transportation provisions.  The advocacy group Move Minnesota, which was active in shaping the bill, said it achieved “nation-leading wins” and Streetsblog USA said it might be “the best statewide transportation bill yet.”

OK, time for another bullet list.  This is some of what the bill included:

• Pump more money into transportation, including indexing the gas tax to inflation;

• Create a long-term, stable funding stream for transit;

• Create a retail delivery fee, so that Amazon and friends will help pay for the public infrastructure they use;

• Set up a free-fare pilot program;

• Provide increased funding for bus rapid transit, intercity rail, bicycle and pedestrian programs; 

• Create a statewide e-bike tax rebate; and

• (Saving the best for last) require the Minnesota DOT to review state arterial highway expansion projects to determine if they decrease greenhouse gas emissions and vehicle miles traveled to meet state climate goals, and, if they don’t, either kill the project or provide mitigation measures.

Again, pretty impressive.

This last provision – reviewing highway expansion projects through a climate change lens – is probably the most consequential of all.  (It was amended this year to apply to all state arterial (“trunk”) highway projects, not just capacity increases.  The law becomes effective for capacity increase projects on 1 February 2025, with all projects covered by 2027.  

The law spells out in detail the measures that Minnesota DOT can take to mitigate a project’s shortfall on greenhouse gas emissions or VMT:

1. Transit expansion;

2. Transit service improvements;

3. Active transportation infrastructure;

4. Micromobility infrastructure and service;

5. Transportation demand management;

6. Parking management (including reductions in parking requirements);

7. Land use (increase in residential density, mixed use development, transit oriented development);

8. Infrastructure related to traffic operations (roundabouts, reduced conflict intersections); and

9. Natural systems (prairie restoration, reforestation, urban green space).

Of course, the devil is very much in the details when it comes to implementing such a complicated provision.  But it looks like the agency (Minnesota DOT) is administering it in good faith.  The working group set up to design the process included a representative from Move Minnesota.

We can’t give all the credit for this bill to Governor Walz – the Democratic-Farmer-Labor party majority (Trifecta for the win!) and outside groups like Move Minnesota were essential.  But it happened on his watch and under his leadership, so it should go on his resume!

The Move Minnesota story explaining how this remarkable bill came in to being is available here.

What does a new Labor government mean for transportation?

 So the UK has a new Labor government and a new prime minister, Keir Starmer.  

What will the new government do in the transportation sector?  The environment?  Urban policy?  The short answer is probably “nothing dramatic.”  

Keir Starmer has been steering the Labor party toward a moderate course, and the party has promised to adhere to tight fiscal discipline, limiting the scope of any new policies and projects.

The best guide to a new British government’s likely policies is the party’s election “manifesto” (equivalent to US party platforms), which British politicians take very seriously.  

A few highlights of the Labor party manifesto in the recent election (available here) will give an idea of what may lie ahead:

• Nationalize the passenger railway system – gradually.  Existing services in much of the country are provided by contracts with private operators.  As these contracts expire, they will be taken under “Great British Railways.”  The new Transport Secretary, Louise Haigh, has said that a bill to make this happen will be considered in the new Parliament.  It will be interesting to see the details.  (For more on her views – including Labor’s modest plans for rail improvement – see the New Statesman article here.)

• Fill an extra one million potholes a year, paid for by terminating one highway bypass project.  Quite a non-inspirational goal!  I’m all in favor of fix-it-first, but this seems like the kind of promise a US state DOT secretary makes at a budget hearing rather than a national vision.

• Develop a ten-year infrastructure strategy.  A good thing to do, but there doesn’t seem to be much money available for it.

• Build 1.5 million new homes over the next 5 years.  The government will take a “brownfield first” approach, set mandatory housing targets, and adjust (in some way) the local planning system, all while preserving the green belt.  A lot of juggling to be done here.

