A Blessing in Disguise for St. Louis Transit
After two decades of planning, St. Louis’s Green Line is frozen in its tracks — and that may not be a bad thing.
The latest chapter in St. Louis’s Green Line extension saga is all too familiar for American transit planners. After years of planning and millions of dollars on pre-design the plans have been yanked and the project has been scaled back yet again. Its easy to throw our hands up and blame short sided federal funding but there is more to this story. This project has faced head wins for close to two decades now because the cost was simply not justified. There is always a case to be made for providing the supply and the demand will follow. However, even with the most optimistic ridership projections the cost could not be justified. The hard truth is that the disappointing decision is sometimes the right decision.
St. Louis’ Green Line is a great example of well-intentioned planning that overshoots the needs of the city. The original 2008 proposal called for an approximately 20 mile north-south link that would connect the underserved south side of the city and county to downtown. The Green Line would link together with the red and blue lines which run exclusively east and west. Over the last nearly two decades the project has been modified and scaled back to less than 6 miles of track and half of the original 19 stations planned. What was once envisioned as the spine of the city’s transit has instead been chipped away piece by piece, until what remained could no longer carry the original promise.
All of that has come to a screeching called in the last week as pivotal federal funding grants have been frozen. Sure, there are political angles at play, but that is above my pay grade and not something I am interested in reviewing. Plain and simple the project was not cost effective. The system had not chance of being self-sufficient or justified, and it not even close. The Federal Transit Authority developed the Capital Investment Guide[2] to assess the viability of thes sorts of projects across the nation. The following chart is used as part of this process. A 2024 report prepared by Saint Louis University Community Planning Lab projected an anemic 6,000 daily riders[1]. At a cost of $1.1billion, the Green Line doesn’t even belong in this discussion.
The CIG also estimates the average ridership cost as a benchmark for viability. Amortizing the construction and operating cost over a 30 year span compared against projected annual ridership. Anything less than $8 a trip is considered high effectiveness and $35 a trip being the cut off for consideration. The Green Line would be in the $40 per trip range. The Green Line fails by nearly every metric required by the FTA and DOT.
The fact remains that ST Louis deserves more public transit and there is clearly an appetite for something. Fortunately, Bi-State (Metrolink operating authority) and St Louis authorities are not giving up and have announced a Bus Rapid Transit line in the place of the original Green Line. BRT can provide dedicated bus lane service with equally high service as a light rail system, can be built in a matter of years instead of decades and be done at a fraction of a cost. BRT certainly is not as sexy as a rail system, but it is pragmatic, cost effective and it works. Hard to argue against that. If anything, the shift to BRT might finally put St. Louis on a realistic path to getting something built within this generation. I am optimistic however that the agencies will attack this project with new fervor and be able to deliver something closer to the original vision for this project.
I have been paying extra close attention to this story and development. First St. Louis is my new home and I’m excited that there’s worthwhile transit news in my backyard for me to lament over. More importantly this saga is emblematic of everything American Infrastructure does wrong. Mired in bureaucracy for 20 years of redundant feasibility studies while the original vision got whittled down. By the end the project is barely recognizable and no longer financially feasible. However, I am encouraged by the quick pivot to BRT. It’s pragmatic, optimistic and quickly decided new direction. It’s a template for how we should address our infrastructure needs. After all this is said and done, this may be a blessing in disguise.
[1] https://metrolinkgreenline.com/wp-content/uploads/Projected-Green-Line-Economic-Impacts-2024-2035.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com
[2] https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/2024-12/CIG-Policy-Guidance-December-2024.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com