• Make Britain a “clean energy superpower.”  The government will prioritize renewable energy, nuclear power, carbon capture, upgrading the grid, and lowering consumer energy costs.  These initiatives are intended to deliver cheaper, zero-carbon electricity by 2030.  It’s not entirely clear how all of this will be achieved.

In short, the new Labor government starts with good intentions but limited ambitions.  And even those ambitions are constrained by the need to fit within whatever  resources can be scraped together from savings, efficiencies, and new revenue from hoped-for economic growth.  We’ll keep our fingers crossed!

Megan Kimble's "City Limits"

 Megan Kimble’s new book, City Limits: Infrastructure, Inequality, and the Future of America’s Highways,  is a welcome addition to the growing literature on the past and future of urban freeways and the opportunity we have to restore the damage they have caused to the urban fabric of American cities.  It’s an especially good introduction to “freeway fighting” for those new to the concept.

Kimble weaves a narrative, based on extensive interviews, around three current freeway projects in Texas: 

• The widening of I-35 through the heart of Austin from 12 lanes to 20 lanes,

• The widening of I-45 in Houston, including expanding the downtown loop, and

• The reconstruction of I-345 in Dallas.

The common thread among these case studies is the impact that these projects have on individuals and neighborhoods – and on sustaining a car-dependent society that ultimately limits personal freedom.  Although many of these stories are depressing (why is Texas destroying its own cities?), she does offer some glimmers of hope for a better future.

Along the way, Kimble also guides the reader through some fascinating history which illuminates the way we ended up with the problematic transportation planning and funding system we live with today.  Perhaps the most interesting historical segment is her account of President Eisenhower’s frustration when he discovered that a huge chunk of funding allocated for his new Interstate highway system was being used by states to fund urban freeway projects rather than the long distance, city-to-city connections he envisioned.  

Ultimately, as Kimble reminds us, stopping and reversing destructive freeway projects involves more than preventing and remediating harm – it opens up possibilities for the future: “Tearing down a highway is just the beginning.”

Riding the MBTA Green Line extension

 Recently I had a chance to ride the Green Line extension in Somerville MA – and I have to give it an excellent rating.

If you’re not familiar with it, the Green Line extension project, which opened in 2022, is a 4-mile, two-branch, six-station $2.2 Billion light rail line, which extends MBTA’s Green Line from Cambridge, through Somerville, to Medford.  The project makes obvious sense, filling in a blank space in Boston’s radial rapid transit network through a densely developed, transit-hungry sector.  In fact the project makes so much sense that it was first talked about a hundred years ago.  And the current project was first programmed nearly a quarter of a century ago.

The ride was very smooth, frequency was excellent (posted times 8 to 13 minutes apart in nonpeak times), station access was easy, and the line was very well utilized.  The smooth ride was especially notable when compared to the jerky, rolling, noisy ride on the older sections of the Green Line.  Wayfinding signage could be better, and local station area maps would be very helpful.

Station locations are typically close to, but not actually at, the node they are serving.  (This is a major drawback of the use-an-existing-right-of-way-and hope-it-passes-near-major-activity-centers approach prevalent in US transit projects.)  Magoun Square station, for instance, is about a 10-minute walk down a residential street from the actual square.  One of the better placements is at Ball Square, where a well designed station layout, with a bike locker area, is right next to the Broadway commercial district.  

I didn’t see a lot of new development along the line, but more may be on the way.  Hopefully we will see more mixed use development, with an emphasis on residential, both at neighborhood centers and along pedestrian corridors connecting them to the stations.  The development process may be boosted by Massachusetts’ MBTA Communities Act, which requires residential upzoning in at least some rapid transit station locations.

Why did it take so long and cost so much money to build a surface light rail line along an existing railroad corridor?  If you want to get into the weeds on this project, you can take a look at a study done by the New York University Transit Costs Project team exploring these issues (here).  The team analyzed a wide array of problems, which they sorted into three categories: project management and delivery, expensive design, and politics.

Sadly, the cost overruns and time delays in the Green Line Extension project are not exceptions.  They are all too common with transportation infrastructure projects in this country.  

Still, we will count the completion of the Green Line Extension as a definite win for the future of transit in the Boston area and a clear benefit for the people of Cambridge, Somerville, Medford, and Boston.

Why are we still widening highways?

 Seriously.  Why are we still widening highways, when we know that highway widening projects (1) increase traffic, therefore increasing greenhouse gas emissions and running counter to our climate change mitigation goals; (2) don’t relieve congestion in the long run, because new capacity is filled up with new traffic in 5 - 10 years; (3) have major negative social and environmental impacts; and (4) cost a lot of money, draining resources from many alternative projects?  (I say “we know,” but of course not everyone is in agreement with these points – more on that shortly.)  Reason number one is enough for me, but clearly all these factors, and more, are not enough to stop many very large, controversial projects from going forward.

It does seem perplexing, but fortunately there is new research that sheds light on the question.  A recently published PhD dissertation by Amy Lee at the University of California, Davis, addresses just this question.  (“The Policy and Politics of Highway Expansions,” available here.  Read the Abstract and the Conclusions chapter if you don’t feel like wading through all 300+ pages.)

Lee approaches the issue through what I would call a political sociology lens.  She outlines the process by which a set of freeway expansion projects were advanced in California and identifies the key actors involved.  She then interviewed many of these key actors – state DOT officials, MPO staff, local elected officials, etc. – to explore their understanding of the issues and their reasons for advancing these projects.

The key findings for me (I am simplifying and adapting from Amy Lee’s conclusions):

1. Congestion is the main driver of these projects.  Many of the decision makers – especially local elected officials – are eager to do something about congestion, even though they may understand that the benefits of these particular projects will be transitory and insignificant in the long run.  As Lee says:

“So although highway expansion projects do not solve the foundational policy problems – e.g., separated land uses, auto-centric communities, housing unaffordability and segregation, lack of local jobs, or air pollution – they do offer a concrete and immediate avenue for elected officials to demonstrate that they are working for their constituents.”

2. Although most of the actors have at least some understanding of the concept of induced traffic, they tend to view it as a long-term problem, something to be addressed tomorrow.  As one actor put it, “The short-term congestion relief is worth it.”

3. There are still many actors, including the construction industry and building trades, that see benefits in the sheer scale and expense of highway widening projects. 

4. There are also psychological factors at play.  Engineers who have been trained to solve straightforward problems are reluctant to enter the morass of social and environmental issues in the modern transportation realm, tending to fall back to their design manuals.  A quote from one actor is worth showing in full:

“Induced travel is counter to why practitioners became engineers to begin with. They became an engineer to find a problem, with a formula, and a solution, end of story. Induced travel is disturbing to their worldview in some fundamental way. It disturbs their identity and ego. Engineers don’t want to be bothered with messy things like people. They’re used to deciding where huge amounts of money go and getting to be at ribbon cuttings. Unfortunately, it’s not much more complicated than that.”

5. Actors sometimes also believe that expansion projects promote other societal goods, such as access to housing, transportation equity, and economic development.

6. Developers, local elected officials, and various business interests may support highway widenings because they understand that increasing highway capacity promotes land development – notwithstanding the fact that the sprawl development stimulated by these projects works counter to climate change and environmental goals.

So how do we stop the highway widening juggernaut?  Amy Lee has a number of suggestions, many specific to the California context.  California already has a significant head start in this regard in that regional transportation plans must undertake to reduce total traffic (vehicle miles traveled) over time and individual highway widening projects must mitigate any increased traffic they generate.  Obviously these provisions have not been entirely successful, and Lee recommends some practical legislative and administrative steps to enforce them.

On a broader stage, Lee suggests the need for culture change among decision makers: planning for the long term rather than the short term and prioritizing the overarching goal of meeting the climate change challenge.  Not so easy to do.

Many thanks to Amy Lee for wading deep into the weeds of transportation decision making and for illuminating the complicated issues we will need to grapple with to stop the foolhardy practice of major  highway widening.